“In the Name of…”

Tags

America, Christianity, Culture, God, Government, Idolatry, Pluralism, Progressive Christianity, Religious Left, Secularism, Society, Truth, United Methodists

            I mentioned a couple of days ago the silliness with which Rep. Cleaver ended his prayer for the opening of congress on Sunday, and I certainly wasn’t alone in observing the nonsense of it.  But that little detail has gotten more attention than the fact that the prayer was problematic in more significant ways.  How we end our prayers matters, but may not matter as much as the basic question of who we are praying to.

            I am no connoisseur of congressional prayers, and would be unsurprised if they were blasphemous as a matter of course; I make no claim that Cleaver’s prayer stands out from the pack (though it might, for all I know).  But the ending has claimed so much attention that we might as well draw people’s eyes up a few lines from “amen and awoman.”

            You can view the whole prayer on C-Span (there’s also a transcript, but it is both incomplete and unreliable).  And the prayer is not all bad, as concerns its content: there is humility, and an expressed desire for unity (if rendered somewhat incredible by the prayer’s conclusion).  But the question of great concern is, to whom is he praying?

            Towards the beginning, he invokes, “Eternal God,” which is an acceptable, if not explicit, Christian address.  He says, “The members of this august body acknowledge your sacred supremacy,” which seems to me unlikely, but we shall return to that.  Various phrases biblical and Christian phrases suggest that it is the one true God whom Cleaver addresses—without ever bringing in any of the key terms, such as “Jesus,” “Holy Spirit,” or “Trinity,” that might really seal the deal.  Nonetheless, one is left with the impression that he might actually be praying to the actual God—and making the audacious claim that the U.S. congress operates in submission to the Holy One.

            But, at the end, he concludes, “We ask it in the name of the monotheistic god, Brahma, and god known by many names, by many different faiths.”

            Beg pardon?

            It would appear that Cleaver has been praying to a hypothetical shared god of the world’s religions.  He conflates “the monotheistic god”—an inadequate catchall that could conceivably have reference to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, “Brahma”—the Hindu creator god, and a general reference to the gods of other religions.  In this secularized, pluralistic prayer, Cleaver seems to be trying to include everyone—thus effectively excluding most people.

            This notion, that all religions (or at least certain religions) really worship the same god under different names is not at all unique.  It is unsurprising to see it on the religious left, and perhaps the only safe course on the political left.  It is also blasphemous.

            When we read the Scriptures, we do not find God regarding worship of other gods as really being worship of Himself.  We find God profoundly distinguishing Himself from the gods of the pagans, “For all the gods of the peoples are worthless idols, but the LORD made the heavens” (Ps. 96:5, ESV).  God declares the idols worthless (Jer. 10:15), and the worship of such idols futile (Isa. 42:17).  We find not that God may be sought by any name, but that there is one name we must confess, “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

            To whom, then, was Representative Cleaver praying?  Whose “sacred supremacy” does he (and, he presumes, the rest of congress) acknowledge?  Not, apparently, the one true God.

            And that is the real problem behind all the other problems.  If our leaders submitted to the true God, our nation would not advance legislation that defies God and denigrates, devastates, and destroys people made in His image.  Idolatry is the problem, and as long as we worship idols we will harm image-bearers.  All hopes grounded in idolatry are vain.

            But there is a light in the darkness, and hope for any who will have it.  When we acknowledge the one true God, when we confess the name of our Savior, then we find the path of life.  “Because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9).  He is the true hope, light, and life eternal.

A-bsurdity

Tags

Christianity, Culture, Culture War, Gender, God, Gospel, Government, Idolatry, LGBTQ+, Religious Left, Secularism, Sexual Revolution, Society

Apparently, Representative Emanuel Cleaver, who holds ordination with the UMC, closed his prayer before congress Sunday, “Amen and awoman,” in what appears to bring an attempt at gender equity.  The problem, of course, is that the word “amen” has no reference, etymologically or in contemporary usage, to the masculine gender.  “Amen” is a Hebrew word meaning “truly,” and is used at the end of prayers as an affirmation, in a tradition built from the word’s biblical usage.  That anyone should make it into a masculine term and construct a corresponding feminine term is, to be charitable, utter silliness.  That a member of congress should do so is a telling commentary on our social situation.

In fact, given the context, we may find Rep. Cleaver’s silliness comparatively innocuous.  The U.S. House of Representatives, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, is advancing the dehumanizing ideology of the sexual revolution in ways so farcical that they may obscure the dangers represented.  Madam Speaker (if that continues to be an acceptable reference under her leadership) has an ‘inclusive’ agenda to remove gendered language.  Paulina Enck, writing in The Federalist:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is attempting to excise all references to either sex in House business to “honor all gender identities” and “promote inclusion and diversity.” On Monday, the House of Representatives is set to vote on a Rules Package for the 117th Congress, which Pelosi and Rules Committee Chairman James McGovern promise will be “the most inclusive in history.”

Removing references to men and women?  What does that look like?  Enck elaborates:

This would mean replacing any instance of “he or she” with the grammatically incorrect colloquialism of “they” as a singular, or the unnecessarily long “such Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner.” Further, “himself” or “herself” becomes “themself,” a word not recognized by several dictionaries, and acknowledged by the New Oxford Dictionary as “not widely accepted in standard English.”

Words such as “mother” and “father” would be replaced with “parent,” “aunt” and “uncle” with the awkward “parent’s sibling,” and “grandmother” and “grandfather” becomes “grandparent.” I wonder if Pelosi will bring her commitment to language policing to Twitter and remove “mother, grandmother” from her bio.

Next to this agenda, Rep. Cleaver’s bizarre inclusivity appears rather behind-the-times.  “Amen and awoman?” one might ask, “and what about the myriads of other genders we have constructed for ourselves?”  Feminism was an early step in the revolution, and has now been left behind and labeled one of the oppressors; it held onto the notion that there were such things as men and women, real and immutable identities that inhibited our ability to define ourselves.

But, in Pelosi’s effort, we see the inescapable conflict that underlies so much of our social strife.  Rapidly, the pursuit of autonomy turns from defense to offense, and one’s own self-actualization is achieved only by oppressing others.  “Inclusion” is advanced by denying the reality of man and woman; including our self-constructed identities involves neutering all mankind.  Our pursuit of self-defined dignity follows a path that is, quite naturally, dehumanizing.  I say ‘naturally’ because there is a logic at work, which is theological in the end.

Rejecting the Lordship of God—personally and as a society—we seek to remake ourselves in the image of our choosing.  But we are not made in that image.  We are made in the image of God—thus, idolatry leads readily to self-effacement.  The drive to be our own gods fails, and fails spectacularly.  Not only do we fail to become gods, but we disfigure our own humanity.  The whole sexual revolution—pornography, divorce, abortion, promiscuity, homosexuality, transgenderism, and on and on—absurd and devastating as it all is, flows naturally from the rejection of God.

The solution is the gospel.  The antidote to revolution is revival.  Christmas is the offer of dignity, and Easter the hope of renewed humanity.  We cannot ‘identify’ ourselves into anything truly fulfilling; but, if we find our identity in Christ by faith, we will “put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator” (Colossians 3:10, ESV).  Then we will know true inclusion, the joy of true unity, for “Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all” (v.11).

Proclaiming the Light

Tags

Christianity, Cultural Engagement, Culture, Culture War, Education, Pluralism, Relativism, Religion, Religious Left, Secularism, Society, Spirituality, Truth, Universities

            Advent is a season of expectation, and therefore also a season of proclamation: light has come, and all may draw near to the Light of the world, Jesus Christ our Savior and Lord.  This is a message of joy and hope, the gracious gift of God, “good news of great joy that will be for all the people” (Lk. 2:10, ESV).  But, of course, even the joyful message of light meets resistance by a world of darkness; “the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil” (Jn. 3:19).  Our challenge is particularly pointed because we live in a culture than has, in many ways, rejected the light.  That is why our society is so saturated with absurdity, death, and despair.  Rejecting Christ, you will have chaos.

            Consider this opinion article on RNS, written by Simran Jeet Singh, lamenting the closure of religion studies programs at various secular universities.  On one level, it’s not hard to sympathize with his basic contention: learning about world religions ought to be part of higher education.  It is good to understand what other people believe, and why, and how that affects the way they live their lives.  But, while that argument is all well and good, Singh’s opinion also showcases the basic and crippling flaw in secular education—i.e., the fact that it is secular.

            Singh assumes that higher education should “shape our moral and ethical outlooks”, yet he thinks that shaping ought happen precisely through the lens of pluralism, which is a little like saying that giving people a number of perspectives on whether or not it is good to steal is the best way to teach them not to steal.

            His experience with education was one of embracing relativism, framed as humility: “What expanded my mind in college, more than anything else, was coming to terms with the reality that my way wasn’t the only way, or the best way.  Learning about others’ faiths and cultures challenges our self-centered chauvinism and helps us meet others where they are.”  Well, that is a reasonable statement in a secular world, where there is no real spiritual truth; but it fares rather poorly in a world where there is one true God and one true way of salvation, the worldview of Jesus, who said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me” (Jn. 14:16).

            A fundamental relativism lies at the heart of Singh’s concept of religious studies, and I suspect he is right in his evaluation of secular religious studies across the board.  “While many worry about being accused of proselytizing, religion scholars aim to understand historical developments in context. We’re scholars with an interest in religion; not in imposing our views on religion.”  Here is the secular view of proclaiming religious truth: “proselytizing”, “imposing our views on religion”; these derogatory descriptions seem to be, in Singh’s mind, the same thing as when he says “I’m not in it to seek conversions”.

            Such an approach is inconsistent with a world in which there is real spiritual truth.  Imagine if the geology department taught a variety of views, incorporated flat earth studies into the curriculum, and operated with a decided attitude against proselytizing their round earth views!  They don’t, because they’re interested in teaching the truth.  They may respectfully acknowledge that there are people who believe the earth is flat, and even offer some understanding of why they believe that, but, in the end, they want all their students to understand that the world is round.  They want to do this because they have a basic commitment against propagating lies, and because the consequences of believing things that are not true can sometimes be rather significant.

            Our secular universities, at the point at which they became secular, have operated with a basic framework that denies spiritual truth.  The consequences have been severe.  Denying the knowledge of God, we have lost knowledge of mankind; refusing to tell the truth about God, they now tell a variety of lies about humanity.

            But let us come back to Christmas.  The solution is the Light of the world.  God sent His Son so that we may know the truth and be saved.  In a culture that has rejected the light, we proclaim it anew.  A Savior has been born for us, who walked among us and died in our place and rose to bring us life, who Himself declared, “I am the light of the world.  Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (Jn. 8:12).

            The promise remains, the offer of hope, the gift of Christmas—that we may turn to Christ, receive the light, and be saved.

A Reckoning

Tags

America, Christianity, Church, Faithfulness, Gospel, Religious Left, Same-Sex Marriage, Truth

Religion News Service, a hub of journalistic advocacy for the religious left, has had several rather telling articles lately. First on the docket is this piece from Ryan Burge, who urges Christians to abandon unpopular teachings of Scripture in pursuit of numerical growth.

The headline reads, “On LGBT and women’s equality, stark statistical reality is coming for white evangelicals.” The title alone has several notable features. First is the framing of the issues in terms of equality, which itself suggests that white evangelicals are bigoted in their views on these matters. Next, the liberal triumphalism: the future belongs to them, “stark statistical reality” looms before evangelicalism. Third, of course, is the focus on “white evangelicals”, a favored target for the left in recent times. Are evangelicals of other ethnicities significantly more open to sexual immorality or women preachers? I suspect not; in any case, Burge makes no effort to demonstrate that they are.

Through the course of the article, Burge notes some facts about the American social and religious landscape that are, indeed, important–but not news to most. The rise of the “nones”, and shifting opinions related to LGBTQ issues and women preachers are discussed.

Then he takes the data, and applies it towards the usual ridiculous but unsurprising liberal conclusions. Visualizing churches as businesses, he says that evangelical churches aren’t selling what the younger generations are going to want to buy. Our beliefs are outdated, like a Blackberry in the iPhone age. Our options are 1) to maintain doctrinal orthodoxy regardless of numerical decline, or 2) “evangelicalism could begin to slowly shift its stance on issues like women pastors and same-sex relations.”

To his credit, Burge grants some validity to option 1, stating “There is integrity in this path.” What’s ridiculous is his implication that option 2 would lead to numerical growth. He’s basically suggesting that evangelical take the path of the liberal mainline denominations: change doctrines and practices to keep in step with the times. But his own research shows the correlation between the rise of the “nones” and the decline of liberal mainline Christianity, and he describes his own projection saying that “The results indicate that the ‘nones’ will unequivocally be the largest group in America by 2029, and that’s largely a result of more mainline decline.”

Even in purely pragmatic terms, liberalizing evangelical doctrine and practice so as to be more like the mainline denominations is a terrible idea, and not likely to bring numerical growth. Burge says our ‘product’ is unappealing to young American ‘consumers’; but what his own statistics express much more pronouncedly is that the ‘product’ being sold by liberal churches–a watered-down accommodation of Christianity to secular culture–is precisely what American ‘consumers’ are rejecting.

It is true that secularism is on the rise in America. But what the religious left cannot seem to grasp is that the quickest way to kill your denomination is to liberalize it to meet (post)modern mores.

But the more fundamental issue is that this whole way of looking at things is flawed, one might even say idolatrous. The metaphor of the church as a business selling a product to consumers is natural to Americans, but it is offensive to the church and to the church’s Lord. And this sort of thinking has been a poison within the evangelical world for quite some time.

We are concerned about lost people finding salvation. But they are not consumers, Christianity is not a product, and the church is not a business. We are the body of Christ, the people of God in the midst of a world of darkness. The church has no right to cast aside God’s commandments in pursuit of popularity. It’s an understatement to say, as Burge does, that “there is integrity in this path.” It is the only path with integrity.

It is also the path with the most hope for Christianity in America. As the mainline denominations are strangled by their own compromise, evangelicalism may see another great awakening, if God so chooses. Burge says, “I’m sympathetic to the view that God can change hearts. But I see no evidence of divine intervention in the data.” That’s a remarkably short-sighted view of things. The history of the last two millennia has provides ample demonstration of God’s ability to change hearts. This is not guaranteed in any given time and place; it is possible anywhere, in any circumstances.

God can and does change hearts. The responsibility of the church is to be faithful to her Lord, to advance the kingdom of God in the dominion of darkness, and to pray Maranatha–our Lord, come. The “stark statistical reality” of shifting American opinions is not the reckoning people should be most concerned about.

Let’s Get Real

Tags

Christianity, God, Gospel, Homosexuality, Jesus Christ, Journalism, LGBTQ+, Media, Politics, Religious Left, Righteousness, Salvation, Same-Sex Marriage, Sin, Society, Truth

As a postscript to “Pete Buttigieg, Theologian?“, I want to note something on the other side of the interview–because it really was more of a dialogue, not just questions and answers.  Jim Wallis is a theologian, though not a faithful or trustworthy one, as the interview exemplified.

After all, in the article in question Wallis is interviewing a man engaged in persistent and publicly acknowledged immorality of a kind that God declares detestable (Lev. 18:22).  That is a key piece of context for any Christian viewing this discussion.

Towards the beginning, Wallis says:

The lawyer, says to Jesus, “How do I inherit eternal life?” And he says, “Love God. Love your neighbor.” Simple as that.

The reference is to Luke 10:25ff.  Wallis follows that on the question of loving our neighbors, which is quite right because that’s where the text follows.  But something has been left out: what about this love for God business?  What does that look like?

According to Scripture, love for God involves obedience (Jn. 14:23).  Indeed, the most interesting parallel to note is that in Luke 18, Jesus is asked the very same question, but this time He points the inquirer to the commandments of the Old Testament law (Lk. 18:20).  This isn’t Jesus giving two different answers; He’s giving the same answer in two different ways; after all, as Jesus Himself says, the two commandments to love God and love neighbor are a summary of the law (Matt. 22:37-40).

The failure of the social gospel has always been that it taught love of neighbor but neglected love of God.  For loving God requires not only that we love our neighbor but, first and fundamentally, that we turn from our sins and receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.  There is no gospel without the call to repentance and faith.

To talk about eternal life with someone who is living in persistent sin, without calling them to repent and believe, is a mockery of the gospel.

But there is a real gospel, a good news of eternal life for all who will turn from sin and trust Jesus.  God sent His Son to save sinners from all their sins; Jesus Christ died upon the cross and rose again so that we can have life in Him.  And yes, this has inescapable implications for what we do with our lives in this world.  But the real gospel is good not only for human flourishing in this present world, but for human flourishing in the kingdom of God through all eternity.  And a real theologian must declare the real gospel to people who really need it.

Tom Steyer, Theologian?

Tags

America, Celebrities, Christianity, God, Liberalism, Politics, Religious Left, Theology, Trinity, Truth

You may have heard of Tom Steyer; he’s one of the people vying for the Democratic nomination for president.  But, you may not have heard of him; he’s not one of the people likely to get the nomination.

In any case, the liberal Religion News Service did an interview with him to talk about his religious beliefs, and it’s worth taking a glance at, as an example of what might be called contemporary American civil religion.

Apparently Steyer has been vocal about his faith, which may be a piece in that elusive quest for a Democratic candidate who can draw liberal Christians without alienating the substantial secular portion of their base.  But what is his faith?

Well, it starts with an Episcopal priest(ess), which is rather foreboding, and goes just where you’d expect it to go.  The pope inspired him to seek to “take care of the most vulnerable among us”, but apparently that doesn’t mean opposing abortion, it means climate change activism.  He’s rich, but doesn’t plan to stay that way forever.  Religion is significantly about being a good person (and the key feature noted about that is environmentalism), and whatever religion gets you there is probably fine.

Steyer has a faith that will float well in American politics.  It is ambiguous and inoffensive, environmentally activist and implicitly universalist.  But that same ambiguity and inoffensiveness separates it from orthodox Christianity.

For there is no sense, in the faith Steyer expresses, that Jesus is the only way to be right with God and that apart from Him we stand under wrath.  There is no sense that we are sinners who need to repent and receive God’s mercy if we are to be saved.  God is not described as the Triune Majesty, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but as “a positive life force that you can connect with and that’s bigger than any of us”–a rather panentheistic sort of deity.

Perhaps that last piece is the key takeaway from Tom Steyer’s theology.  When you seek an inclusive religion that is open to all kinds of different understandings of God or paths to God, you are naturally led to lose a sense of God as personal.  For the one true God does not fit all religions, only the religion that He has revealed.  The one-size-fits-all god of contemporary American civil religion ends up being a rather characterless god.

Thankfully, we are not left with such an insipid god.  The one true and Triune God is Father, Son, and Spirit.  We can know Him, and call Him by name.  He offers us life and salvation, forgiveness and transformation.  Here is a God we can pray to; here is a God we can worship.  Here is God, the only God, worthy of all honor and praise.

Seeing the Choice

Tags

America, Christianity, Culture War, Humanity, Liberalism, Pluralism, Religious Left, Secularism, Truth

A coalition of liberal Christians has recently put out a statement “Christians Against Christian Nationalism,” supporting a pluralistic society, rather than one distinctly Christian.  ‘Christian Nationalism,’ in their term, “demands Christianity be privileged by the State and implies that to be a good American, one must be Christian.”  This definition, and other features of the statement, tend to lump together the idea that American society should be Christian at the core with other ideas, as “to be a good American, one must be Christian.”

The statement, of course, raises questions it does not directly answer:

Christianity should not be privileged by the state?  What worldview should the state privilege, then?  For the state will certainly promote a worldview, otherwise it cannot enact and enforce laws.

And again, “Government should not prefer one religion over another or religion over nonreligion.”  No?  And if someone wants to revive the practice of human sacrifice engaged in by so many religions throughout history?  We mustn’t reject those religious views?

“Religious instruction is best left to our houses of worship, other religious institutions and families.”  And whose morals and virtues will you teach in the schools?

We must have some kind of a nation.  Why not a Christian one?

Now, when one looks at the greed and corruption, racism and hate, sprawling abortion industry and militant sexual revolution, it is fairly easy to say that we’re not a very Christian nation.  There are a lot of Christians in the nation–and they do a lot of good!–but the character of society is in many ways not very Christian.

But the really important question is not “what is America?” but “what was America meant to be, what should it have been, and what might it be?”  And there the answer is quite obviously “a Christian nation”–in some sense of the term: not as a nation where everyone was or was required to be a Christian, not in the sense that pastors wrote the laws or in the establishment of a state church, but in the sense of a nation founded largely by Christians and shaped through most of its history by Christian morals and principles (the obvious exceptions and hypocrisies notwithstanding).

For what these pro-secularism liberals seem to miss is that a society must have some governing ideology.  Pluralism is never really advocated for that job, except perhaps by thoroughgoing anarchists, because real ideological pluralism would allow any religious and cultural practices a place, and that is obviously not the intention of such secular coalitions.

A limited pluralism is not a foundation-level ideology; something beneath it sets the limits.  The supposed pluralistic ideology being pushed is actually grounded upon something else, some ideology that decides which values and practices are permissible and which aren’t.  That underlying ideology is probably some form of atheism, pantheism, or (most likely) paganism.

So we have to see the choices clearly for the future of our society.  The illusion is that we have a choice between a Christian nation or a pluralist nation; that is not the case.  We have a choice between a Christian nation and a pagan nation.  Either culture will promote an agenda for society, will teach their values in the schools and media, and will enforce their morals in the justice system.

“Christian nationalism” is simply the alternative to pagan nationalism.

The Adventure of Stumbling about in the Dark

Tags

Inerrancy, Religious Left, Scripture, Truth

Union Theological Seminary has recently released a series of statements, via twitter, about the doctrine of Scripture.  In what follows, I have their statement in italics, with my comments between.  I wish to credit Tyler Robbins, for collecting the statements, and also to credit James White, who commented on the statements on his program.

A little background first: Union Theological Seminary is an old institution that, like many seminaries, was orthodox back in the 19^th century, but tragically embraced liberalism and has rejected orthodoxy.  They still call themselves a Christian institution, but they explicitly deny that salvation comes only by faith in Jesus Christ.  Thankfully, while they enjoy a reputation for scholarship, their influence is dwindling and the student body is around 250, about half MDiv students.  Embracing theological liberalism has not led to flourishing; but that’s a lesson many liberal seminaries have learned.  The world is a poor friend to theological institutions.

Interestingly, their motto is Unitas, Veritas, Caritas (Unity, Truth, Love).  See how much of that you find in the statements below.

 

1. A word about biblical infallibility: This weekend, we received much damnation from fundamentalists over our denial of scriptural inerrancy. It’s understandable, because once you relinquish conviction that the Bible is *literally* God’s word, faith becomes a messier affair.

 

We begin with the rhetoric of radicalization; anyone who believes that the Bible is fully truthful is a “fundamentalist.”  And, while they may indeed have received damnation over their views (i.e., been literally told to go to hell), the context suggests that they group all criticism of their views together as “damnation,” just as they label all those who hold inerrancy “fundamentalists.”  Union says that these “fundamentalists” hold their belief in biblical inerrancy because they are afraid of the messiness of faith in the real world.

Feelin’ the unity and love yet?

 

2. It’s easier to simply believe that the Bible is a plain record of the divine, that it clearly and concisely states what Christians should believe. In a world that feels so chaotic, biblical infallibility can provide distinct comfort. But comfort and truth aren’t synonymous.

 

Now comes the attack on motivations and character.  Evangelicals hold to the truthfulness of Scripture because they’re afraid of the big scary world.  They aren’t brave enough to reject God’s word.

Well, yes and no.  The world is chaotic and scary, and God’s word is a rock of security.  But that doesn’t mean that Christians believe God just based on wishful thinking.  On the contrary, it takes faith to believe that God has spoken, that the Scriptures are His word.  It takes much more courage, in our society, to hold steadfastly to the truth of the Bible than to make the kind of compromises with the world that Union makes.

On the other hand, the kind of ‘courage’ involved in rejecting God’s word is a different animal altogether.  Christians want nothing to do with ‘bravely’ defying God.  “Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy?  Are we stronger than he?” (1 Cor. 10:22, NIV).

 

3. The truth is that the biblical books were written by humans. They represent the fruits of people grappling with God, and what it means to be human, for centuries—in all the complexity those questions necessarily entail.

 

They were written by humans.  That’s what conservative Christians believe.  But it’s more nuanced than that.  “For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21).  The Bible was written by humans, but the humans who wrote the Bible were inspired by God.

That means it’s not just “the fruits of people grappling with God…”  It’s revelation from God to people, divine revelation given through human authors.  Union grasps the human origin of the Bible, but not the divine origin.  The human authorship of the Bible does not negate the fact that it is God’s word.

 

4. Moreover, even the decision about which books would be included in the Bible was a human choice—one that didn’t solidify until centuries after Jesus died: They by no means represent all the early Christian texts. (Dr. Hal Taussig’s A New New Testament collects many others.)

 

Yes, the formation of the canon happened during the early church.  This is not news, and it has no bearing on the truthfulness of Scripture.  God enabled the early church to recognize those books that were inspired and those that were not.

Nor does the presence of other early texts—some helpful, some heretical—have any impact on the inspiration of the Scriptures.  Lumping other early writings together with the canonical Scriptures does not make a “New New Testament.”

 

5. Furthermore, the languages in which most Americans read the Bible reveal yet another layer of human interpretation, decisions made by translators who labor diligently over the original Hebrew and Greek texts.

 

Yes.  A cursory examination of the more academic evangelical Bible commentaries (e.g. the New International Commentary, Baker Exegetical Commentary, Pillar New Testament Commentary) will show that evangelical scholars are well aware of interpretive issues and engage carefully with the Hebrew and Greek texts.

This has no bearing on the inspiration or truthfulness of Scripture.

 

6. There is so much humanity in the Bible, and humans are—by nature—fallible and often blinded by our own cultural prejudices and blindspots. That was every bit as true for the early Church as it is for the modern Church.

 

Unless “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

 

7. But by no means should an admission of fallibility be read as an admission that the Bible is worthless, or a denial that God speaks through Scripture. Instead, it simply opens the door to a far deeper, nuanced and complex faith.

 

Indeed, God speaks through Scripture.  But that statement means different things to an evangelical and a liberal.  To an evangelical (me), it means that the Bible is God’s word.  When I read the Bible, I am reading what God has spoken through human authors.  To a liberal (Union), it means that sometimes God uses the Scriptures to speak to people, but the Bible is not itself God’s word.  This is a useful doctrine, because it lets them pick and choose among the Scriptures.  Useful, that is, if you don’t actually want to submit to God’s authority.

Union says Bible-believing Christians have a shallow faith, and those who don’t believe God’s word have a “nuanced and complex faith.”  Come again?  This is much like saying that if my son does what I tell him, he has shallow obedience, but if he decides when to do what I tell him and when to disregard what I say, he has nuanced and complex obedience.

 

8. It means being a critical reader of the Bible—interpreting more difficult passages in light of clearer ones, reading biblical scholarship to better understand the cultural context in which texts were written (and how that informs them).

 

Yes, we interpret the Bible and read biblical scholarship.  Not news, not relevant to the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.

 

9. But, on a deeper level, it means opening up faith to doubt. It means acknowledging that, when it comes to God, there are no “easy answers.” There’s no cheat sheet that you can simply refer to, to read God’s voice—clear as day. Letting go of that can be painful.

 

Ah, the deeper level!  Now we’re getting somewhere.  The deeper level is, indeed, where the things get interesting.

Having a “nuanced and complex faith” means “Opening up faith to doubt.”  That’s what I thought it meant.  Postmodern people sometimes seem to make doubt one of the cardinal virtues, but the Scriptures don’t regard doubt as a good thing.  On the contrary, “the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind” (James 1:6).

Union says that “when it comes to God, there are no easy answers.”  Actually, the fundamental proclamation of the gospel is that there are easy answers to some of our questions pertaining to God.  For example, there is an easy answer to our sinful alienation from God: “If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9).

Union says there’s no reading “God’s voice—clear as day”, no clear revelation.  We are in the darkness.  But the Christian is not in the darkness, because God has given us His word.  We can say joyfully, with the psalm, “Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path” (Psalm 119:105).

“Letting go of that can be painful.”  I’m sure it can.  It’s a tragedy to turn from the light and wander in the darkness.  It hurts to reject God.

 

10. But, once you embark on this new religious adventure, you’d be shocked at how it can deepen your faith. A lot of people seem worried about relinquishing biblical inerrancy because it would render Christianity meaningless—this could not be further from the truth.

 

A “new religious adventure”?  Walking in the darkness?  It’s a little like calling being shipwrecked in the middle of the ocean a “new aquatic adventure.”  Only worse.

When you embark on the adventure of turning away from God, “you’d be shocked at how it can deepen your faith.”  Beg pardon?  I thought we were talking about adding doubt to faith; that deepens it?  Like adding milk to coffee makes it stronger?

Does rejecting inerrancy “render Christianity meaningless”?  Not necessarily.  It cuts out the foundations of faith, but your house of faith might stand nonetheless, by God’s grace.  We are saved by faith in Christ, not by our doctrine of Scripture.  There are Christians who do not believe in the total truthfulness of Scripture.  But Union Theological Seminary, who reject Jesus as the only way of salvation, can hardly be said to be among them.

 

11. The Bible still speaks divine truth; those who study it still benefit from the centuries of spiritual contemplation and reflection it contains. The psalms are no less beautiful, proverbs no less profound. Job remains an unparalleled distillation of grappling with theodicy.

 

This is what we saw before, more indirectly, under #7.  For Union, “speaks divine truth” is not the same as “is divine truth.”  When they make this distinction and opt for “speaks divine truth”, what’s happening is that they’re placing themselves above God’s word (thus, above God), and they’re going to decide when the Bible speaks divine truth and when it does not.  At this point, a wrong doctrine of Scripture has actually become a sort of indirect idolatry, and the idol is themselves.

 

12. Jesus’ life and ministry still embody God’s expansive, radical love made flesh. His resistance to Empire—and willingness to die for opposing how it oppressed the vulnerable—no less challenge our complicity and complacency.

 

Is that why Jesus died?  I was under the impression that “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith” (Rom. 3:25), that “he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb. 9:26).  No, Union says, Christ died as a martyr in the fight against human oppression.

You see, it is possible to lose the truthfulness of Scripture and still, somehow, by the grace of God, keep the gospel.  But it is at least as likely that when you lose the doctrine of Scripture you will lose the gospel, and replace it with popular social concerns.

 

13. Moreover, relinquishing infallibility is the only means by which you can fully square Scripture with a loving, just God. A god that would condemn LGBTQ people for their love, or consign women to subservience, is not a god worth worshipping.

 

Ah.  Now it all becomes clear.  This is what the battle over the divine inspiration of the Bible is really about.  Union rejects the truthfulness of Scripture, ultimately, because they don’t like what Scripture says.  To “condemn LGBTQ people for their love” is their way of describing the fact that God says homosexuality, etc., is sin.  To “consign women to subservience” is, I assume, their way of describing the biblical prohibition on women preaching in the church’s worship and the command that wives submit to their husbands.  But why do they describe God’s commands in this inaccurate and derogatory way?  Out of a commitment to unity, truth, and love?  Unlikely.

In their own divisive, deceptive, and antagonistic way, they declare that the God who has spoken in the Scriptures is unworthy of worship.  This is both tragedy and blasphemy.  They are walking down a dangerous road.  The Scriptures they despise are for our good, and offer the reassurance and the warning that “the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.  This is especially truth of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh and despise authority” (2 Pet. 2:9-10).  That warning fits as though tailor-made to respond to Union’s statement.

God is worthy.  Worthy of our entire worship, our wholehearted obedience, and our undiluted faith.

 

14. Fortunately, that god was never God—simply an idol worshipped by people who valued print and ink over divine justice. Letting go of that idolatry is the first step towards truly knowing God, to developing faith that honors both humanity and the divine.

 

For Union, the God of the Bible is an idol.  Truly, someone is engaging in idolatry in this situation, but it’s not the Christians who submit joyfully to the total truthfulness of God’s word.  It’s the people who call themselves Christians but put their own wisdom above the word of God.

Union speaks of valuing “print and ink over divine justice.” This is similar to an old charge, that Christians who believe in the inspiration of Scripture have replaced God with a book.  In the first place, it is slander, for evangelicals value God’s word, not just print and ink.  To esteem God’s word is to esteem the God who gave His word.  Once again, Union freely mischaracterizes those who disagree with them.  I’m really not seeing the unity, truth, and love.

In the second place, Union makes a false dichotomy, for the Scriptures teach us about divine justice.  It is quite obvious in the church today that when you reject the truthfulness of Scripture you end up not with a high regard for divine justice, but with a truncated view of divine justice.  Union’s low view of Scripture has brought them to support some issues that are in agreement with divine justice (e.g. caring for the poor), while also advocating some areas of unrighteousness (e.g. LGBTQ advocacy).

For Union, rejecting God’s word is “the first step towards truly knowing God.”  That seems just the littlest bit counterintuitive.  I suspect, instead, that “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.  If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth.  But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin” (1 Jn. 1:5-7).

In fact, I’m quite sure of it—without any doubt.

Tokyo Rose

Tags

Abortion, Culture War, Religious Left, Truth

Religion News Service recently heralded a “Call to pause: Evangelical women hit pause on the culture war,” referring to this document, and followed shortly by “Call to pause: Evangelical men join evangelical women in the call to hit pause on culture war.”

The whole thing is an instructive example of duplicity, as it is a culture war offensive disguised as a ceasefire.  The white flag waves above, the troops advance below.  Strategically speaking, it is clever; after all, it was Sun Tzu who said “All warfare is based on deception” (The Art of War, trans. Lionel Giles).  Morally speaking, it is detestable; after all, it was God who said “Do not lie.  Do not deceive one another” (Lev. 19:11, NIV).

But how do I justify calling these documents duplicitous?  Consider first the source.  This is, ostensibly, a call from within evangelicalism to back off on the culture wars.  But the call is being promoted by RNS, which (in my opinion) may be fairly called a propaganda machine for the religious left.  The call was initiated by Lisa Sharon Harper, formerly in leadership at Sojourners, an organization whose central identity has been liberal advocacy while claiming to be bipartisan (‘God is not a REPUBLICAN…or a democrat’).  The nuanced, centrist evangelical credentials of this statement are suspect from the beginning.

Who are the “rising chorus of leading Evangelical women” and “strong core of leading Evangelical men” endorsing this document?  An evangelical may be forgiven for not recognizing most of the names.  But some of the most recognizable (to me, granted) are suggestive:

• Jen Hatmaker. Popular among evangelicals until she began voicing support for the new sexual revolution, claiming that same-sex relationships can be holy.
• Rachel Held Evans. Influential writer and progressive advocate who hung out for a long time on the evangelical left before finally joining the Episcopal Church.
• Several voices from Sojourners. Prominent among concerns about this organization may be mentioned their opposition to the doctrine of substitutionary atonement (i.e., the heart of the gospel).  See here and here.
• Shane Claiborne. Activist who has done a lot of good, but not a man of good judgment; he recently endorsed Richard Rohr’s heretical book on the Trinity.    Interested readers may see Fred Sanders’ brilliant critique here.

In other words, this is a statement from the far left of those who identify as evangelicals, and includes voices far enough to the left that they militate against Christian orthodoxy.

But what about the content of the statement?  To be brief, it calls for 1) A pause to the culture war, 2) Fasting and challenging the culture war mindset, 3) Listening to people of color, 4) Action based on this prayer and reconsideration.  There is much to be commended in this.  It is good to pause and reflect.  It is good to fast and pray, and to repent of attitudes that see others as enemies rather than as people who God loves.  It is good to listen to minorities, whose perspectives have often been ignored.  It is good to act on prayer and careful thought.  All very good.

How then can I call it duplicitous?  Because the first bullet point is not a call to pause at all.  It is a call to “pause” by rejecting the appointment of a conservative supreme court justice to fill the vacancy left by Justice Kennedy and instead “calling our Senators to demand they replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy with a moderate independent Justice.”  We ‘pause’ from the culture wars by ensuring that abortion legislation remains at status quo.  The ‘pause’ is a demand for action of a ‘moderate’ kind—and ‘moderate’, in this sense, means effectively pro-Roe v. Wade.

So who is being called to ‘pause’ their efforts here?  The religious left?  The endorsers of this document and those who agree with them theologically and politically?  No.  They are not pausing, and this document itself constitutes an advance of their agenda.  It is those who disagree with them who are being asked to pause.  The culture war will most definitely continue, but will the conservatives kindly stop defending their position?

If there is a culture war—and the religious left certainly is waging one—then there is another term for a unilateral ‘pause’ from the other side.  It is called surrender.  That is the hardly disguised subtext of this document.  On the surface we see a call to prayerful reflection, and this is indeed a very good idea.  But the voice urging this call is Tokyo Rose.