God’s sovereignty

John Calvin

Today marks the 500th anniversary of the birth of Jean Cauvin, who we know as John Calvin.

Calvinism is kind of a dirty word these days, at least amongst so-called mainline Protestant denominations. They just hate the notion that mankind is not in charge, that God chooses, ultimately, who amongst us will be saved, and who will not.

But then today’s Episcopalians or United Church of Christ are not who I’d ask about salvation. Contra what such modern churches seem to believe, John Calvin is perhaps best known for the absolute sovereignty of God. God is all, God is everywhere, and our theology ought to be about him, and not us.

Throughout the world, all who confess a Reformed faith should acknowledge the debt we owe to Calvin.

Filed under: Calvinism, apologetics

Martyr for Christ?

If this story is true, there has been yet another martyr for Christ. This time in an African Muslim country, Mauritania, where a Christian attempting to help the locals was killed (news story). Allegedly for “trying to convert Muslims to Christianity.”

The source for this statement is highly unreliable: Arab terrorists who are likely to think that any Westerner in their midst is trying to win converts for our Lord. Would that it were so, but, despite the despicable nature of the killers, it’s certainly possible they were telling the truth.

Regardless of his being a missionary (or not), Chris Leggett, the victim, had been doing good things in Mauritania. His parents, may God grant them peace, have forgiven their son’s killers. Which is noble, but perhaps shows a misplaced sense of how our Lord would have acted: yes, Jesus instructs us to forgive, seven times seventy times, as many times as needed.

But there’s a huge catch: only if the sinner repents and asks for forgiveness. These particular sinners, who spit in the face of our faith and kill us merely for practicing it, don’t seem particularly full of repentance.

We should, also as our Lord instructed us, pray for our enemies. Doesn’t mean we forgive them. It means we pray that they will have a change of heart, a repentance, so that as Christians we may forgive them.

No, I’m not holding my breath. But I am remembering that judgment is reserved to God, and that it is he who will execute his terrible, swift judgment at the end.

Filed under: Islam

…only few highly qualified persons…

Ark of the Covenant, Indiana Jones-style

Here’s a cheery little story, about the Ark of the Covenant that’s allegedly been kept in a church in Ethiopia all these millenia.

Here’s the gist of it:

The patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Ethiopia [Abuna Pauolos] says he will announce to the world Friday the unveiling of the Ark of the Covenant, perhaps the world’s most prized archaeological and spiritual artifact, which he says has been hidden away in a church in his country for millennia, according to the Italian news agency Adnkronos.

“The Ark of the Covenant is in Ethiopia for many centuries,” said Pauolos. “As a patriarch I have seen it with my own eyes and only few highly qualified persons could do the same, until now.”

According to Pauolos, the actual Ark has been kept in one church, but to defend the treasure, a copy was placed in every single church in Ethiopia. (emphasis added)

Golly gee, sure wish I could have been one of those “few highly qualified persons.” The point is that we are all, each and every one of us, among those “few highly qualified persons.” What the patriarch likely means by his phraseology is that it is the priests and bishops of his church who alone are the “only few highly qualified persons.”

As for making copies of the ark, and placing them in “every single church in Ethiopia,” one presumes that the Ethiopians had access to a lot of gold and shittim wood. Of course, since only the “few highly qualified persons” could gaze on the Holy of Holies, they likely did not come prepared to test the gold and shittim wood for authenticity.

It’s almost certain this is a fraudulent claim, along the lines of those who claimed to have a piece of the One True Cross. Make no mistake, however: If the actual Ark of the Covenant, with the actual tablets of the Ten Commandments, were to be found, it would be a marvelous thing. But it is not a necessary thing; our faith must not depend on any artifact, however holy its provenance.

A final note on the category for this post: idolatry. The whole business of the Ark of the Covenant strikes me thus. The Ark, if it still exists, is just a man-made thing. Inspired by God? Of course. Just the thing for a primitive tribe in the Near East some 3,400 years ago. I believe that God used the Ark to reveal himself to the tribes of Israel in a way that they could understand. With the coming of Jesus Christ, I’d like to believe that we no longer need such tokens to keep our faith.

Filed under: idolatry

Imageo Deo

Stem cells (those that require the destruction of a human embryo) and torture. What is the connection? Simple: both raise the moral issue of objectifying another human being. Neither is a trivial topic, subject to a “just so” approach which will always guide us. Neither will let us go, however, until we deal with them, one way or another.

Torture has been much in the news, with all sorts of moral posturing and claims and counter-claims as to the “efficacy” of using torture. While few can agree what, exactly, constitutes “torture,” using the first commandment as a guide, as suggested by Gilbert Meilaender in the Weekly Standard, sheds useful light.

The argument is straightforward in concept: man is made in the Imageo Deo, in the image of God. As such, when we deny a man (or woman; man for “mankind”) his dignity, his personhood, we deny that this particular man is made in the image of God. We thus deny God.

What, exactly, constitutes denial of dignity, or, as Professor Meilaender writes, turning a man into a “thingy?” Is it waterboarding? Truth serum? Being served pork? Not having full access to premium movie channels? There’s where it gets rather murky, and I don’t have a crisp answer.

The usual argument made in favor of torture is to posit that here’s a terrorist who could provide intelligence that would prevent a major loss of innocent life. What about the dignity of those souls?

The problem is that God does not weigh our lives by the numbers. One death does not justify saving 10,000, at least if theory: one can not take the earthly measure of the image of God. Your life is worth just as much as mine is worth just as much as the most heinous of terrorists. To God, if not thee or me.

At least in theory. Me, I will sin, and support whatever it takes to save innocent lives, doing our level best to not objectify another child of God. I’ll throw myself on God’s mercy when the time comes…

Filed under: Christian ethics , Christian ethics

Acts 5:29

Professor Paula Fredriksen’s  review of The Aryan Jesus in Tablet should hit rather close to home for any whose church (or synagogue, for that matter) displays symbols of the secular power.  The comparison between an American flag in a church today, and the swastika of Nazi Germany, is invidious.   But there is a point of intersection.

The need for an established church to please and appease the secular authorities is ever-present.   In this, we must not indulge in any sense of moral superiority to those Germans who sat in the pews, and looked the other way, who did not hear what was plainly said.   It was not so long ago that we in this country sat separately on Sunday from our black brothers; it was not so long ago that we cited Scripture to justify slavery and Jim Crow.

I have some sympathy with those Germans; it takes exceptional courage to stand up and be counted.   How many of us could even pretend to be able to do what Dietrich Bonhoeffer did?  But I lose sympathy with those who today justify national symbols in a Christian church by the usual citations of Romans 13 or 1 Peter 2:13.   It is not necessary here in America to have such a secular display, not should we.

I fall back on Acts 5:29, which I believe more accurately reflects the overarching sense of Scripture and therefore of God’s will:  “We ought to obey God rather than men.”   Simply said, when our leaders act in way contrary to God’s will (as we see it; but woe be to any who think they’ve got that market cornered), it is our duty to correct them.  And it is certain that we must not knowingly go along to get along.

Filed under: America, Churches

Works for me

Although I attend a Baptist church, I’m probably a Calvinist. I’ve got a Puritan heart. Not that I’m pure, mind ye. Just that I take my Reformation neat, none of that proto-Catholic stuff of the Anglicans who call themselves Protestants. How do I know I’m a son of the Reformation, a Puritan, albeit not a very good one?

Five solas, friends. Every now and again I trot them out and test myself to see if they still make sense. To me, if not to thee. Can tell I’ve been reading my 1599 Geneva Bible, eh?

Those solas are, of course:

• Sola Scriptura – Scripture alone as the source of God’s revelation and commandments
• Solus Christus – Christ alone; no priests or other mediators
• Sola Gratia – through God’s grace alone are we saved
• Sola Fide – through faith alone may God’s grace work in us; works are useless
• Soli Deo Gloria – all glory and honor to God, and only God.

These work for me. I’ve not found a better summary of the foundations for my faith.

As for predestination, that also makes sense to me. After all, if God is omniscient and omnipotent (required for a belief in God, the actual He Who Is, as against weak sissy gods of the Unitarians and some other so-called liberal denominations), then he knows from before time whom he shall elect to save through his son Jesus Christ.

To assume that something we call “free will” can thwart the will of God is, well, interesting. Soli Deo Gloria. Glory not to me, not to thee. To God. Sit back, learn the Gospel, and let God work in you.

Or not. But never give up; God’s grace, if it comes to us, can not be resisted by mere men. And you will know, even if it is on your deathbed.

Filed under: Calvinism, apologetics

Good luck with that project

Liberty University, the fundamentalist Baptist school founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell in Lynchburg, Virginia, has disenfranchised the fledging College Democrats club at the school. From the Fox news story

Vice president of student affairs Mark Hine said in the e-mail sent to Diaz on May 15 that the Democratic party violates the school’s principles by supporting abortion, socialism and the “‘LGBT’ agenda,” referring to lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people. The e-mail said that even though the campus group “may not support the more radical planks of the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party is still the parent organization of the club on campus.”

Well, yes, the Democrats support all of those things. Liberty University does not.

It may have been a dumb mistake on Liberty’s part to allow the Democrats to start up in the first place. Now, in correcting their mistake, Liberty will be made to look like bigots and knuckle-dragging cave dwellers for not endorsing positions anathema to conservative Christians. One question for Liberty that presents itself is this: what other groups that have received Liberty’s approval have agendas that might not be supported by the university?

Liberty is not a public institution; they’re free to limit groups that use their facilities. That said, it is hard to see the harm in having a different point of view on campus on some very touchy subjects. Who knows, perhaps some of the Democrats at Liberty might be convinced of the error of their ways. Or vice-versa. Truth will out, I’ve heard it said…OK, that’s Shakespeare (The Merchant of Venice), not Scripture. But it’s true nonetheless.

As for any group that calls itself “Democrat” being pro-life and taking a biblical view of homosexual behavior (i.e. against it as a sin), well, good luck with that project. If these Liberty Democrats are so out of step with conservative Christianity, then one must ask: what in God’s name are they doing enrolled at Liberty University in the first place?

The point isn’t to find Democrats that disagree with the vast majority of other Democrats who might “fit in” with the mainstream as it is at Liberty University. The point is to allow Christians to freely debate important social issues; to challenge, to confront with their reason and with their faith.

This isn’t England under Bloody Mary. Christians don’t burn heretics anymore. Neither should we fear open dialog with those we believe to be in grave error.

Filed under: Baptists

Submit to government?

Romans 13:1-5 is trotted out in many churches for patriotic occasions, to remind us to submit to our government:

1Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

It’s easy enough to submit to our government; despite the views of the few, it is generally a great place to live and be free. But clearly the United States is an exception; most governments are tyrannies, petty, and great. So why should a Christian be so deferential to government, and why would God allow tyrannies?

The late John Howard Yoder, has one answer. Yoder, a Mennonite, was a pacifist who based his views on Christ Jesus. In his seminal work, The Politics of Jesus, Yoder argued that Christians owe allegiance only to the Kingdom of God through Christ, and not to any worldly power. His thesis is that Romans 13 was a redaction of Paul’s original epistle to the Romans, added to be pleasing to the then-all powerful Roman empire. Or, if not pleasing, at least not threatening of Caeser’s authority.

Yoder is supported in Scripture by Acts 5:29:

But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.”

Yoder’s perspective is one of a principled pacifist, who resists our government’s call to arms. That is is his right in a free society. He mightn’t have been so lucky under the ancient Romans.

Yoder wrote to justify not serving in America’s wars. It’s nice he had the luxury of others willing to serve, and die, in defense of his right to be principled. He was wrong, and selfish. I think we must accept Romans 13 at its face value, since it is supported rather well elsewhere, for instance Paul’s letter to the Collosians, Chapter 1:

6 For by him [Christ] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things were created through him and for him.

This is plain enough. God instituted governments, not all of them good. To say the least. But then, Christians should know that we were not put on this earth to be entertained or coddled. We suffer often, usually in fact, in solidarity with the Christ. So are we really prepared to think that God somehow doesn’t know what He’s doing when he sends us tyrants? Tyrants, as well as just rulers, all owe their existence to God.

Let me put this concept differently. In the over-used passage in Matthew 22:21:

They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

This passage is often quoted to justify giving obedience to the ruler, however tyrannical. I’d ask this, however: what on this earth, or in this universe, exactly, is not belonging to God? My take is that Jesus simply put one over on the hypocrites, told them that they should render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, without adding what should be obvious: all things owe their being to God.

So we should not give blind obedience to any secular ruler. God, in fact, has also inspired us to not just accept tyranny. A ruler, to retain God’s blessing, must be just (see, for example, 2 Samuel 23:3). This is the context for Romans 13 — not blind obedience to any ruler (can anyone say “Nazis”?), but obedience to authorities who rule justly. In fact, one of the greatest churchmen of the Reformation, William Tyndale, is quoted as saying “Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God!”, and of course he is correct.

Writing this simply, of course, does not mean I think that it is ever a simple thing to assess whether a given ruler is just in the eyes of God. As Christians, the best we can do is focus on the Kingdom of God, prepare for His return, and in the meantime, resist tyranny where we find it, and understand that just governments derive their true authority from Almighty God.

Filed under: Bible, Christian living

Mormons and Tigers and Bears, oh my

Naomi Schaefer Riley’s column today has the ring of truth; well done. More importantly, as a member of a mixed marriage (Catholic-Baptist; one faith separated by 400 years of squabbling), I can attest that it is an absolute truth that one must tolerate those we love.

As for the “religious thermometer” with respect to Mormons, I’d suggest that a large part of Christians’ antipathy towards the Saints is that more than a few evangelicals consider them to be a cult. Yes, yes; one person’s cult is another’s One True Faith. But the Mormons don’t just believe differently. They have beliefs that violate our basic theology of a Triune God and yet they claim to be Christians.

Mormons are welcome to their beliefs (as if they needed my approval…) They are not, however, welcome to claim they are just another variety of Protestant Christians. They are a separate and distinct church; a radical departure from normative Christianity. Some of their beliefs, as I understand them, are, well, interesting to say the least. Then so are my beliefs as a Catholic-turned Baptist to those who don’t share them. But again, it isn’t what the Mormons believe, it is how they portray themselves that puts the frost on our communion wine (or grape juice for Baptists).

We all have beliefs. Some stronger than others. But we should all have the confidence to not deny our beliefs in a squishy “I’m OK, you’re OK” discussion. Likewise, we should tolerate, if not respect, beliefs we think wrong,

Will Mormons go to heaven or hell? My theology says hell, but then, by that standard, that’s probably where I’m heading my own self. My heart on the other hand agrees with what Ms Riley has written: if a Mormon belongs in heaven, she’ll get there. God knows who makes the final cut; I surely don’t.

Filed under: Mormonism, ecumenicism

Still a Protestant nation

Notre Dame’s invitation to the militantly pro-abortion Barack Obama has more than a few Catholics up in arms. For the simple reason that Notre Dame, as an explicitly Roman Catholic university, should not honor those who dishonor a basic Church teaching on the sanctity of human life.

Notre Dame isn’t a public university, or a secular private university. But, to repeat, it claims to be Roman Catholic. The Catholic bishop who presides over South Bend, Indiana gets it, and won’t attend graduation.

So, one may ask, why doesn’t Pope Benedict weigh in? After all, here’s the premier Catholic university in America all set to honor a man who, were he Catholic, would be unfit to take communion. Doesn’t the Pope have an obligation to the faithful to set the moral tone for Catholics in public life? As in, “Hey, this is Benedict. You Catholics out there, stay away. President Obama is in grave moral error on his pro-abortion stand, and you should not help honor him.”

But the Holy Father isn’t weighing in. I’m sure he’s got his reasons, but I suggest that one important reason is that the Pope knows that he should not give the appearance of interfering in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation. To wit, the United States of Protestant America. Yes, I know, not our official name, but we are a Protestant nation at heart. Meaning a nation of individuals, people whose highest virtue is freedom of conscience.

Historically, since the Reformation, that has meant rejection of clerical authority in secular affairs. This started with Henry VIII, who declared himself head of the new Church of England. Which in form and substance was Catholic. Just didn’t report to the Pope in Rome, but to the English head of state.

We Americans did old Harry one better: we separated church and state, so any interference in our internal affairs, perceived or real, is a double whammy. And, I’d wager, American Catholics every bit as much as American Protestants would agree: the Pope, nor any other foreign source, should dip into our political waters.

The question that remains unanswered, of course, is this: should the head of the Roman Catholic Church discipline a Roman Catholic university? Corollary: if he does not discipline Notre Dame for honoring Obama, has he lost a teaching opportunity to the faithful?

Filed under: Abortion, Catholicism