Tribes

Rabbi David Novak has some bracing words for those who believe that Judaism is exclusively tribal, whereas Christianity may only be meaningfully called universal:

[Conrad] Black’s second error concerns the present state of the Jews and Judaism. What does he mean when he says “Judaism, though close theologically, is more tribal and philosophical than spiritual”? I assume he means “tribal” to be the antithesis of “universal.” Some Christians still do like to think of Christianity as a “universal” religion that is much wider and all-embracing than narrow “tribal” Judaism. Yet one could make a very good case that Judaism is as universal as Christianity, and Christianity is as tribal as Judaism. Judaism is universal inasmuch as Jews can live their Judaism anywhere in the world (though always best lived in the Land of Israel), and anyone can become a Jew who is willing to accept the kingship of the God of Israel (who is also the Creator of the universe) and pledge himself or herself to live according to the commandments of the Torah as taught by ongoing Jewish tradition. And Christianity is as tribal as Judaism inasmuch as those Christians baptized in infancy are as much born into the Christian people (the Church as an extended tribe) by virtue of their Christian parents as I was born into the Jewish people by virtue of my Jewish parents. In fact, the tribal notion of birth being how one is joined to one’s people is so strong in both Judaism and Christianity that both traditions consider converts to be “born again” rather than just being individual volunteers. Moreover, unlike a voluntary association, one cannot “check out” or be “kicked out” of either the Jewish people or the Christian Church, whether a native-born or naturalized member thereof.

As a born-again Christian and a Baptist, I believe that one can not be born into Christianity as a mere function of your birth.

One must choose Christ; that choice must be made by one who is capable of making that choice. God may choose an infant for future salvation (I am a Reformed Baptist); the infant is not capable of choosing God. Your parents, your village, your country, can not make that choice for you. If they do, then your Christianity is just as tribal as traditional Judaism. No more, no less.

“a threat to Christian values”

A group of Muslims gathered at the Capitol, and, yes, the dome is still standing. The group’s ostensible purpose was prayer. But, as reported at the WaPo:

…some conservative Christians have called the event a threat to Christian values. In a statement, the Rev. Canon Julian Dobbs, leader of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America’s Church and Islam Project, warned that the service is “part of a well-defined strategy to Islamize American society and replace the Bible with the Koran, the cross with the Islamic crescent and the church bells with the Athan [the Muslim call to prayer].”

Christian evangelist Lou Engle said the Friday event “is much more than a nice little Muslim gathering. It’s an invocation of spiritual powers of an ideology” that “doesn’t have the same set of values that our nation has had.”

Rev. Dobbs may be (mostly) right, but I would say that he’s a little overwrought in his laying down this marker. Yes, it is the “well-defined strategy” to Islamize America, along with the rest of the umma. And, yes, if the jihadis had their way, the Bible and cross will be trashed and replaced with their ungodly symbols.

Are Muslims trying to do what Rev. Dobbs accuses them of doing? Yes, but not so they can be called out on it. Theirs is one of bits and pieces, not a full-scale assault. A little bit of sharia applied here and there. A separate Muslim day of prayer, local demands for accommodation for Muslims, where none are made for Christians. The list is long, and all connected to the basic command of Allah that all of us become Muslim or be killed.

Is Rev. Dobbs “intolerant” or “racist?” No, but, wait for it, Rev. Dobbs will be accused of all sorts of heinous crimes. For having the temerity of speaking truth to the ugly power of those whose god requires that they sacrifice themselves for Allah. Not our God, who sacrificed himself for us.

I’m gonna sue

It is said that we are a litigious society. Much too quick on that legal trigger. I just happened across what may be a first: a man has sued Bible publishers for, well, publishing Bibles. The story at WND is from last year, but this moke is claiming many years of “emotional distress.” Seems this poor soul is discomfited by Scripture that portrays him as a sinner.

Several words for this come to mind; none suitable for display in a post suitable for family reading. This misguided soul, enabled by shyster lawyers on contingency, no doubt, claims that the Bible publishers, in going with “newer” translations, have made him feel just awful about his homosexuality.

This man is whining about 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; apparently hasn’t discovered Leviticus 18:22; and he (apparently) completely ignores the entire sense of Genesis 1 and its pairing of one man and one woman to go forth and multiply.

The real point? It isn’t any particular translation. All translations are clear in the Bible’s condemnation of homosexual acts, and have been at least since the first English translations in the mid-16th Century. Not homosexuals, mind you, but homosexual behavior. This is black-letter Bible law, not subject to interpretation. It takes some pretty fancy lawyering to turn it on its face.

Now, in this day and age, here in America we’ve got the right to ignore the Bible. No one is required to believe that the Bible is God’s word; we are free to take it or leave it. What we are not free to do is to twist its clear meaning to suit our own purposes.

Look, I’m a sinner. So are you. And me, I just hate those passages of the Bible that tell me I am a sinner. At times I wish they hadn’t been written. But I’m a believer, and I don’t have that luxury. I certainly can not, in logic, sue those who have translated Scripture from the ancient Hebrew and Greek and ascribe political motives.

Not when they all mean the same thing: homosexual acts are prohibited in Scripture. You want to perform such acts? Go ahead, just don’t go around suing people because you’re ashamed and can’t change your ways to conform to the Bible’s picture of morality.

“It’s part of the Gospel”

Have you been saved by the grace of God? Do you believe that all are saved? What do you think happens to those who are not saved? Hard questions; anyone who has facile answers probably doesn’t really know or is spinning an agenda.

I was surprised by an article in today’s WaPo that actually dealt with damnation and hell. Hell as a literal place; damnation by God of the wicked. Not something you might hear much about in mainline Protestant churches, these days. Something we all should hear about on this side of the curtain.

One may believe, or not, in a literal place of fire and brimstone. A place described in The Revelation of St John rather literally. And, according to Kurt Selles, director of the Global Center at Samford University’s Beeson Divinity School in Birmingham,

Jesus never soft-pedaled the concept of hell, Selles said. “It’s not metaphorical in Jesus’s mind; it’s a real place…It’s part of the Gospel”"

I don’t know how Selles could know what was in Jesus’s mind. What we do know is that is what is recorded in the Gospels.

As for the entire notion of eternal damnation, whether it is a literal place or no, isn’t it interesting that not a few people believe in heaven but not hell? This is a kind of cognitive dissonance: the good afterlife exists; the bad does not.

Until we get postcards from heaven and hell, or until we go to one or the other ourselves, there’s no way of knowing if they are real or merely the opinion of those who wrote the Bible. But I know for a certainty that if there is a God who judges, as the Bible instructs us, then there is certain to be a bad result for those who deny Him.

Excluded

“Gallery invites visitors to deface Bible” is the headline. And, this is exactly what happened, although it was (perhaps) not intended. From the story:

The Gallery of Modern Art in Glasgow has invited art lovers to write their thoughts down in an open Bible on display as part of its Made in God’s Image exhibition.

Next to the Bible lie several pens with a note saying: “If you feel you have been excluded from the Bible, please write your way back into it”.

Well, I don’t know how you may feel, but I’ve always felt “excluded” from the Bible. In the sense that the Bible tells us how to attempt a right relationship with God. Key word is “attempt.” I’m not Abraham; I’m not Isaac; I’m not King David; I’m not John the Baptist. I’m certainly not St Paul. I don’t measure up.

No one can, and yet that surely doesn’t mean we should stop trying. Or attack the accepted word of God that tells us how to achieve that right relationship.

As for others who feel “excluded” because they don’t believe in God, or are not Christian or Jew, well, please read our Scriptures anyway. You might find someone or something that calls out to you.

As for those whose choices in life are at variance with what the Bible tells us God expects of us, well, it isn’t always about you. Perhaps you might consider changing, rather than attacking God’s word. At the very least, know that as a sinner, you are in good company: we all sin, we all fall short.

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.

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.

…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.

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…

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.