Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Christianity

  • T4G: Salvation

    Articles VIII-XIII of the Together for the Gospel statement all deal with salvation, in this case with a strong focus on justification. (Note that the link above is to the final revision of the statement rather than the earlier form I have referenced in previous comments.) Those who have read my previous entries on this topic will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with the emphasis of these statements.

    My objections can generally be placed under two headings: 1) Elements that undergird Calvinism, and 2) Elements that constitute what I call “salvation by correct theology,” which I regard as an even more insidious version of salvation by works.

    Calvinism

    Let me first state that I do regard Calvinists as Christian brethren, but I do not think that Calvinism and predestination are consistent with the gospel. I cannot see how it can be regarded as “good news” that God has ordained that certain people will burn in hell. I understand that some find it comforting to have the assurance of election, but that assurance comes at the cost of the election of certain others to eternal punishment.

    I’m going to limit myself to these few remarks on this issue at this point, because this issue has been beaten into the ground. Some of my own thoughts on salvation can be found in my essay A Fruitful Faith.

    Salvation by Theology

    I want to give a bit more time to the second issue, what I call “salvation by correct theology.” While there are numerous statements that relate to this in the articles I cited above, the concept is best illustrated by this quote from Article X:

    We deny that there is salvation in any other name, or that saving faith can take any form other than conscious belief in the Lord Jesus Christ and His saving acts.

    Notice the elements involved in saving faith, just according to this one sentence:

    • Conscious belief
    • Acceptance of Jesus as Lord
    • Acceptance of Jesus as Messiah
    • Knowledge of the saving acts of Jesus

    Now I’m assuming that the T4G statement is written carefully, and that the authors actually intend all of these implications. It is still unclear, of course, just how much one must understand about each of these elements. What are included in the “saving acts?” How much must one know? It seems from the remaining articles that the authors of the T4G statement think one must know quite a bit, and some quite specific theology.

    All options such as a limited knowledge of God, such as described in Romans 2, are eliminated. One must consciously believe specific things in detail. One wonders how much detail Paul and Silas taught the jailer in Philippi before they baptized him, but they seem to have gotten done by morning. The possibility of salvation for those who have not heard the gospel is eliminated as well. Only conscious belief in details will do.

    I would suggest that this view stands against a number of texts, such as Romans 2, and the words of Jesus in Matthew 25:31-46, in which people who clearly do not realize they are saved are nonetheless received by Jesus into his kingdom.

    Why do I regard this as more insidious than salvation by works? At least good works are of some value in themselves. But more importantly, one who is not a deep thinker can understanding doing right and avoiding wrong. Loving one’s neighbor is accessible to the intellectually challenged as well as to geniuses. Theology, especially systematic theology, is only accessible to a minority. Salvation by correct theology limits God’s kingdom to certain people who can understand and be consciously convinced of a number of intellectual propositions.

    Worst of all, it equates “put your trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” with intellectual assent to a set of propositions.

  • Interview with Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori

    Religion and Ethics has an interview with Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, recently elected presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church. I commend this article to you for an overview of how the new presiding bishop thinks about the world and Christianity.

  • Neither Male nor Female in Christ

    Jesus came to bring salvation, hope, and life. He crossed the gap between the infinite and the finite and gave us to call to equality and respect for all, exemplified by his treatment of the down and out in society. Paul expressed the Christian hope in community when he said that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female (Galatians 3:28). We seem to get the first two, but we miss the last one.

    This is underlined by a store on MSNBC titled Belief Watch: God’s Girls, with the following quote:

    Women make up 61 percent of all Americans who attend religious congregations, but they still struggle for their place in some denominations. A national study led by researchers at Hartford Seminary found that only 12 percent of the clergy in the 15 largest Protestant denominations are women. And some 112 million Americans belong to denominations that don’t ordain women at all, including Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Southern Baptists, Mormons, Muslims and Orthodox Jews.

    Now a number of those groups are not Christian, and I do not want to comment on their practice in this matter. But I think that Christians, by leaving women out of certain leadership roles in the church, are failing in fulfilling the ministry of reconciliation that was entrusted to us as a church. God has broken down many of our barriers to ministry over the years. We have had many excuses for why we should exclude certain people from ministry.

    In this case, we call upon the practice of the apostle Paul. But there is an odd thing about this particular attempt at obedience. It is pretty much an isolated case of attempting to keep the church rigidly with the practice of the apostolic age. We would be unaware of any practice of keeping women out of ministry with the exception of certain statements from Paul. Why? Because women are referred to regularly as part of the ministry of Jesus, especially in Luke. Women are shown leading in Acts. Paul even refers to one woman, Junia, as an apostle (Romans 16:7).

    People often avoid these references by pretending that the women referenced had some other roles than speaking, but the text says nothing of the sort. And those who read Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 as condemning public speaking by women entirely apparently miss the section in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 in which women are clearly involved in public speaking. We’re usually too busy trying to figure out the head covering thing to notice that the women wearing or not wearing the head covering are doing so while speaking publicly.

    My point here is not to review the entire scriptural record, which others have done more effectively than I have, but rather to point out that we find it easy to adjust Christian practice when society’s standards change, so that we now dress differently, meet differently, interact socially in a different way, and conduct worship services that don’t resemble the worship services of the early church, yet somehow when the topic is women in leadership, the men choke, and are stuck on the social practices of 2,000 years ago.

    God gave us the direction–in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. We have gotten over slavery. When will we quit choking off the ministry of women in the church?

  • Science and Religion – Can they be Allies?

    PZ Myers has responded to an interview with Ron Numbers in a post titled I’m proud to be non-human. His main point seems to be that those of us who favor evolution need to go all the way and stick totally with the scientific evidence.

    He says:

    There is a strong cultural aspect to this struggle that is independent of the facts, I won’t deny that. But calling the science “irrelevant” is throwing away the sharpest tool in our toolbox. We are going to win people to the side of science and reason by promoting, well, science and reason. Stop running away from it! Stop being ashamed of the fact that the evidence is on our side! We aren’t going to win by engaging in theological debates, or by getting the right legislation, or by winning court battles

  • Christian Music at Skating Rink

    One of the many e-mail newsletters I get is from the Traditional Values Coalition. Often it seems that the most traditional value from their point of view is overreaction.

    Recently I got an e-mail from them telling me of the perfidy of the New York Human Relations Commission, which has apparently decided to investigate a skating rink (SkateTime 209 in upstate New York) for holding a “Christian skate.” Attached is a letter that Rev. Lou Sheldon sent to the Human Relations Commission berating them for their action.

    Now let me get something straight here. If the New York Human Relations Commission actually thinks playing Christian music for a period of time at a skating rink is discriminatory, they bring new meaning to the word “stupid.” It really wouldn’t surprise me if they did have such a problem. Unfortunately many people involved in human relations do seem incapable of relating to actual humans. I’m not acquainted with New York law at all, but I’m fairly certain that if New York law can be construed to state that playing Christian music for a period of time is discriminatory, then a federal court case would take care of them pretty effectively.

    One good result from all of this has been the inclusion of “all are welcome” notices on the SkateTime 209 web site beside the “Christian Skate” notices. That is probably a useful advertising option and is likely to improve their attendance. It is not, however, something the government can have a proper interest in.

    But what interested me the most about this was the Christian response. For some examples see: NEW YORK INVESTIGATES SKATING RINK FOR PLAYING CHRISTIAN MUSIC and TVC ASKS PATAKI TO STOP HARASSMENT. Instead of seeing some bureaucrats overstepping their bounds, or some of the stupidity that infects pretty much all government offices, Christians are up in arms. The anti-Christian conspiracy is in action! Christians beware! One commenter even mentions that we can have a special time for gays, but not a special time for Christians. Ignoring the fact that the two groups are not mutually exclusive, I would have to note that very often Christians are involved in trying to deny various legal rights to gays. Here in Pensacola there is a regular effort every spring to prevent gays from celebrating here around memorial day. Would it not be discriminatory should they be successful in preventing this event?

    I would suggest applying the same standard to both situations. It is certainly appropriate to have a skate time designed for a Christian audience, or for any other audience at one’s private business. But it is also appropriate, by the same standards for Disney, another privately owned company, to offer a gay pride day, or for Ford Motor Company to offer benefits to same-sex couples, both of which have been protested by the religious right.

    Perhaps it’s time we realized that doing nice things for a group of people does not necessarily harm the rest of us. The New York Human Relations Commission is displaying astounding stupidity in this case. Unfortunately, it’s a form of stupidy that is reflected by too many Christians.

  • Progressives, Minimum Wage, and Strategies

    I receive regular newsletters from the Christian Alliance for Progress, and I really appreciate that organization for its work to reclaim Christianity from the religious right. Christianity is about moral and ethical values, and about caring for our neighbor, and not about making small numbers of people rich or about right wing politics. None of what I am about to write is intended to put down that particular organization. In fact, I suggest you visit their web site, and let their view of Christianity challenge you.

    But Christianity is also not about left wing politics. Christianity can be described as a faith, as a relationship, and as a religion. Following Jesus will certainly have political and social implications. But it is very easy for those on the right, on the left, and even in the center to equate particular political strategies with the fundamental principles of Christianity. Thus right wing politicians today try to use scripture passages favorable to social order and law enforcement as a justification for excessive measures in enforcing immigration, while ignoring other scriptures about helping those less fortunate.

    But left wing, or progressive theologians and politicians are by no means immune to this same problem. In my e-mail today from the Christian alliance I am urged to support raising the minimum wage:

    The Christian faith is not neutral when it comes to financial matters. There are over 2,000 verses in the Bible that deal with issues of money and wealth, and many of them concern the economic well-being of people at the margins of society. So it is important that in a nation in which more than 200 million of our citizens profess the Christian faith that we who are believers advocate a Christian ethic in the way that we compensate the people at the bottomof the wage scale.

    Yet none of those 2,000 verses in the Bible actually advocate a minimum wage. They do advocate economic justice. What progressives often miss is the steps between a good principle and its related goals–economic justice–and the process of both defining those goals in a realistic way and creating a strategy to accomplish those goals. It is a failing of politicians of all stripes to assume that the stated goal of a piece of legislation is what that legislation will actually accomplish.

    We have passed repeated laws on drug enforcement, and made our foreign policy hostage to drug policies in other countries even to the extent of invading another country to arrest its president, and yet we still have drugs on the street. As in Vietnam we counted the bodies (or even imagined bodies) of the enemy killed in battle and thus tried to paint a picture of accomplishment, so we now have press conferences in which drug enforcement officials show us the huge amounts of narcotics they have seized. They don’t talk about what’s left behind. Many pieces of legislation that were supposed to make the situation better have been passed, but where are the real results?

    We have passed repeated laws on immigration, claiming that they would solve this problem or that, or make things better. But for some reason–generally just because there are employers ready to hire and pay them–people keep coming across the border. The legislation has failed, yet we keep planning to do more of the same.

    And that brings me to the minimum wage. I’ve had people tell me that I’m pretty reactionary when I regard it as counterproductive to oppose a Walmart store moving into the neighborhood. The jobs are low wage! Who cares? There’s a comment on one of my earlier posts asking how many employees are going to get $12.00 an hour or better. Not many! But there will be people who were getting less before and are getting something now. That’s why people line up to get the jobs at Walmart–they’re available.

    And thus I come to the minimum wage issue. I believe in economic justice. I believe workers should get a fair wage. But my previous two sentences cry out for definition. What is “economic justice?” What is a “fair wage?” The problem is that the legislature can’t create those wages. It doesn’t create jobs. It doesn’t produce any additional money. It merely redistributes it. Now I’m not entirely against redistribution. I think it is quite appropriate that taxes are collected and that they pay for infrastructure.

    But every time you try to redistribute through legislation, such as by raising the minimum wage, you need to ask about additional consequences. How will this effect employment generally? Those who think that people would generally rather be unemployed than receive a sub-minimum wage job are generally people who haven’t had to live on very little. What about those forced into a sort of unofficial economy?

    The e-mail I received cites the following report: State Minimum Wages and Employment in Small Businesses. It’s interesting to note what is not covered here. What is the economic and population growth rate of those states as opposed to others? In other words, rather than “post hoc ergo propter hoc” what are the combined causes of economic growth in those states with the higher minimum wage? I’m not going to try to do a full analysis of this data, but I’d like to provide a couple of references, first Sense and Nonsense on the Minimum Wage, which deals with data before the above report, though in very similar conditions (1991), and second another report dealing with the number of those who are either not covered by the minimum wage, Below the Minimum Wage, which covers data after that time.

    My primary argument here is not against the minimum wage, though I do oppose any minimum wage, but rather simply that Christians can oppose the minimum wage as a strategy while nonetheless supporting Christian principles of economic justice. Believing that we are to take care of the poor and needy does not entail the notion that legislatures can somehow create money.

    In conclusion, let me quote Ludwig von Mises, from Human Action (p. 769-770 in my 3rd Revised Edition copy):

    The very essence of the interventionist politicians’ wisdom is to raise the price of labor either by government decree or by violent action or the threat of such action on the part of labor unions. To raise wage rates above the height at which the unhampered market would determine them is considered a postulate of the eternal laws of morality as well as indispensable from the economic point of view. Whoever dares to challenge this ethical and economic dogma is scorned both as depraved and ignorant. . . .

    The market wage rate tends toward a height at which all those eager to earn wages get jobs and all those eager to employ workers can hire as many as they want. It tends toward the establishement of what is nowadays called full employment. Where there is neither government nor union interference with the labor market, there is only voluntary or catallactic unemployment. But as soon as external pressure and compulsion, be it on the part of the government or on the part of unions, tries to fix wage rates <em at a higher point, institutional unemployment emerges. . . .

    I believe the second paragraph and I suffer from the attitude described in the first. I think the greatest economic justice is accomplished through free markets. No, Jesus didn’t teach free markets. He didn’t teach economics at all. But I think his principles will be best implemented through freedom at the governmental level, and through voluntary charity on the personal level.

    That’s why, while I am pleased with progressive Christian groups that are trying to reclaim Christianity from the religious right, I also must keep them at arms length. It’s too easy to be harmless as doves while failing to be wise as serpents (Matthew 10:16).

  • Episcopal Church Elects Woman as Presiding Bishop

    I’d like to congratulate the Episcopal church on electing a woman as presiding bishop. While the normal complaints about declining mainline membership are brought up, I do not believe that the membership problems that the mainline churches have are due to upholding the rights, and more importantly the divine calling of women. Further, no Christian should be determining policy based on numbers. Inclusion is right, whether it makes one popular or not.

    In a story on MSNBC.com, Episcopalians elect 1st female national leader, noted that “gasps could be heard throughout the vast convention hall when Jefferts Schori’s name was announced.”

    What is there to be shocked about? It’s long past time that we, as Christians recognize that God can call women to any level and type of ministry that he desires to. This should be a non-issue, but unfortunately it isn’t.

  • T4G: Interpretation and Egalitarianism

    In searching around the blogosphere, or more accurately taking a quick glance, I note that many bloggers are responding to the Together for the Gospel statement as though Article XVI (about male leadership in ministry) was a single aberration in an otherwise good document. In fact, for some, the tragedy of women being excluded from the conference (though not completely) was that they would be denied the otherwise wonderful Bible teaching involved.

    (Let me note a few entries that I read and that provide good links to others. These are not all examples of the tendency I noted above, but they will help you get the flavor of the discussion. Dave Warnock discusses this issue especially in his post Together or Divided?, and Michael Bird wrote an excellent post from a generally conservative viewpoint, but focussing on the complementarian/egalitarian issue in Together for the Gospel . . . Not Quite. Adrian Warnock has been blogging extensively on this from the conservative point of view. A good wrap-up can be found at Adrian Warnock’s blog.)

    I’m afraid I can’t agree with this viewpoint, however. I think that the issue of gender roles in church leadership is the single clearest example of a divisive viewpoint in this statement, not to mention one I believe is wrong. But I believe that the complementarian view comes directly from the statements on scripture and the approach to interpretation that is represented here. Now I don’t call this approach “conservative.” There are genuine conservatives who don’t accept the complementarian position, and even more important, there are complementarians who are not divisive.

    The reason I see this statement as divisive is simply that it claims that all these elements are part of the genuine gospel, and the clear implication that those who disagree are teaching a false gospel. This level of detail when defining essentials is very troubling to me. Now it may appear that I am creating an equally detailed statement by opposing this statement point by point. But let me emphasize that I do not regard my beliefs on Biblical inspiration or on egalitarianism are a part of the essential definition of the gospel. I do believe that inclusiveness is more consistent with what is fundamental than is exclusiveness. Exclusiveness is not worthy of the doctrine of the incarnation and the sacrament of communion. But that’s another post.

    The T4G statement places one’s theology, the data that one accepts as true, at the center of the issue, and even in doing this it fails to place the focus on the incarnation, in the instance of God’s reconciliation, and especially on his giving us the ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:16-21). This emphasis is more dangerous than the complementarian attitude reflected in Article XVI, although that article does follow naturally from the doctrinal nature of the whole statement.

    There is a serious need here to define what truly is essential, and what is optional. My most fundamental problem with the T4G statement is that I believe it is almost all about non-essentials (other than statements on grace and salvation by faith, and even those are flawed), and skips many essentials.

    I’ll return to my article by article discussion in my next post on this topic.

  • CD: Leah Taylor, Faithful Friend

    In my personal testimony I speak of returning to the church in a United Methodist congregation (Pine Forest UMC), I note that I attended an evening service first where some young people gave their testimony. One of those young people was Leah Taylor (then Leah Bridges), at that time involved in soccer, music, and the Christian youth group at Pine Forest under Linda Smith. One of the things I kept my eyes on in those days was the impact that the church had on its young people, and over the years even more importantly the impact the young people had on their church. Leah is an example of the impact a young person can have on the church, if the church will only permit it.

    A few weeks ago I was priveleged to attend an evening service at Olive Baptist Church in Pensacola, FL, and the worship music and special music were provided mostly by Leah Taylor. She was also introducing her newly released CD, Faithful Friend. Leah is now a bit older than when I first heard her testimony in words, and she has a husband and three children. This time she gave her testimony in music. My wife and I would have been there just for friendship. But Leah’s passion, her worship, or the quality of her musicianship meant this was a concert I would have wanted to hear whether or not I already knew the artist.

    If you want to hear the gospel presented in music, more clearly than any sermon, you’ll want to buy this CD and listen to it. You won’t be disappointed.

    Leah’s song “Falling Up” was chosen to be in a competition for the best new song, which will be performed at the Praise in the Park concert. The first competition will be this week, Thursday the 16th at 6:15pm on Power 88 FM. The DJ will play the three songs that were selected then people can log onto www.goforth.org to
    vote for their favorite of the three. I invite my friends to listen and vote–for Leah, of course! 🙂

  • T4G Article II: Canon within Canon

    In a previous entry I discussed the inspiration of the Bible in response to the Together for the Gospel statement, Article I. Since I disagreed almost entirely with that article, and Article II also deals with the Bible, it is no surprise that I find much to disagree with in this second statement as well.

    Article II says:

    We affirm that the authority and sufficiency of Scripture extends to the entire Bible, and therefore that the Bible is our final authority for all doctrine and practice.

    We deny that any portion of the Bible is to be used in an effort to deny the truthfulness or trustworthiness of any other portion. We further deny any effort to identify a canon within the canon or, for example, to set the words of Jesus against the writings of Paul.

    I agree that the authority and sufficiency (whatever that means) of scripture extends to all of scripture, but for reasons I have previously stated, I do not agree that the Bible is our sole source of doctrine. The key to this article, however, comes in the denials, which show that it is intended to respond to the idea of a “personal canon” or a “canon within a canon.” Now I think the notion of a “personal canon” is logically questionable. A “canon” is a set of writings held by a community to be authoritative in some formal sense, such as church law. Thus a “personal canon” can be held to be oxymoronic. But there is a very practical point that is intended by the term; individuals build their spiritual life with different emphases on different portions of the scripture.

    As an example, other than the gospels, which I regard as central, I spend more time on the average reading the Pentateuch from the Old Testament and the general epistles, especially Hebrews from the New Testament. My wife tends to read more of the Psalms, some prophets, and her New testament reading other than the gospels generally comes from Paul’s less theological letters such as 1 & 2 Corinthians. But neither of us would deny that what the other is reading is inspired. This is a sort of “practical” canon within a canon.

    But I agree with the statement here to the extent that someone who defines a separate canon while denying the inspiration of other writings separates himself to some extent from the community. When the “canon within a canon” becomes more than a practical choice for my own spiritual walk and I start denigrating the authority of other scriptures for other people, then there is a cause for concern.

    But setting the words of Jesus against the words of Paul is another matter. First, there is the simple point that God chose to give the scriptures through different writers at different times and in different places. There is evidence of these differences in the writings. I believe a greater danger is the homogenizing of these differences that God put into scripture. It is not honoring scripture, or the God of scripture, to pretend that it is not constructed the way it is.

    But more importantly, this phrase is a code-word for those who build a theology out of Paul’s writings and use it as a basis to ignore the words of Jesus. Jesus talks about holiness of life and obeying the law; Paul speaks against the law. It is essential to their theology to keep people from setting the words of Jesus against their interpretation of Paul. It is common in discussion or in theological writings for them to use the words of Jesus and Paul equally because both, they say, are inspired.

    But to truly honor scripture, one must note that Paul’s words were written to a different audience than were those of Jesus. If one takes the differences seriously, then one will have to deal with what Jesus says brings salvation, and what Paul says brings salvation. One will need to deal with issues of behavior and holiness. When you homogenize scripture, on the grounds that it all comes from God, you immediately lose these nuances, and will form a theology that may be more systematic, but is less faithful to the experience of God reflected in scripture.

    In addition, those who form theology from Paul in this way tend to form their theology largely from the more theological books of Romans and Galatians, and particularly from the parts where Paul expresses his theological foundation. But salvation is also discussed in 1 Corinthians, with much less theology and much more practical application, and in both Romans and Galatians, when Paul gets down to application, he sounds much more like Jesus. One possibility that must be examined here is that modern readers have misunderstood Paul’s basic theology and its application, and may need to check their application against Paul’s.

    For example, the conclusion of some that one can be saved without the fruit of faith is clearly challenged starting with Galatians 5. Theologians have found many ways to work around this, but all of these ignore some aspect of the text. (I apologize for making broad statements with little support, but I’m trying to work through this in a reasonable amount of time. I have discussed a good deal of this material in my essay A Fruitful Faith.)

    Thus while I have some agreement on the point of a canon within a canon, I must reject what I believe is the real thrust of this statement. One cannot simply combine texts from Jesus, Paul, and other writers on the basis that all come from God. One must understand the overall view of each one and then see how they mesh. One must not limit what Jesus can say based on what he must be saying because of some theological principle gleaned from Paul.

    Let me also repeat one last time: If you are a Christian who believes the incarnation, you must logically believe that Jesus is more important than any other person, whether a writer of scripture or not. Jesus is central.