Monthly Archives

January 2018

Jan 14
0

John Calvin and the Mendoza Line

By | Cleric Laughs | No Comments

Mario Mendoza was a major league baseball player whose defensive skills overshadowed his meager offensive ability.  Although Mr. Mendoza was a lifetime .215 hitter, it is generally agreed that the Mendoza Line, set at .200, is the lower limit below which a player’s presence in the big leagues cannot be justified, no matter how good his defense.

 

One of my major problems with religion in general and theology in particular is that people tend to suspend logical thought in favor of “feelings” and “what I’ve always been told.”  It occurs to me that when it comes to judging the contributions of historical figures, we need to introduce some objective standard by which they can be judged.  Why not adopt a Mendoza Line for theology, where if a figure is not batting better than .200, we don’t condone their presence on the field of theological reflection?

 

Take John Calvin, for instance.  The contributions made by John to the overthrow of medieval Roman Catholicism cannot be overrated or underappreciated.  By arguing for God’s sovereignty at the expense of all attempts to co-opt it, Calvin helped repudiate the notion that participation in indulgences, masses, pilgrimages and the like could somehow sway God and purchase salvation.  For this we should be grateful.  His followers, as is often the case after the death of a principal, have taken his already alarming ideas to even more distressing levels.  The Synod of Dort, in 1618-9, gave rise to the five articles of Calvinism, captured by the acrostic TULIP.  T stands for the total depravity of man, U for unconditional election, L for limited atonement, I for the irresistibility of grace, and P for the perseverance of the saints.  Together the five have become the Shibboleth of the Protestant churches, and anyone who questions them is excoriated as “Arminian.”

 

So, briefly, how is Calvin, or at least “Calvinism,” doing?

 

Total depravity I get, sort of.  This is the idea that, as Paul says, “I know that nothing good lives in me…”  (Romans 7:18a)  Pelagius was rightly ostracized for saying that although the Holy Spirit helps, it is still possible for us to obey God and his law through our own will power.  Anybody who has tried to obey will quickly realize that what we need is not repair but replacement.  If it is good, it has to be from God, for as Jesus says, “There is only One who is good.”  ( Matthew 19:17)  To the extent that I do anything good, it is not I who do it, but Christ who lives in me.  (Galatians 2:20)  On the other hand, we can still know good, even though we can’t do it.  Paul said, “For in my inner being, I I delight in God’s law;” and “For what I do is not the good I want to do…”  So we can have knowledge, we can have proper intent, but in execution we fall short.  So a distinction needs to be made, as Richard Hooker did, between conscience, which is not fallen, and ability, which is.  Not total depravity, but partial depravity.  So far, half a point.

 

Now, about unconditional election.  This is the notion that individuals are chosen for salvation, without regard to the will or actions of that person.  Now in hindsight, you might have a point, where is can be said that a God who is outside of time can “know” what the future holds, but that is terminological inexactitude, to quote Churchill.  We are bound by the fourth dimension, and it is useless, if not outright dangerous, to venture into the mind of God in terms of what he “knows.”  The fact is, election is a poorly understood term in the Bible, and particularly for those who hail from the Western or Greek school of thought.  Where in the Bible does election refer to an individual?  Even when Paul uses Jacob and Esau as examples, they are but exemplars of those who submit to a wider divine plan of salvation and those who do not. (Romans 9:13)  When do Paul and Peter rev up the talk about election and predestination, if not when talking to Gentiles about the “mystery of God,” his plan to include Jew and Gentile in one people?  They are arguing that salvation is not something that is limited on the basis of genetics, but that is open to all who, like Jacob, submit to God’s plan for justifying and sanctifying a sinful and rebellious humanity.  So on this count, Calvin whiffs.  He’s now one for two.

 

Now, let’s look at perhaps the most pernicious tenet of all, that of limited atonement.  This is the idea that the cross of Christ is limited in its power to justify some individuals, but not all.  What treachery!  Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus only died for some?  I thought it said he died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2,) and that it is God’s will that ALL men come to know the truth and find salvation. (1 Timothy 2:3)  The basis for this appalling conclusion is the wrong notion of how God saves.  Paul, to his eternal credit, makes a distinction between justification and salvation. (Romans 5:9.10, I Timothy 4:10b)  All, says Paul, are justified by the cross.  That is, there is nothing limited about atonement.  What is limited, and this is where people get confused, is the latter event, that of salvation.  We are not lost until we’re saved, we’re justified until we’re lost.  God nowhere condemns on account of original sin, or sins he “foresees.”  What happens is that if those who are justified by the cross of Christ continue to live according to the flesh and do not take advantage of the necessary life of the Spirit, they are disqualified from the salvation from the “coming wrath” to which Paul refers in his letters. (Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians)  Although it looks like the atonement of the cross is limited, it is not.  There is no limit to the power of the blood of Christ!  What is limited is the willingness of people to be honest with God about their own limitations (See Total Depravity of Man) and ask for help in the person of the Holy Spirit.  We are not “saved” because of anything we do, we are “saved” when we stop doing something: protesting our innocence and challenging God’s moral rectitude.  Another swing and a miss for Calvin.

 

So, number four, irresistibility of grace.  This is the flip side of unconditional election, and as such, suffers from the same theological and logical defects.  Here we have the belief that a person, chosen by God and therefore elect, cannot resist the ministry of the Holy Spirit and sin.  Hogwash!  I do this every day, and know in detail how easy this is to do!  The Holy Spirit is a person, and a gentleman at that.  He doesn’t insist on getting his way.  Like any discreet guest, he offers his help, and if refused with any consistency, he simply decamps until such time as our attitude changes and we re-extend an invitation to him.  What Paul argues in the whole of his testimony is that it is possible, indeed common, for people, even Christians, to resist God’s grace.  Is this not what the Jews who killed Stephen were guilty of, and do not James and Peter both urge us to resist the enemy?  Does our will, as polluted as it is, not count for something?  Is God totally arbitrary, or does he not seek after men and women after his own heart, like David, who kept God’s commands and (often) did what was right?  Again, in the final analysis, I suppose it’s possible to say that after a person dies, God’s grace prevailed in a life and has had His way.  Fine.  But the testimony of Scripture and the example of human experience suggests that man has one problem and one problem only, that he tends to resist God’s grace to be in actuality what he is, since Good Friday, legally.  Another strikeout for John, and there’s still another matter to consider.

 

The final contention of the Synod of Dort was that the saints would persevere.  This is also a modification of an earlier tenet, that of the irresistibility of grace.  Put another way, we have the contention that “once saved, always saved.”  Although this is a specious argument whose popularity is widespread, it is patently untrue.  To repeat, our problem is not that something goes wrong with our justification by the blood of Christ.  This is a standing fact that is, in the words of Donald Bloesch, “independent of our belief or response.”  The problem arises when we, like the seed that falls on the path or in suspect soil, fail to allow the Holy Spirit to come in and do through us what we cannot do on our own.  Thus, we fail to abide where the blood of Christ has put us, and are cut off and burned as unfruitful vines.  We recommit Adam’s sin of deciding for ourselves what is right and wrong, and thereby disobey the injunction of the Bible that we be honest and ask for help.  Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the only unforgiveable sin, as it consists of resisting the testimony of God, the Bible, which was written by the Holy Spirit.  Do saints fail to persevere?  All the time.  In a very real way, all are saints at birth, and the masses who fail to abide in Christ do not lose their salvation as much as they lose the benefits of justification; a very different thing.

 

So Calvin has been coming to the plate for almost 500 years, and four and a half out of five times he has failed to get on base.  No walks, even.  Let’s go back to Mario Mendoza.  Here’s a man who was great on defense, but couldn’t hit a lick.  He became the personification of offensive ineptitude, and has given his name to the measure of that unfortunate reality.  If we ditch a player because of this offensive liability in baseball, shouldn’t we also have a standard in theology?  According to this brief and cursory analysis of Calvinism, he’s at the Mendoza Line, batting one half out of five!  Although we appreciate his defense against Rome, we can’t put up with his misleading and hurtful performance at the plate.  What he offers is worse than what he got rid of.  Time to trade for a better player, one who can give us consistent, reliable production, so that we can get this Christian team on its way to victory.

 

Jan 14
0

God is My Friend: A Primer for Children

By | Cleric Listens | No Comments

A friend accepts all people

“… God treats you and me the same.”  Romans 2:11

 

A friend accepts people as they are

“… while we were still me people, Christ died for US!.”   Romans 5:8

A friend forgets our mistakes

“I will forgive and forget all the wrong things.”  Jeremiah 31:34b

 

A friend gives us a place to stay

“Make your home in my love.”  John 15:9b

 

A friend is easy to please

“I won’t lay anything heavy on you.”  Matthew 11:30 TM

 

A friend knows what makes us happy

“’I know the plans I have for you,’ says God, ‘They are for good and not for bad, to give you a future and a hope.’”  Jeremiah 29:11

 

A friend doesn’t keep secrets

“I call you friends, and tell you everything that I have heard from our Father.”  John 15:15b JBP

 

A friend warns of danger

“Not everyone who calls me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will go to heaven …”  Matthew 7:21a

 

A friend knows what makes us sad

“… your wrong things keep you from your God,”  Isaiah 59:2

 

A friend lets us choose

“Do you want to get well?”  John 5:6b NIV

 

When we cannot do something, a friend will do it for us.

“… I don’t live any more, but Christ lives in me.”  Galatians 2:20a  Beck

 

A friend is easy to find

“I stand at the door.  I knock.  If you hear me call and open the door, I’ll come right in and sit down to supper with you.”  Revelation 3:20a TM

 

God is MY friend

“Abraham believed God … and he was called God’s friend.”  James 2:23 NIV

Jan 14
0

God is Jewish

By | Cleric Listens | No Comments

My daughter recently made the observation that popular Christian authors have a theme they consistently return to in their writings.  She was able to spout off what Tim Keller and John Piper feel is their unique contribution to the Christian agenda, based on having read a number of their works.  “What’s your theme, Dad?”  Although both insufficient and misleading, I immediately replied, “God is Jewish.”  Let me explain.

 

The first thing to point out is what I do NOT mean.  I do not mean that God cares one whit about the fate of racial and political Israel, any more than cares about his lost children wherever they are found.  Of all the great foreign policy blunders of the 20th century, I am persuaded that failing to listen to T.E. Lawrence and giving the Middle East away to European powers at Versailles ranks first.  A close second would be Great Britain giving Palestine to the U.N. to turn over to Jews to found a new, theocratic state.  Quick reference to Leviticus 26 can explain the fate of the Jewish race from the time of Christ, if, of course, you understand their rejection of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah as having any meaning at all.  As far as I can ascertain, all references to Israel in the Bible after the coming of the Messiah refer to the Church, which is Jewish in its roots but ecumenical in its final flowering.  Paul goes to great lengths to portray the breaking down of the racial barrier between Jew and Gentile as the mystery of God, for which all creation has been waiting.  To this day, Jews remain hostile to the Christian Gospel, and formally reject it as a perversion of the revelation over which they claim sole custody.  So I am no Zionist, and contend that crimes committed in the name of God are even more onerous than those committed for more base reasons.

 

What I do mean by saying God is Jewish, is that the Bible, in both testaments, is a document that is singularly Jewish in terms of its authorship, its intended audience, its literary style and its philosophy.  This means the Western or Greek reader must take this Eastern background into account when reading the Scriptures or he’s simply not going to understand what he’s reading.  First of all, he is going to come to wrong conclusions.  He’s going to think it’s saying things that it is not.  Secondly, he is going to miss things that he should be getting, points that the author thought he had presented clearly.  Further, I submit that this East/West mismatch has led to the major theological fights in the Christian Church, both Catholic and Reformed, to date.  Until this ingrained bias is recognized and taken into account, Christian thought will be paralyzed and the mission of the Church enervated.

 

First, the wrong conclusions.  Christian thought was dominated by pagan and Roman Catholic distortions for over 1,000 years.  With the adoption of Christianity as the state religion by Constantine, the old pagan pantheon was replaced by a Christian cast, but the script was not fundamentally altered.  The result was that the Jewish concept of monotheism was completely lost in the translation.  The subsequent hash was then systematized, to the extent that it could be, by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century.  After having experienced a personal revelation in 1273, Aquinas admitted that “all I have written now appears to be of little value.”  He died before he was able to set matters straight, and the unexpurgated Summa Theologica has become the unquestioned source for all Roman “theology” since.  Because the Roman church was dominated by political and philosophical forces from the start, it’s no wonder that the basic message of a loving triune God was immediately lost.

 

What’s more surprising, however, is that Protestant theology is just as prone to distortions due to this Eastern or Jewish presentation as Roman theology.  The reformers attempted to sweep away the human accretions of those thousand plus years and get back to Scripture and the original message of the early Church.  Their rallying cry was Sola Scriptura, Scripture Only, and they said that if it couldn’t be found in the Bible, it couldn’t be required of a man.  Just what was the Bible saying, though?  In their zeal to refute Rome and the counterreformation some of the reformers, notably John Calvin, overstated their case.  Will Durant, author of The Story of Civilization, says of Calvin, “…we shall always find it hard to love the man who darkened the human soul with the most absurd and blasphemous conception of God in all the long and honored history of nonsense.”  What would lead Durant, probably the most circumspect man ever who ever lived, to make this statement?  No doubt Calvin’s theory of what has become known as double predestination.  Let’s take a look at what this term refers to.

 

The concepts of election and predestination are Biblical.  The words elect and election are not found in the NIV in the Old Testament, nor is predestination in any of its forms.  In the New, elect appears six times in the Gospels, always appearing as the words of Jesus, and five times in the Epistles, used four times by Paul and once by Peter.  Election appears three times, used twice by Paul and once by Peter.  Predestination in its various forms appears four times in epistles, always used by Paul.  On the basis of these 18 occurrences, Calvin refuted the Roman doctrine of merited grace and consequent salvation.  What was in question was what I call the agency of salvation; that is, who saves whom?  For Rome, we save ourselves, with the help of the Church, of course, by putting God into our debt by works or merit and supererogation.  The notion that anybody could force God to do anything, and by ascribing debt, no less, was anathema to the reformers.  They, one and all, pointed out that God is sovereign, and man can do nothing to force God’s hand.  Further, no good thing resides in us, as Paul so eloquently put it, and we can do nothing to earn our salvation.  While all this is true, Calvin and his followers went further and said that God simply chooses some for salvation, to show his mercy, and some to damnation, to show his justice.  We are elected to salvation or perdition by God’s fiat, and that is that.  The fate of the individual is beyond their control, as man is powerless to resist God’s will.

 

Not all Protestant reformers bought into double predestination.  Jacobus Arminius, for example, went to great lengths to point out that for God to elect some to sin and damnation, he would have to be the author of sin.  Calvin’s followers took care of this valid objection, however, by making sure that the Arminians were excluded and the Calvinist faction prevailed at the Synod of Dort in 1618-9.  Since the closing of that ecumenical synod, Christian thought has stagnated into a pattern of sniping between Roman and reformed, and has never been able to come up with anything suggesting a synthetic solution to the problem of what these 18 Biblical references actually mean.  Could it be that the Church has painted itself into a theological corner simply by the way it has read these few passages?  I think so.

 

First of all, who is being elected or predestined here? Calvin assumed that it was individuals who were chosen for heaven or hell.  A casual reading of the Bible will show that in the beginning, God’s preferred unit of address is not the individual, but the family, the tribe, the nation, or the even the civilization. When Achan, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram were punished, their whole families were collected and suffered the same fate as those who actually sinned.  This is no doubt because none of us acts in a vacuum, and what we say and do is both cause and consequence of our communal life.  Although this policy was eventually rolled back and tempered by first Moses and then Ezekiel, the Bible stresses that sin and virtue are corporate qualities that for the most part persist from generation to generation.  God says he will punish “the children for the sin of their fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.”  To say that God does not take our upbringing into account when judging us, for good or ill, is to impugn his integrity.  This was Arminius’ argument.  God ultimately judges the individual, but he also has strong opinions about culture and ideology that aid and abet the individual in behaving the way they do.  So to say that God picks and chooses individuals is only correct when you realize that those individuals are members of a larger group or type.  It appears to me that this assumption of individual address is an interpolation due to Greek or Western philosophy, and is contrary to the intent of the Jewish authors of the Scriptures.

 

This leads to a second question, and that is, how does God decide what group you are in?  Although a crude reading of the Scriptures will say that it’s all based on genealogy, which is its own version of fiat, as the Biblical narrative progresses it becomes clear that blood is quickly superseded by behavior.  This can explain why references to predestination and election are restricted to the New Testament, are so few in number, and appear only when speaking to or about non-Jews.  The letters to the Romans and Ephesians were written to non-Jews, and the pastoral epistles of Paul were addressed to Timothy and Titus, both of whom were involved in ministries to the Gentiles.  Timothy was half Greek himself, being from Lystra in Asia Minor.  Peter, too, wrote to those scattered throughout the Gentile world, not to the Jews of Judea.  Thus, it makes sense that this concept of preordained election was meant to assure Gentile Christians that from before time and forever, God would know of their need for a Savior, and they would be included in his plan to unite Jew and Gentile in one man, Paul’s fundamental mystery of God.  When Jesus refers to the elect, he too is implying that those chosen for salvation are a subset of his hearers, whether Jew or Gentile.  Viewed this way, election and predestination are not threats to winnow individuals arbitrarily, but rather promises that at no time did God intend salvation to continue on a racial or political basis.

 

How did a promise get turned into a threat that would be used to browbeat reformed Christians to the extent that they were no more assured of pardon than their Roman brethren?  By imposing a Western, individualistic reading on an Eastern, tribal concept.  That’s how.

 

Another major problem that has stymied Biblical scholarship and ministry since the Reformation has been the tendency to read the Bible in a literalistic manner.  Archbishop Ussher of Ireland was the first to formally suggest that the world was between four and five thousand years old according to the various genealogies mentioned in the Scriptures.  The world, he said, was created in six twenty four hour days, literally.  The only problem with this approach is that it doesn’t take into account the Jewish tendency to write not for analytical purposes, but for synthetic.  Put another way, science may be the fruit of Western thought, but philosophy is the Eastern root.  I quote Will Durant again:

 

“Science wishes to resolve the whole into parts, the organism into organs, the obscure into the known.  It does not inquire into the values and ideal possibilities of things, nor into their total and final significance; it is content to show their present actuality and operation, it narrows its gaze resolutely to the nature and process of things as they are…But the philosopher is not content to describe the fact: he wishes to ascertain its relation to experience in general, and thereby to get at its meaning and its worth; he combines things in interpretive synthesis; he tries to put together, better than before, that great universe-watch which the inquisitive scientist has analytically taken apart…Science gives us knowledge, but only philosophy can give us wisdom.”

 

It’s not as though Greeks and Jews have a different view of truth, but they do have a different view of what’s important.  Take the creation narrative of Genesis.  To the Greek it gives a faulty account of the construction of our planet because it says it took place quickly.  Therefore, the entire account is dismissed as so much superstition and nonsense.  Not so fast, says the Jew.  The account tells you about agency, order, priority, purpose and man’s place in the cosmos, if you will enrich your understanding of language.  The Hebrew word for day, yom, is translated in the NIV Bible using over forty different words, only one of which is day.  It can mean period, phase, duration, many different things, but all pertaining to the passage of a finite period of time.  Think of all the ink, to say nothing of blood, spilled because of this misunderstanding not so much of language, but of thought.

 

In addition to causing trouble when reading how things got started, a literal gestalt will wreck havoc when reading about how things will end.  The nonsense of John Darby and his Dispensationalism comes from a desire to read an Eastern eschatology with a Western bent.  Whenever the Bible touches on what’s happening in the future or in heaven, concrete concepts fail, and literary liberties must be taken.  When Matthew, Mark, and Luke speak of the heavenly bodies being shaken at the coming of the Son of Man, does this mean a literal falling of the planets?  I assume it means that those things of which we are most sure, the rising and setting of the sun, for one, might as well be suspended, for all will be lost.  This squares with the fact that this figure of speech was used many times in the Bible for other nations and tribes that were being written off by God.  By its very nature, the Bible has become a medium of communication across time and cultures, and as such is subject to eisegesis, where foreign meanings can be injected into it if so desired.  This puts an added burden on the Bible interpreter, that he be aware of the peculiarities of the time and place of its composition as well as those of his own audience.

 

In addition to the danger of misunderstanding what is there, there is the danger of missing what the author was actually trying to convey.  Perhaps the most distinctive literary device of the Jew is the use of repetition.  Hebrew poetry is characterized not by rhyme, but by repetition or parallelism.  This is useful, as it translates, while rhyme does not.  Further, it conveys something about God and his mode of communicating with us that we miss if we think it’s just a poetic device.  Might not a loving God, like a concerned parent, deign to say things twice, whether warning or promise?  In his interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream, Joseph said that the fact that the dream was presented twice showed that God was resolved to bring this thing to pass and quickly.  Indeed, just about every event of consequence in the Scriptures can be found twice, once performed in history, imperfectly, and perhaps temporarily, and then again spiritually, perfectly, and permanently.  For each event there is a counterpart, that is either prediction, promise, or warning on the one hand, or realization, fulfillment, and final installation on the other.  You’ve got the Old Testament, then the New.  The Law, then the Gospel.  Moses, then Jesus.  The Red Sea, then baptism.  Passover, then the Cross.  Genesis 15, then the Lord’s Supper.  The list goes on and on.  Indeed, the number two can be said to be the numerical concept around which the whole revelation of God revolves.

 

Western New Testament scholars, however, are slow to appreciate this state of affairs.  Paul makes a distinction between justification and salvation.  To the western scholar, this is just parallelism, or poetry. To the Jew, however, such a distinction deserves our attention.  What Paul is saying, is that man has two problems, guilt and powerlessness.  God has two solutions, the death of Jesus and the life of Jesus.  The Church has two sacraments, baptism and communion.  One, like the death of Christ is unique, the other is repeated, like the continuous drawing we must do from the life of the risen Lord.  Failure to make this distinction has lead to much suffering, as disputes arise about the importance of behavior and the role man may or may not have in his own redemption.  Until you understand the mechanism of salvation, you don’t really know where you stand in the process, or how to help others who come under conviction.  All this imprecision in our thinking and trouble in our mission is due to cultural bias in our reading.

 

I could go on.  Arminius never said what Pelagius did, that we’re to draw good from within ourselves to merit salvation.  What he did say, and what I believe the Bible says, is that we’re to stop doing something, that is, protesting our innocence and trying to do things ourselves.  The ultimate test of honesty is to say that we are in fact guilty before a holy God.  The ultimate test of humility is to admit we can do nothing about it, and ask Jesus to do it in us.  All of this requires a change of heart, which implies the exercise of the will.  Why did Jesus speak in parables?  Why was he indirect in his explanations?  To the Greek, this is not only confusing, it is somewhat offensive.  Why doesn’t he just come out and say it?  We can assume that Jesus did everything for a reason.  If God were interested in dispensing information alone, he would have been more straightforward in his manner.  Yet God, in keeping with his Jewish nature, wanted to do more.  He wanted to engage the will of his hearer, knowing that the propositions being shared carried with them a challenge to personal independence and authority. In order to have the desired effect, all communication had to engage the will, so that the hearer would be invested in true understanding.  Again, God is a God of import, not of facts alone.  Eastern, not Greek.

 

This also explains why God did not see fit to leave us a historical record of his self-revelation that is punctilious and comprehensive.  The Scriptures, as it says in the 39 Articles of the Church of England, contain everything necessary to salvation.  They do not contain everything that can be known, and certainly don’t contain everything about God himself.  They do, however, contain enough to persuade the reader of life and death and purpose, if the reader is so disposed.  Those who ask for impeccability or undue comprehensiveness in the divine record are revealing that they are not interested in meeting God, they are interested only in explaining and controlling God’s chosen means of self-disclosure.  God doesn’t dance to our piping because it would be casting pearls before swine and would change nothing for the hard-hearted.

 

When I took my first Old Testament class in seminary, the professor opened with a correction.  He said, “There’s a vicious rumor circulating that I believe you have to speak Hebrew to go to heaven.  This is not true.  You don’t have to speak Hebrew to go to heaven, but if, once you get there, you want to know what’s going on, I believe you have to speak Hebrew.”  Perhaps this is an overstatement, as good translations from the Hebrew abound.  What we should strive for, however, is an understanding the mindset that goes with the language, which couldn’t be more different that that of the Greek or western mindset most of us have grown up with.  God had a choice when deciding where Jesus would be born.  He could have been born in Macedonia, or anywhere in the western world.  He did not go that route.  Instead he chose the backwater province of Judea, because it had the culture, philosophy and literary tradition that best coincided with a message of ultimate value that requires the participation of the entire hearer, his heart as well as his mind.

 

So Martha, my contribution is that God is Jewish.  It’s ironic that this should be the case, because many Jews today have become Westernized in their thinking, and have used that thinking to dismiss the claims of Christ.  Better we should all, Jew and Gentile alike, start looking not for reasons to not believe, but for excuses to believe, that we might one and all be delivered from the hell of solitude that a critical, analytic spirit inevitably leads us to.

 

Jan 14
0

Digital Theology

By | Cleric Listens | No Comments

I am the son of a computing pioneer.  My father was working at Point Mugu in the early 1950’s when one of the first analog computers ever sold arrived on the loading dock.  Being a Scot, my father took note of the price tag, $65,000 I believe, and decided he needed to find out what this machine was and what it could do.  He was soon able to use the device to simulate the flight of aircraft and the missiles to shoot them down, and later simulated the pulmonary and cardiac systems of the human body when he built one of the first working heart and lung machines in his spare time.  With my mother he founded Simulations Councils, Incorporated, which later became The Society for Computer Simulation.  Suffice it to say that he was so successful in spreading the gospel of computer simulation and its benefits that the Society today is no longer needed nor is it vital.  All branches of human endeavor have adopted computers and simulation as a means of maximizing performance and control while minimizing costs and risks.  With the development of integrated circuits, digital computers have largely replaced analog because of the increased computational power they offer at a much lower cost.  This change has become possible only through the grudging realization that you can represent just about any datum or relationship through bits of 1 or 0, there or not there, present or absent.  It’s not a romantic notion, but it’s true: by reducing all concepts to binary representation, we arrive at the best, cheapest, fastest way to do work and increase our leisure time.

 

In contrast to this increased dependency upon the black/white, there or not there reality of digital computation, we have the moral world around us.  Francis Schaeffer points out that up until the 19th century, a similar, binary view of the world prevailed.  Things were either in keeping with divine revelation or not; they were right or wrong, divine or demonic, worthwhile or harmful.  With the introduction of Hegel’s dialectic of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, however, we have a world that is increasingly attracted to gray.  There was no right or wrong, only progress towards a more refined synthesis.  What started out as a philosophical commentary was soon applied in every arena, particularly moral theology or ethics.  Gone is the quaint idea that things have implicit moral validity; a binary valuation.  Hegel has allowed us to substitute a kind of analog morality that has had sweeping implications.  Things that were once considered outrageous or inconceivable are now not only tolerated but encouraged as being avant garde or progressive.  It seems that our society is moving in one direction with respect to technology, while it’s moving in the exact opposite direction in terms of philosophy, morality, or perish the thought, theology.

 

To be fair I should point out that not everybody’s gone to shades of gray regarding moral theology.  Whereas the last almost 500 years have been characterized by a tension between the poles of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, that enduring conflict has given way to a new battle between liberal and conservative versions of Christianity.  Unthinkable just a short time ago, conservatives of both Roman and Protestant stripes are finding they have more in common with one another than they do with their liberal compatriots.  This could never have happened unless both Roman and Protestant theologians had started to think like Hegel and base their pronouncements upon changing views of what constitutes right.  Just as an analog computer works by comparing relative voltages, modern moral debate is based upon a reference voltage that is fluctuating according to popular sentiment.  The result is that Rome has compromised its moral integrity in the name of legal and financial expedience, and the only sins that abide in Protestantism are those of sexism, racism, and homophobia.

 

So the question then becomes, in this debate between liberal and conservative, who’s right?  We can play Biblical roulette and proof-text using verses that buttress our preconceived position, but that’s been tried and has produced more acrimony than certainty.  Is it possible to look at the full expanse of the revelation of God as revealed in both Testaments of the Bible and come to an understanding of how God operates, and how he chooses to reveal himself, that will shed some light on this clash of hermeneutics?  I believe it is.

 

Taken as a whole, the first thing you notice about the Bible is its inherent redundancy in terms of both its form and its content.  In terms of literary form, you have Hebrew poetry and chiastic rhetoric.  The former is characterized not by rhyme, but by repetition, or parallelism.  This repetition can be attributed to three concerns.  The first is that it’s the only form of poetry that translates without loss; it doesn’t depend upon rhyme.  Secondly, it helps convey emphasis.  As Joseph says in Genesis 41:32,

 

“The reason the dream was given to Pharaoh in two forms is that the matter has been firmly decided by God, and God will do it soon.”

 

Finally, it is God’s signature, so to speak, in all his dealings with his creation.  Finite humans require a point of moral reference when receiving or asserting truth.  As the author of the Letter to the Hebrews explains,

 

“Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath.  God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.”

 

A chiasmus is the traditional form of argument or persuasion wherein an argument is marshaled through a series of points, each building upon that which precedes it.  A culmination or conclusions is reached, then the argument is repeated, point by point, in the opposite order.  A five point argument would appear as A,B,C,D,E,D,C,B,A.  This is the form of rhetorical argument Jesus and the apostles were so good at that they confounded the religious teachers who theretofore had been its sole masters.  

 

A similar preoccupation with repetition is evident with respect to the historical events the Bible records.  Old Testament, New Testament; two.  These equate with the two covenants, first with Abraham, then through Jesus.  Two temples, the one made of stone, then the flesh and bones of Jesus.  Each sacrament has its own prior adumbration as well, first the water of the Red Sea, which presages baptism, and then the Passover lamb, which finds its perfection in the sacrifice of Jesus.  Even the bad stuff seems to have a precursor, with the destruction of the temple and deportation of the Jews as a foretaste of the final judgment of humanity.  Though resembling the literary forms mentioned above, this repetition of events or types is more comprehensive still.  Whereas the former involves repetition of like words or concepts, the latter involves the repetition of events that are similar in intent but different in terms of efficacy.  In every case, there is first an imperfect, temporary, physical presentation, primarily of human authorship or agency.  There is then a later repetition that is of divine agency, that is perfect, permanent, and spiritual.  It’s as if God lets us try it once ourselves to make the point that we can’t do it by ourselves.  He then comes and does it unilaterally and correctly.

 

The form of Biblical revelation appears to be a reflection of a deeper bilateral symmetry of the cosmos itself.  There are two created orders, one spiritual and one physical.  There are two moral actors, God and man.  The intent was that they were to be in communion, but it was not long before a problem developed between them.  At the outset of trouble we see two perspectives.  God asks, “Who told you  were naked?  Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”  Man, showing that the first sign of human sin is blame shifting, responds by saying, “The woman you put here with me – she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”  It’s not his fault, it’s the fault of the woman and the God who put her there.  From this point on, man has two problems: God’s at enmity with him, and he’s at enmity with God.  This produces two dilemmas on man’s part: moral guilt and powerlessness to change.  God’s solutions, needless to say, are also two in number: our justification and our salvation.

 

If there’s one thing that has been consistently overlooked in the Scriptures, it’s this notion that God’s solution to our problems, our redemption, is a two-step process.  I don’t know why this is so hard to see, but apparently it is.  Suffice it to say that most commentators either gloss over the verses where Paul contrasts justification and salvation, or conclude that they refer to the same thing from different perspectives.  I propose we look at two verses that hold them in stark contrast, and see if we can discern what Paul may be trying to say.  In Romans 5:9,10 we read:

 

“Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!  For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”

 

Further, in Romans 10:9,10 we find:

 

“That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.”

 

Now the first temptation is to say that Paul is simply indulging in that time-honored practice of Hebrew parallelism, where one statement is repeated in a different manner to have poetic impact.  Resist the temptation.  Give him more credit.  Let us assume that he wrote what he wrote for a reason, and wasn’t being redundant for the sake of literary form.  What I propose is that Paul is separating two things that must be kept separate, or else we will lose insight into how God redeems mankind.

 

First, Paul says that something happened on one day, Good Friday, that he calls justification, where all humanity was declared innocent in God’s eyes, and placed in Jesus’ legal position of righteousness.  To Paul it means being found by the divine court to be in a position of righteousness and legal probity exactly like that of Jesus Christ.  We’re not any different, but our legal standing is updated to reflect Christ’s righteousness, not our own. Donald Bloesch seems to agree:

 

“Something happened for our salvation in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ independent of our belief or response.  Reconciliation and redemption are an accomplished fact, an objective reality that is not affected by the subjective attitude of man…The atonement of Jesus Christ signifies a transformation of the human situation, and not simply the possibility of a future salvation.”

 

Now I would clean up Donald’s soteriological nomenclature somewhat, but my point abides: on Good Friday Christ died for all humanity, independent of time, our awareness, or our ability to respond.  All are placed “in Christ,” whether they know it or not, and are justified.  As Scripture boldly proclaims, Christ died for the sins of the whole world.  There is nothing limited or imperfect about the shed blood of the sinless Son of God.  Is that the last word on man’s redemption?  No, but it is the first word.  God is no longer at enmity with us.  Jesus is our Savior.

 

The second word God speaks is that of salvation, to Paul an entirely different issue.  It is, according to John the Baptist, Jesus, John the apostle, and of course Paul, deliverance from a coming wrath reserved for those do not realize that their justification carries with it a moral imperative.  It’s not too much to say that whereas both Rome and Geneva say people are lost until they are saved, variously through ritual observance or divine election, a careful reading of Paul suggests that we’re in fact saved until we’re lost; a very different thing!  And Paul’s not the only one saying this.  What we read in many parables, in Hebrews chapters 4 and 6, and throughout that entire pesky book of James, is that we can indeed fall out of a position of favor with God.  The notion of “eternal security” is not only not Biblical, it’s apparently not true.  Jesus himself says in John 15:2 that the branches that are cut off and burned are those originally “in me.”  Although it is treading on the inner counsels of God, I would venture that at the age of majority, people become subject to the temptation to declare themselves moral free agents, and if this fantasy is indulged in, become subject to this coming, second judgment.  Jews and Christians both have sensed this reality, and have commemorated coming of age with rites to confirm a right decision.  What each is saying is, “We are no longer at enmity with God, and therefore trust him to control our lives.  Jesus is now our Lord.”  This, as both experience and the Bible suggest, is anything but universal.

 

To eradicate the enmity we feel toward God, we need an infusion from without.  This is the role of the Holy Spirit, who comes in and fills the void left when our spirit was attenuated in the Fall.  Although Pentecost is a historical fact no less than Good Friday, each of us must allow a personal Pentecost if its benefits are to be conferred upon us.  No individual can take credit for this new life, but it is nevertheless up to us to cede exclusive control of our volition, and let the Spirit have his way with us.  The goal is that our behavior might conform to and reflect our legal status as being morally righteous.  We have a role to play that, unlike that which Pelagius would encourage, is not positive.  It is negative, the cessation of something pernicious, but one which nevertheless requires our concurrence.  As Oswald Chambers says,

 

“The disposition of sin is not immorality and wrong-doing, but the disposition of real-realization – I am my own god…The condemnation is not that I am born with a heredity of sin, but if when I realize Jesus Christ came to deliver me from it, I refuse to let Him do so, from that moment I begin to get the seal of damnation.”

 

Two solutions, and guess what, two sacraments.  Just as we are justified once, so are we to celebrate that fact through the one baptism commanded by Christ.  For the very young, this is a celebration of something done for us by another, with no agency or effort on our part.  Just as an infant child is incapable of willful effort one way or the other, and may even be asleep, he stands justified by the act of Christ’s death on the cross 2,000 years ago.  And as that action is perfect and needs no repetition, so too our baptism is a one-time act that need not and should never be repeated.  Children who are baptized young should be raised in the knowledge of their accomplished justification.  This is the norm.  Older people who come to faith in Christ later in life should view baptism as an opportunity to agree with Paul that “I have been crucified with Christ.”  They are dead to self, and the ceremony symbolizes burial that an entirely new person might come up who is aware of their powerlessness.  Even the greatest of saints knows the experience of needing a new infusion of power from above.  As the Scriptures record, the apostles themselves were “filled with the Holy Spirit” time and again.  So for the on-going drama of life, we need a sacrament that is repeatable, and which corresponds with our constant need of divine help.  Thus, communion is a request that the Spirit of Jesus dwell within us, no less than the bread and wine do, in a literal, deliberate sense.  Two actors, two problems, two solutions introduced by divine act on two days in history,  Good Friday and Pentecost.

 

So what does this say about the revelation of God’s will for our doctrine and moral conduct?  It reveals that God is squarely in the digital age.  To quote Oswald Chambers again,

 

“In spiritual relationship we do not grow step by step; we are either there or we are not.  God does not cleanse us more and more from sin, but when we are in the light, walking in the light, we are cleansed from all sin.  It is a question of obedience, and instantly the relationship is perfected.  Turn away for one second out of obedience, and darkness and death are at work at once.”

 

There are several passages in the Scriptures that suggest some analog computing lingers in the universe, such as when it says that along with differing gifts and degrees of revelation there are differing expectations.  Further, as behavior differs, rewards can follow suit.  For the most part, however, there is right, and there is wrong.  It galls us, who favor systems that we can master without help from another, but it’s just not what the Bible is saying.  The Bible is a book of extremes, of absolutes, just as holiness is absolute.  We need to rehabilitate the notions of black and white.  They are not inclusive, nor are they intended to be.  We’re not the point of reference, God is.  Jesus echoes this absolute dichotomy when he says, “…whoever is not against you is for you, ” and “He who is not with me is against me.”  All attempts to render God’s will with respect to our doctrine, our philosophy or our behavior in shades of gray is to try to dilute that which is absolute.

 

 It’s a hackneyed cliché to say that there are only two kinds of people in the world, but that appears to be the case with regard to our response to the Gospel.    When Jesus was crucified there were two thieves executed along with him, and they exhibit the two responses we can have to his ministry.  One is the wrong response, and the other is the right response.  Listen to the first thief, who is flippant about his own role in matters and incredulous regarding Jesus’ authority.  “Aren’t you the Christ?  Save yourself and us!”  He personifies those in every age who hear the Gospel and make the mistake of thinking they are alive when in fact they are dead.  This mistake may be manifested in two ways.  On the one hand they can deny guilt by  reserving the right to determine moral authority unto themselves.  In doing so they are saying they don’t need a Savior.  On the other, they can acknowledge guilt, but insist that they have the power within themselves to reform.  They don’t need a Lord.  Both constitute blaspheming the Holy Spirit, either by denying the testimony to our guilt found in the Scriptures He caused to be written, or by refusing Him control of our will.  The Holy Spirit is gentle but he’s determined, and he will not tolerate competition for our will.  He, like anybody with whom we have a relationship, can be frustrated and driven from our presence.  The man who competes with the Spirit will eventually be left alone, bereft, fruitless.  The second thief is the obverse.  “Don’t you fear God, since you are under the same sentence?  We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve.  But this man has done nothing wrong.  Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”  This man is honest about himself, and credulous regarding Jesus.  He has ceded his role as moral arbiter, and has in fact repudiated that right as he formerly exercised it.  In such men the Spirit finds a chance to dwell, and the sure and certain sign of his presence is the fruit he bears.  Between the two men, we have the sum total of human response to the Gospel.  The question is not whether or not you’re a thief; any religion can tell you that you are.  The question is which thief are you?  I binary question.

 

One of the legacies my father passed on to me was a love of the outdoors.  Scotsmen like to camp because it’s cheap, but in the process an appreciation for the created order took deep root.  As that creation is beautiful and beneficial, so one can conclude that the One who made it is beautiful and well-disposed towards us.  Every aspect of creation, its laws of life and death, are intended to make us mindful of the intelligence and love behind the work.  It has been argued that the presence of DNA in all living organisms proves that all evolved from a common life form.  I would counter that when the Lord goes to the trouble of developing a system that works, that is perfect, he uses it throughout his garden.  As with natural laws, so with moral laws.  The same reasoning can apply to the processing, storage and communication of information, whether secular or sacred.  Nature has validated a binary nomenclature for data processing as best; it’s clear, concise and responds to advances in technology.  I contend that this is a reflection of the fact that the moral universe is itself binary in essence; God has instituted a mechanism of salvation that is itself clear, concise, and responsive to cultural translation.  Our natural tendency is to make things, especially important things, more complicated than they really are.  It should come as a relief and a joy that all we really need to know about life can be comprehended if we can just count to two.

 

Jan 14
0

Christmas Thoughts

By | Cleric Listens | No Comments

This essay is about Christmas.  Really!  But where to start?

 

When we consider how God speaks to us, we realize there are two ways he does so.  First, there is the extraordinary: pillars of fire, commandments written on stone, or flashes of lightning.  Even the voice of a donkey.  Then there is the more pedestrian way, his written Word.  But this, too, is wildly varied, and we should be struck by how often he speaks to us in poetry.  And when I say poetry, I’m not referring to the rhyming verse we’re familiar with in Western languages, but rather the Eastern variant, which is known as parallelism.  Parallelism is simply saying things twice, but in slightly different ways.  Whereas our poetry repeats sounds, Hebrew poetry repeats thoughts.  No doubt God chose this form of poetry for several reasons, not the least of which is that it translates into all languages without loss.  Further, it tends to bring emphasis to what’s being said, and whenever God speaks, emphasis is always justified.  As was said by Joseph when interpreting Pharaoh’s dream, “The reason the dream was given to Pharaoh in two forms is that the matter has been firmly decided by God, and God will do it soon.”  But more than being an effective literary device, I believe this repetition tells us something about the author, God himself.  For a careful reading of the Bible reveals that not only does God tend to say things twice, he tends to do things twice as well.  Nowhere in the Biblical narrative is this more clear than in the case of the first Christmas in Bethlehem of Judea.

 

On the one hand, nothing is more unique than the birth of Christ.  Never before, and never since, has God deigned to enter his creation as a human being, even a baby.  I’m fond of saying that those things that are done perfectly need never be repeated, and the birth of Jesus falls into this category.  By any measure the Incarnation was a success, and achieved everything the Father intended that it should accomplish.  By Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, he has, in the words of Oswald Chambers,

 

“…switched the whole of the human race back into a right relationship with God.”

 

But for all the success of the Incarnation, it still had one major weakness, and that was its particularity.  Even after his resurrection, Jesus was limited in his presence to one time, one place, one audience.  If the whole of humanity, the whole of creation were to be redeemed, something more needed to be done.  What we see, to our eternal joy, is that the Father decreed that upon his ascension, Jesus would be empowered to send his own Spirit forth to all humanity.  The plan was that people might do in their individual circumstances what Jesus himself would do were he there.  In allowing this, the full ministry of the risen Lord could be multiplied to the extent that any and everybody who was disposed to obey him as Lord would become his ambassador.

 

The only catch in this arrangement is that it involves the will of the human recipient.  Our justification doesn’t require our knowledge, approval or participation in any way, for it was accomplished in full on Good Friday; Jesus is Savior of all.  Our reception of God’s Spirit does require our knowledge, approval and participation, however, because it involves our will, our volition.  Specifically, it requires that we cede that will to another, even Jesus Christ.  Because of this glaring difference, Jesus is not Lord of all.  The reason some refuse this interference in their lives is because it is, strictly speaking, unnatural.  Adam and Eve were very deliberate in their decision to rebel, and it’s only by a series of moral choices that we undo the rights and habits they established.  What are those choices?  Essentially, more than doing new things, they are a cessation of things that we’ve always done.  First of all, we have to stop running from God.  Whereas Adam ran because he was naked and ashamed, Paul says we are now clothed with Christ, and thus clothed we can cry “Abba, Father.”  Further, we must stop trying to repay our debt to God as if we ever could.  The evil servant, confronted with his astronomical and unpayable debt, simply asked for more time, and he would pay everything.  This is temporizing, purely and simply.  Finally, to cede our will means that we stop committing Adam’s other sin, and that was deciding for ourselves what is good and evil.  If we would be about Jesus’ business, we must submit to him in all ways, not only in terms of what we don’t do, but also what we do.

 

About now you’re asking, wasn’t this article about Christmas?  Trust me, I’m getting there.  On the one hand, the birth of Christ was a unique event, never suffering or requiring repetition.  On the other hand, it is a metaphor for what we must undergo if we are to be restored to usefulness in God’s kingdom.  In the words of Oswald Chambers…

 

“Just as Our Lord came into human history from outside, so He must come into me from outside.  Have I allowed my personal human life to become a ‘Bethlehem’ for the Son of God?”  

 

The Orthodox church makes much of Mary, calling her theotokos, which means God-bearer.  Rome venerates her as well, viewing her as slightly more accessible and no less powerful than her son, our Lord Jesus.  What Oswald is pointing out is that although nobody can nor need duplicate Mary’s role historically, we must all replicate her role spiritually.  We can, no less than she, carry the person of Jesus in our hearts and minds, making him present here and now no less than he was present in Bethlehem.  

 

The only complication with this plan is that it requires our cooperation.  Just as Mary said, “I am the Lord’s servant, May it be to me as you have said,” we have to utter the same words of submission.  What unites all Christians is not that we are cleansed from our sins by the death of Christ; all humanity can make that claim.  What is peculiar to Christians is that we have renounced that Satanic independence into which we were born, and have agreed that Jesus should not only be our Savior, but our Lord as well.

 

Here we see God as the ultimate poet, the ultimate lover of his creation.  He is not content that things should be to his liking in heaven, he also wants them to be to his honor and glory on earth.  So he makes it possible, nay, necessary, that He who dwells in heaven in his primal glory, should also return to earth in the hearts of those who will do his bidding.  And this is the key; he visits those who are predisposed to do what he says were he to speak!  As Oswald Chamber says,

 

“If anything is a mystery to you and it is coming in between you and God, never look for the explanation in your intellect, look for it in your disposition, it is that which is wrong.”

 

If we are willing, then God will do repeatedly and spiritually what he did uniquely and historically in the coming of his Son into the world.  Two moral actors, two realms of creation, two Advents; there is a fundamental binary quality to the cosmos.  Separate in spatial and temporal dimensions, yet unified in the spiritual.  This theme of unity overcoming separation is what characterizes God’s activity, and it is possible only through the repetition of the life Jesus brings.  When we encounter repetition in language, it’s poetry.  When we encounter it in our lives, it becomes the heart of God.  Oswald continues:

 

“I cannot enter into the realm of the Kingdom of God unless I am born from above by a birth totally unlike natural birth.  ‘Ye must be born again.’  This is not a command, it is a foundation fact.  The characteristic of the new birth is that I yield myself so completely to God that Christ is formed in me.”

 

Jan 13
0

God: The CliffsNotes

By | Cleric Listens | No Comments

Introduction

 

When I was in college, CliffsNotes were displayed behind the bookstore counter, covering all the books and topics students would be tested on in the coming semester. Now, far be it from me to consult one of these cheat sheets, but there they were. SOMEBODY must be buying them, having neglected to do their homework on a timely basis. The notion was this: you don’t have to read the whole text, read the CliffsNotes and get what is essential while avoiding what was optional. It strikes me that somebody needs to do this for the average man in the street, who knows nothing about the Bible or all that has been written about it. Where is theology that accords with Antoine de St. Exupery, who when contemplating his biplane observed, “perfection is achieved not when there’s nothing more to add, but when there’s nothing more to take away?”

The purpose of this exercise is to document the critical issue of how God deals with mankind, and what is expected of us by way of response. Folks, that’s all that really matters, and it isn’t that complicated. It’s rumored that Karl Barthe, no stranger to overkill in his own oeuvre, was asked towards the end of his career what he had learned about theology. His answer? He quoted the child’s ditty, “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.” Just so. Short of wholesale reductionism like this, let’s see what can be said about God and his dealings with us that is essential, correct, and brief. Our audience, lost and hurting, deserves nothing less.

 

Question: How Does God Deal with Humanity?

 

How does God deal with man? In two ways: forensically and effectually. There is a logical priority here, so they should be dealt with in order.

 

By forensically I mean legally. Because God is moral, and because we’ve been created in his image, we exist in a moral relationship with him. That means that there is a hierarchy in our relationship: he is in a position of authority, and we are in a position of subservience. These are not popular notions, but that doesn’t detract from their veracity. God’s position of moral superiority is inexorable and immutable, and is characterized by a divine sovereignty of volition. God can and does do what he wants, when he wants, and there’s not much we can do about it, not that we should want to.

 

This is what allows us to talk about what is right and wrong. Things are right or wrong to the extent that they coincide with this divine will. To be right, you must be in accord with divine will. Anything else is to be wrong. Thus, right and wrong are discovered only by revelation; they are received by us as subjects in God’s creation. Want to know right from wrong? Read the Bible. From its stories we can infer all we need to know of God’s moral requirements.

 

So we find ourselves in a moral relationship with God whether we like it or not. It follows that that relationship can go one of two ways; well or poorly. The Bible is a story about how it went well for a chapter or two, then went poorly, and then, through God’s persistent and patient work, started to go well again. When our representative, Adam, ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he caused two problems for himself and all his children. First of all, he brought moral guilt upon all humanity. On account of his disobedience, God was now at enmity with man. He was mad at us. The second problem Adam caused was that his actions killed the spirit of man, and we lost our ability to be in touch with God. As Jesus says, God is spirit, and those who would worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. The symptom of this spiritual death is that we are incapable of doing right, and are only capable of doing wrong. We are weak, we lack power to do anything worthwhile from a moral or divine perspective. When we try to do right, we fail, and we blame God for exposing our error because it stands in stark contrast to his abiding holiness. So not only are we guilty in God’s sight, we are also hobbled in actual fact. We are at enmity with God. We are mad at him.

 

Now God has a dilemma on his hands. What to do? First of all, he can start over with a better cast of characters. This is what he did in the flood, when he decided that only Noah had anything on the ball. Yet in the end, starting over changed nothing, and that approach was forever abandoned; God gave us the rainbow. Secondly, God could simply go over the rules again, and hope that the trouble was caused by an information deficit. This is the story of the Old Testament. On the off chance that the Jews simply needed some guidance and encouragement, he gave the Law through Moses and correction through the Prophets. Needless to say, nothing changed here either. Even though the Jews had all the information they needed, and rituals that addressed their moral quandary, they continued to evince the guilt and powerlessness common to man as a result of the Fall.

 

Our problems with God have consequences in our relationships with the rest of Creation as well; we fight one another, the created order, and ourselves. Sickness, death, estrangement, violence; all are symptoms of a prior schism with our Creator.

 

Finally, God can undertake reform on his own, unilaterally. If man’s the problem, by leaving him out of the process perhaps an effective remedy can be found. This is the story of the New Testament. Here we have God getting to the root problems of moral guilt and powerlessness, not patching things up with a band-aid. The way he does this is through his Son, Jesus of Nazareth. As Paul says in Romans 5:9,10, he justifies us by the death of Christ, and he saves us by his life. Redemption involves not one but both of these activities.

 

In order to solve the problem of our moral guilt, God came up with a plan called the substitutionary atonement. It’s based on the principle that when a law is broken, the guilty party must pay with their life. As Scripture says, “without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.” It works in this manner: God selects somebody who is without sin, who is not guilty, and assigns to them the guilt or responsibility for the crime that has been committed. The punishment that is due the guilty party is put on this innocent party. The grace or freedom that was due the innocent party is then transferred to the guilty party. A great exchange takes place, whereby the innocent pays the price owed by the guilty, and the guilty are accorded the liberty due the innocent. Hardly fair for the innocent, but who are we to complain? The only problem with this plan is that nobody on earth could be found to function as an innocent sacrifice. All people, imbued with sin, fail on the first requirement that the victim be themselves innocent. For this plan to work, somebody had to be found who was not subject to the hereditary sin that bedevils all mankind. This is where Jesus of Nazareth comes in. Not having a human father, he doesn’t have the heredity of sin the rest of us do. He, alone, of all people born on this earth, qualifies to function as the scapegoat in this plan of redemption. Just as God provided a ram for Abraham so he didn’t have to sacrifice Isaac, God provides his own son to take our place as the intended sacrifice. As Abraham said to Isaac, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” By offering himself in our place, Jesus upholds the perfect holiness of God, while enabling sinners to have communion with God once again.

 

This tells us something about God’s nature. He is willing to pay the price for humanity to be redeemed through his own suffering. This magnanimity is why we worship God.

 

Viewed this way, we understand the cosmic significance of certain events in history. Specifically, we see that as of Good Friday, judgment has been passed on human sin for all people, in all places, and for all time. There is no limit to the power of the blood of Jesus. As Scripture says, he died for the sins of the whole world. As Jesus further says, all sins and blasphemies uttered against the Son of Man will be forgiven. We will never be judged for the wrong we do, our sins of commission. No longer need we be ashamed for our nakedness, as Adam was, for we are now clothed with Christ, to use Paul’s expression. In a very real sense, God is no longer at enmity with us; he is no longer mad at us. The curtain separating God from man is torn in two, and we can boldly enter God’s presence as children.

 

Good Christian ministry stresses the effectiveness of God’s actions on Good Friday. As of then, our sins are washed away. It is important for people to know this. This is why we baptize infants who are oblivious to their spiritual condition. All people, infant and adult, stand justified by that one-time, unrepeatable, forensic transaction whereby the Father judged sin in the person of his Son without reference to our knowledge or participation.

 

Easter, therefore, is derivative in its importance. It is significant not just because Jesus is found to be alive, but because of WHY he’s alive. The Law prescribed death as a punishment for moral transgression. When Jesus died for our sins, the Law was satisfied. Having been satisfied for all time and eternity, it ceased to exist; it was fulfilled. When it ceased to exist, the penalty it prescribed, death, was also vitiated. The resurrection of Jesus Christ proves that the whole of mankind is now rehabilitated in God’s eyes. We are in Christ, as both relational metaphor and legal reality.

 

One problem solved, one to go. If divine intervention on our behalf stopped with Good Friday, we would be abandoned to an endless cycle of spiritual tumult. Moral effort would lead to failure, failure to guilt, guilt to confession, confession to forgiveness, forgiveness to renewed effort and subsequent failure. God, in his love, for us, knows that we need not only legal forgiveness but also effectual help. We need to be changed in reality as well as exonerated legally. To do this, he again turns to his son Jesus. He forgives us through his death, but to use Paul’s terminology in Romans 5:9,10, he saves us through his life.

 

Paul makes a clear distinction between these two activities, justification and salvation, as does the author of the Letter to the Hebrews. This distinction is also implicit in all of the parables and in the words of John the Baptist. What we gather from Scripture is that in addition to the judgment passed on sin on Good Friday, there will also be a judgment leveled on fruitlessness at the consummation of the age. Matthew 25 portrays this as a separation of the sheep from the goats, and the distinguishing criterion will not be sin committed, but rather righteousness squandered. Nobody is judged for wrongs done, but all will be judged for the good not performed. John the Baptist refers to this when he says that the axe is already laid to the root of the tree that does not bear fruit. Jesus, in his parable of the wedding garments, states that all are invited to the wedding feast, both good and bad (universal justification,) but the guest who is found to be without wedding garments is cast out, for he does not have the fruit that is expected of those who would put themselves in the Spirit’s service.

 

Many attribute the Pauline distinction between justification and salvation to Hebrew parallelism. This is wrong. Until the reality of TWO judgments for different problems is realized, Christian soteriology makes no sense. Once you do make the distinction, then everything falls into place. The idea of salvation is that we have been put in Christ’s position legally, but our nature is unchanged. Only when the Spirit of Christ enters us effectually does that essential nature change, and we can have the power to do right. In addition to being in Christ, we need Christ in us. This is the normative expectation of the Bible story, yet it’s not widely understood by Christians. Many act like Mary Magdalene, who recognized Jesus after his resurrection. In her enthusiasm she clings to him, not wanting to let him go. Yet Jesus chastises her, saying that to cling would be wrong, as he must return to the Father to complete his redemptive work. Should he not ascend, he would not be accorded the authority to shed his Spirit abroad over all humanity as happened on Pentecost. Uninformed Christians, many of whom appreciate their justification, nevertheless do not know that God has done more for them than merely forgive them. He has also made it possible to recover their spiritual capacity lost at the Fall and be a successful spiritual creature once again.

 

The experience of trying to live without a personal Pentecost is called back-sliding, and results in that spiritual treadmill described earlier. People who have this experience usually do one of two things. Either they persist in trying to please God with their own efforts and become neurotic, unattractive religious humbugs, or they can give up and reject Christian morality as impossible, and become religious liberals.

 

Question: What Does God Expect from Us?

 

The experience of spiritual renewal being described here has been given many names: being born again, baptized in the Holy Spirit, filled with the Holy Spirit, regenerated, being saved or being converted. They all attempt to describe the same reality, that the individual, born a two part person with a body and a soul, is as of salvation a three part person, with the addition of the Holy Spirit of the risen Lord Jesus entering into their being. The details of the experience vary as gifts of the Spirit vary, and it is a mistake to make some aspects of the experience normative for all. What is normative, however, is that the conscious mind will have a new awareness of God’s moral authority, as well as a new capacity for obedience to that authority. Evangelical denominations tend to associate this experience with adult baptism, while churches with historical consciousness tend to associate it with Confirmation. Because individual experiences vary, some conclude that this whole process of personal regeneration is optional. This is a grave mistake, and lies at the root of the incapacity of the Christian Church we see today. Again, the Bible suggests the following bilateral symmetry:

 

 

Actor Man’s Problem Attitude as of the Fall Solution Historic Event Extent Our Position Relative to Christ Associated Sacrament 2

Judgments

 Role of Christ Event in Theological Terms
God Guilt Enmity with Man Blood of Christ Good Friday Universal Us in Christ legally Baptism On Sin Savior Justification
Man Power-

lessness

 Enmity with God Life of Christ Pentecost Particular Christ in us effectually Eucharist On Fruitless-ness Lord Salvation

 

We see that two actors have two perspectives that lead to two problems requiring two solutions, both involving the Son of God. One solution does not involve our participation, just our appreciation. The other solution, because it impinges on our will or volition, DOES involve our participation. To the extent that we accept the idea that we must cede our will to God, all will go well. To the extent that we take umbrage at God’s requirements, we will not be allowed to participate in God’s salvation. Thus, the seemingly random experience of spiritual regeneration is not due to God’s caprice or “election,” but rather our willingness to acknowledge our position of moral servitude. To be more specific, God links the outpouring of the Holy Spirit to our attitude towards that document written by that same Spirit, the Bible. If we go to God and say, “I want your spiritual blessings in the here and now, but I’m going to argue with what the Spirit has caused to be written in the past,” then I’m pretty sure God’s going to withhold further spiritual revelation until that attitude changes. He doesn’t, as Jesus said, cast his pearls before swine. This reality makes it hard for people-first types to get anywhere with God. If we cling to our liberal notions about freedom of the will in all its permutations, we will find ourselves bereft of true revelation.

 

Here it’s appropriate to address the attention paid by many Christians, notably Protestants, to the terms election and predestination. Reading the Bible from a Western, or Greek perspective, these terms seem to suggest that God chooses some for salvation and others for damnation without regard to individual volition or behavior. Although this conclusion does uphold God’s sovereignty, it does violence to his character as a loving Creator. It is helpful to note several things about how the Bible uses these terms. First of all, it can be argued that they are used exclusively when addressing Gentile readers, or speaking of God’s treatment of Gentiles. Rather than argue that God is arbitrary, the terms suggest that God, in his eternal counsels, knew of the spiritual needs of Gentiles and in his love included them in his plan of redemption. Until the coming of Christ, the revelation of God was limited to Jews. With the coming of Jesus, however, that revelation was opened up to Gentiles as well, in what Paul calls the “mystery of God.” By using the terms foreknowledge, choice and election, the Biblical authors are assuring their Gentile readers that they, too, are objects of God’s love and eligible for inclusion in his plan of redemption. Further, these terms should be understood in the light of Eastern or Jewish intent. Typically, Easterners do not think in terms of individuals, but rather in terms of families, tribes, nations or other groups; types if you will. What these terms really state is that ALL those who submit to God’s plan of redemption, without regard to race, are eligible for eternal felicities. The idea of double predestination, wherein God damns some arbitrarily as individuals is a pernicious and false reading of Scripture. The term predestination never refers to assigning some to heaven and some to hell, but rather to stipulating that benefits will accrue to believers in this life, and not just in the life to come. We are predestined, for example, to conformance to the nature of Christ or adoption as sons, while we yet live. This is not to suggest that God’s plan of redemption cannot be frustrated. God does allow us to damn ourselves. In the words of Oswald Chambers, “The condemnation is not that I am born with a heredity of sin, but if when I realize Jesus Christ came to deliver me from it, I refuse to let Him do so, from that moment I begin to get the seal of damnation.”

 

Christians are forever fighting about whether or not we can “lose our salvation.” Certain terms, not found in the Scriptures, such as “eternal security,” have been coined to introduce the notion that “once saved, always saved.” These conundra have their root in poor Biblical exegesis. As said before, justification is universal, while salvation is particular. It’s not so much that one “loses” their justification, but that the introduction of a second judgment renders acquittal at the first nugatory. It is entirely possible to experience the joy of forgiveness and moral justification, and eventually be cut off and burned as a fruitless branch. The branches that are burned in John 15:2 were originally, in Jesus’ words, “in me.”

 

So if God doesn’t save or damn as individuals arbitrarily, what does he look for? Roman Catholics typically have answered ritual fidelity, fundamentalists have responded by saying the avoidance of certain attractive sins, and dispensationalists have said God looks for knowledge. None of these is correct. Technically speaking, God’s not looking for anything positive at all, but rather something negative. He doesn’t want us to do anything, but to stop doing something. He wants us to exhibit two qualities, both of which are negations. First of all, he wants us to be honest; honest about our inability to do anything morally good or correct on our own. He wants us to stop protesting our innocence. Then, he wants us to be humble. Humility is a willingness to accept his intervention and aid. Lacking the power to do any good thing ourselves, as Paul laments in Romans 7, we invite him to come and do in us what we can’t do ourselves, and to give him all the credit for it. God doesn’t want to improve us, he wants to replace us; a very different thing. All this comes back to our perception of God’s moral authority. Do we grant him all authority, or do we reserve moral authority for ourselves?

 

Perhaps it’s best to go back to the beginning to discover what God is looking for by way of response from us. When Adam ate of the tree in the garden, he saw that he was naked and ashamed, and ran from God. He was mad at God. As of Good Friday, however, we are “clothed with Christ,” and no longer stand naked nor in need of being ashamed. Therefore, what God’s now looking for from us is that we accept this new legal standing, and stop running from him. When he offers us the Spirit of his son Jesus as a gift, we should accept it in trust that it’s a good thing, and not judge, whine or run away as if we believe it to be an evil trick. To run from the Spirit is to commit the one sin that will not be forgiven, which is described as blaspheming the Holy Spirit. When you refuse the offer of a personal Pentecost, or reject the words of the Bible that were written by the Holy Spirit, you recommit Adam’s sin, nail Christ to the cross all over again, and cut yourself off from spiritual power and the possibility of bearing fruit. We may exist, but we are not alive.

 

Jesus has two titles: Savior and Lord. He is the Savior of all, no matter what you know or acknowledge. He is your Lord only by a matter of moral transaction: will I do what my Lord says?

 

What we’ve shown so far is that God deals with man in two ways and only two ways. There is no mystery, no fuzziness, no vagueness about his dealings with man. Although our experiences of God differ and he defies being placed in a box according to our wishes, nevertheless God’s plan of redemption is as consistent and immutable as he is. From his dealings with us, we can conclude what he expects from us. Specifically, he doesn’t expect from us things we cannot do ourselves. He doesn’t expect us to be perfect or even good. He doesn’t expect us to come to him with works, but only true, solid sin. He doesn’t expect us to change things we cannot change. What he does expect, as stated before, is honesty and humility. All who submit to God’s plan of redemption are predestined to new life now and elect to participate in the life to come. Those who reject the plan as onerous, too degrading or whatever, are in effect arguing with God and will find themselves deprived of his plan’s benefits. As John 5:22 says, you cannot honor the Father without honoring the Son, and as John 12:48 says, you cannot honor the Son without honoring the Word he speaks as Lord. If a person is not in touch with God, it’s because they have put conditions on their submission to his Word.

 

Why all this effort of God’s part? For two reasons. First of all, man was destined for holiness, not destruction. God intends to put creation back on the right footing it was on in the beginning. But now it is not based upon something as ephemeral as man’s ability to understand and obey. The new Kingdom of God is based upon resolute and absolute obedience of the Son of God who redeems all by his death and animates all by his Holy Spirit. The second reason the Father goes to all this trouble is that a bride must be found for the Son. Just as Abraham sent his servant back to his homeland to find a bride suitable for his son Isaac, and Isaac for his son Jacob, so, too, the heavenly Father sends his Son to earth to find a suitable bride. One who is chaste, spotless, responsive and obedient. This can only be a bride who has been purified by the blood of the Cross of Good Friday and animated by the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.   Like all good stories, the story of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is at its root a love story. The object of love gets into trouble, but through the perseverance of the lover, all obstacles are overcome, the marriage takes place, and they live happily ever after.

 

Question: Is All This Doctrine Important?

 

Now why all this effort to establish doctrine with regard to what’s known as soteriology, the doctrine of how we’re saved? The last time people fought about this was 400 years ago. Weren’t all the salient issues resolved then? Actually, no. And all the vituperation that’s flying around today about what constitutes Christian behavior is a direct result of having either forgotten received truth or having new, unresolved doctrinal issues.

 

Perhaps the most pernicious result of doctrinal laxity is the notion that there is no role for humans to play in their own redemption. John Calvin and his acolytes went so far as to say that we have no control over our eternal destinies; it’s decided by God, and arbitrarily at that. Therefore, when ethical questions arise, it’s hard for Christians to say what right behavior is, or that there’s a standard for morality at all. The answer to this quandary is to remember that there are two judgments, one for sin and one for fruitfulness. The former is taken care of by God unilaterally on the Cross on Good Friday. In spite of what Calvin said, there is no limited atonement regarding sin. On the other hand, something is expected of us by way of response to that reality, and that is a negation of our freedom so powerfully exercised at the time of the Fall. We are expected to recognize the incompatibility of our moral freedom and the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and to cede that freedom to him as Lord. This is not a pleasant process, and is therefore one that many, indeed most, shy away from. This explains why justification can be universal, but salvation is not; most lack the moral character necessary to stop running from God and let the Holy Spirit have his way with us.

 

If this is true, the consequences for our approach to pastoral ministry are legion. Everything we do as Christians should be directed towards helping others come to a right conclusion about the deleterious effects of moral free agency, that they might consciously place themselves under the moral authority of the risen Lord.               Listen to what an astute pastoral counselor, Bill Gillham, has said.

 

“Biblical counseling seeks to lead the believer to the end of his strength – regardless of how productive (or nonproductive [sic]) such ‘strength’ may have proven to be – and into the certainty of Christ’s strength through him! The Holy Spirit, often through the school of adversity, always works against the believer’s dependency upon the flesh. Ultimately his flesh becomes nonproductive [sic] by Supernatural design at which time many seek counseling. The counselor who uses techniques generated by lost men to help such a believer cut his losses is interrupting God’s process of bringing that Christian to the end of his personal resources. The more ‘skilled’ and ‘effective’ the counselor, the more he sets God back to square one, having to begin the breaking process all over again.”

 

The same note is echoed by Oswald Chambers, who writes:

 

“One of the severest lessons comes from the stubborn refusal to see that we must not interfere in other people’s lives. It takes a long time to realize the danger of being an amateur providence, that is, interfering with God’s order for others. You see a certain person suffering, and you say – He shall not suffer, and I will see that he does not. You put your hand straight in front of God’s permissive will to prevent it, and God says, – ‘What is that to thee?’ If there is stagnation spiritually, never allow it to go on, but get into God’s presence and find out the reason for it. Possibly you will find it is because you have been interfering in the life of another; proposing things you had no right to propose; advising when you had no right to advise.”

 

This perspective runs completely counter to what many consider “Christian” behavior and proper “pastoral” care. When we are asked to minister to the homeless, alcoholics, drug users, sexually promiscuous, serial adulterers, or what have you, relief of their immediate suffering may be exactly what God does NOT want you to do. When symptoms of spiritual death are removed, there is little incentive to go to the root problem, which is organic separation from the Holy Spirit. Bad soteriology leads to bad pastoral theology, each and every time. The debates that rack the Church today are unmistakable evidence that theology was neglected yesterday.

 

Answer

 

Although I would never have depended upon a CliffsNotes while in college, I do believe there was a disclaimer somewhere in each volume that said something to the effect that reading the Notes was not a substitute for reading the actual work. It was intended, it said, to complement the original work to enhance understanding of what you’ve already read. I echo that, perhaps vain, entreaty, with regard to the Bible. Is this a comprehensive summary of the contents of the entire Bible or the self-revelation of God? Of course not. But just like the CliffsNotes, this summary may just serve to help you pass the only test that counts, the test of your response to the love of God as found in the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. That’s a test for which there is no make-up, no retest, no recovery. But tests are only bad when you’re not prepared. If you’re prepared, they’re a chance to show what you know: that God is love, and has already done all that is needed to solve our two problems of moral guilt and powerlessness. That, if you ask me, is pretty good news.

 

CliffsNotes is a registered trademark of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, and is used without permission.

Jan 13
0

500 Years and Counting: Is This The Best We Can Do?

By | Cleric Listens | No Comments

Introduction

 

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church defines soteriology as “the section of Christian theology which treats of the saving work of Christ for the world.”  I would dilate on that definition by adding, “It’s also the section of theology where there is the least agreement with the worst consequences.”  Freud once famously remarked, “The great question that has never been answered, and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is ‘What does a woman want?'”  In a similar vein, I would rejoin, “The great question that has never been answered, and which the Church has not yet been able to answer, despite its 2,000 years of research into the mind of God, is ‘What does God want?'”  Important as it is to know what women want, it’s even more important to know what God wants.  Yet if the last 500 years are any indication, there are many obstacles to figuring this out.

 

The Problem

 

The first obstacle appears to be that the Protestant Church thinks the answer to this question was discovered 400 years ago in Holland.  The Synod of Dort, in the aforementioned country, pitted the adherents of John Calvin against those of Jacobus Arminius.  What the Calvinists proposed was that God followed a policy of double predestination when dealing with his children.  Some he elected or predestined to salvation in order to show his mercy.  Others, however, he preterated or damned to perdition to manifest his justice.  Arminius, though dead by the time of the council, had already gone on record as objecting to this model, based on the argument that for God to mandate rebellion in his eternal councils, he would be making himself the author of sin.  Despite the validity of this argument, the followers of Calvin prevailed and double predestination became the law of the land for most Protestant traditions.  To be sure, Calvin and his sycophants can be excused for arguing for God’s sovereignty, considering the prevailing Roman doctrine that man can manipulate God through sacramental observance.  Nevertheless, by saying that the individual cannot have anything to do with their election or preteration, Calvin undermined the power and appeal of the Gospel.  If God’s decisions are arbitrary, the most we can do is search for “signs of election” in our own lives, and steer clear of those around us who do not have such signs.  Christians are left in doubt, appeals for morality are labeled Pelagian, evangelism is stultified, and Church schism is ensured.  Although fellowship with the East had been abandoned centuries before, and Rome had responded to the Reformation with the Council of Trent, the Protestant Church had now painted itself into a theological corner out of which is could not logically emerge.  Those who objected to this harsh double predestination either reverted to Rome, traveled to the East, or simply ignored the issue.  The last time the Protestant Church met in ecumenical council to resolve its problems, the wrong side won.  Welcome to the present day.

 

The second obstacle to developing a functional soteriology is that double predestination and the corollary of five point Calvinism appear to have the warrant of Scripture.  A brief review of the basic terms of elect, election and predestination will show this to be true.  It is a gross simplification to focus on only these three words, but they do embody the basic ideas Calvin and his adherents used to refute Roman arguments limiting God’s sovereignty on the one hand, and Arminius’ allegedly Pelagian claims on the other.

 

What are those verses?  The  terms elect, election and predestination appear in the Greek a total of 28 times in the New Testament.  The instances that interest us in terms of context number fifteen for elect or election, and four for predestined; a total of 19 occurrences.   Elect and election are both nouns, referring to the subjects of the process of election and the process itself, respectively.  The former is used six times in the Gospels, three each in Matthew and Mark and are attributed to Jesus himself.  The remaining 13 occurrences are in various epistles of Paul and Peter.

 

In the Gospels the word translated elect is attributed to Jesus by both Matthew and Mark in what’s known as the Olivet Discourse or the Little Apocalypse (Mt. 24, Mk 13.)  Jesus has been questioned by his disciples about his statement that all the Temple buildings will soon be torn down.  He replies with a deeper explanation about the events that would characterize the Roman invasion to take place in AD 70, in which Titus and his engineers would in fact dismantle the entire city.  Jesus uses the term elect to describe those who would be spared the destruction that would come upon Jerusalem and most of its inhabitants.  The Markan and Matthean accounts are essentially identical, with it being probable that Matthew simply copied Marks prior account.

 

The words elect or election next appear in Paul’s letter to the Romans (11:7, 9:11, 11:28.)  What could be more clear?  These verses state in plain words that God chooses some people for good things and others for bad. Whether Ishmael, Esau or Pharaoh, each in turn is passed by, at God’s sovereign discretion, in favor of others who are children of promise.  

 

Elect and election are subsequently used by Paul in the Pastoral Epistles to Timothy (I Ti 5:21, 2 Ti 2:10) and Titus (1:1).  In the first instance he appears to suggest that angels, in addition to people, are subject to election.  This may be what he believes, or is merely a figure of speech to emphasize the obvious validity of what he’s saying.   Apart from this mild departure, Paul uses the term the way Jesus does, to refer to those under the spiritual care of Timothy and Titus who have escaped the delusions of whatever they believed before they became Christians.  Peter continues this usage, by addressing his audience in his first epistle, as elect, chosen by God according to His foreknowledge (1 Pe 1:10.)  His use of the term election departs from this pattern, and I’ll address this in a moment.

The term predestined is only found four times in the New Testament, twice in Romans and twice in Ephesians (Ro 8:29, 8:30, Eph 1:5, 1:11.)  In Romans 8 Paul appears to use the terms foreknew, predestined, and called almost synonymously, and adds the notions of justification and glorification.  What he seems to be getting at is that redemption is a linear process, but one that begins and ends with God, and one that has actual, concrete results.

 

So these are the 19 times these seminal terms appear in the New Testament.  Again, to the Calvinist, nothing could be more clear, or simple.  So a third obstacle to developing a functional soteriology is that the doctrine of double predestination is simple to promulgate.   Any competing theory would have a hard time matching it for parsimony.  It solves a great number of problems with one response, “God decided it from before time and forever, and you needn’t bother yourself with asking why.”  The acrostic TULIP has been developed to summarize the five simple points of Reformed doctrine.  How much simpler can it get?  It even reduces to a cute word, and one with Dutch associations, no less.

 

The careful reader of the Scriptures, however, will be troubled by a review of the linguistic evidence for double predestination.  First of all, 19 occurrences in the whole of the Bible are hardly comprehensive.  Secondly, there are many verses that seem to contradict the notion that all is determined by divine fiat and nothing is left to humans by way of volitional response.  What of Paul in Romans 10 saying there is something to believe and something to confess?  What about Peter, while using these very terms urging “make your calling and election sure,” and “exert yourselves to clinch God’s choice and calling of you?”  The author of the Letter to the Hebrews says plainly in chapter 6 that it is possible for those who have been enlightened and filled with the Holy Spirit to fall away.  Paul, in Galatians 5:4, points out that his readers may have “fallen away from grace.”  Is there anything that these 19 passages share in terms of Biblical Introduction that would help explain what they are trying to say, if not a virulent doctrine of double predestination?  A comparison of the texts reveals that there in fact may be a concern shared by the authors that explains this limited but consistent choice of these particular words for a particular purpose.

 

A Solution

 

Good exegesis requires that we start with the author.  Who were they, to whom were they writing, and what was the axe they were grinding?  What we see is that Mark, Paul and Peter all had a common interest in evangelism, specifically to the Gentile world.  Mark goes to great lengths to explain Jewish customs, translates Aramaic words, and otherwise evinces an awareness of the needs of a Gentile audience.  Paul, too, calls himself a minister to the Gentiles, and even Peter, the most parochial of the apostles, addresses his first letter to God’s scattered elect outside of Judea.  Though coming from varied backgrounds, they have a common passion for bringing their message to those outside the Jewish world.  Let’s review the manner in which Gentiles were treated by Jews in the early Church to see if it can shed any light on what these authors wrote.

 

As early as Acts chapter 6 we have problems between Jewish and Gentile Christians encountered in the ministry to widows.  By chapter 10 we have Peter having of vision enjoining the inclusion of Gentiles in the Church, and Cornelius’ household receiving the Holy Spirit.  What is the result of this expansion of God’s grace?  Peter’s criticized by what are described as circumcised believers (Judaizers) who persist in their former practice of not visiting or eating with Gentiles.  And whom does Paul teach in Pisidian Antioch, but “children of Abraham and you God-fearing Gentiles?”  What were the disturbances Paul refers to in these letters other than the genealogies and arguments about the Law that Judaizers were using to bolster their own standing at the expense of Gentile believers?  Does Peter’s speech quell the disturbance?  Not at all.  In Acts 15 we’ve got the same Judaizers saying unless you maintain the customs of Abraham, “you cannot be saved.”   To resolve this issue, the first serious schism in the Christian Church, the first ecumenical council was held in Jerusalem.  This Council produced a letter to the Church in Antioch and any other Gentile believers, stating that all God requires of converts is abstention from sexual immorality and avoidance of dietary practices that are abhorrent to Jews.  Only in light of this early and persistent controversy can we understand the need to address the insecurities of Gentile converts.

 

Elect in the Gospels

 

Though Jesus was always careful to point out that he had been sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, by the time we get to the Olivet discourse he’s drawing a distinction, much as he does for the woman at the well at Sychar, between the New Covenant and the Old.  Whereas he was sent to the Jews, he is now pointing out that it is not those who are Jewish racially who will benefit from his ministry, but rather those who are Jewish spiritually, those who submit to his authority as arbitrator of a new covenant based on allegiance to himself.  What he is saying is that in the coming dislocations, the Temple and its theological basis, the Law, will not suffice for personal redemption.  Those who survive will be chosen according to a new criterion, that of devotion to himself, not the outdated Temple.  Jesus describes these people as “those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead…”(Lk 20:35.)  He does not describe them as “those who are arbitrarily chosen by my father to exhibit his mercy or his justice.”  He does not stretch language to the point of being misleading.  Thus, Jesus is opening the hope of redemption to all people, regardless of race, which had theretofore been restricted to racial Jews.

 

But what about Matthew?  Didn’t he write to Jews, to prove that Jesus was their Messiah?  Indeed he did.  Literary criticism reveals that Mark is writing for a primarily Gentile audience, while Matthew is writing for Jews.   Yet even though this is true of Matthew, he also said some things to show that Jesus is also the Savior of the Gentile world as well.  He maintained a global, non-racial appeal in his account, for the field is “the world” and the Great Commission is without limitation.  Mark’s concern for the Gentile world can be established from the outset if his audience was in fact the Church in Rome, who needed Jewish customs to be explained and Aramaic terms translated.  If you accept the literary primacy of Mark with its clear attempts to be intelligible to a Gentile audience, Matthew’s inclusion of this passage verbatim can be easily understood.  Both quote Jesus as saying that the elect will be drawn “from the four winds,” and from “one end of the heavens to the other.”

 

Elect and Election in the Epistles

 

An even stronger case for believing Paul wanted to bring encouragement to Gentile believers is found in the Pastoral Epistles of 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus.  Paul is addressing first Timothy, who is half Greek, and then Titus, who is a complete Gentile.  Each has been left by Paul in charge of congregations consisting primarily of Gentiles in Gentile lands, who are facing the first problem to plague the Christian Church, and that is the proliferation of Judaizers.  The situation that Jesus had predicted had come true, in that membership in the Kingdom of God was already passing from a racial basis to a spiritual one, and the Church was having trouble adapting.  In addressing Timothy, who was left in charge of the church at Ephesus, a Gentile city, Paul points out that Timothy’s charges are “the elect” who must strive to “obtain” that which is freely provided in Jesus Christ, salvation.  It would be suitable in this usage to substitute “faithful” in place of “elect.”  Ditto with Paul’s letter to Titus, a Gentile in charge of a Gentile church in Crete, a Gentile island.  Here he greets his protégé with an exhortation to serve his parishioners, the “elect,” who are recipients of God’s promises made “before the beginning of time,” no less than Jews.  This theme of inclusion based on faith and response to the preaching of the Gospel continues in 1st Peter, where Peter identifies himself as an apostle of Jesus Christ who is writing to “God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father…”

 

Now to Romans, long considered by Calvinists to be the clearest exposition of double predestination in the whole of Scripture.  In order to understand Romans 11, however, you have to first read Romans chapter 9, and to understand Romans 9 you must first have read Romans 1. How does Paul start the epistle off?  The very first thing Paul does in chapter 1, apart from greeting his readers, is to set forth the mechanism by which men are damned, and by contrast, how they might be saved.  No election or preteration here!  What he points out is that worship is paramount.  Wrong worship leads to wrong thinking, a delusion if you will.  That delusion, in turn, leads to godless behavior that is subject, rightly, to God’s wrath.  People are not damned to show God’s justice, they are damned because they engage in wrong worship and subsequent wrong thinking and consequent wrong behavior.  By the time we get to chapter 9, Paul is arguing that it is possible to be a child of Abraham according to the flesh, and thus heir of all God’s promises, yet to persist in wrong worship and as a consequence experience eternal loss.  It is entirely possible, he points out, to be the rightful heir as being the first in line, as Esau was, yet to not be the child of promise as Jacob became.  Jacob and Esau are a metaphor for the spiritual reality that is to follow.  He is arguing that God has the right to change the rules of the game, from that which is arbitrary and ignorant of personal character, race or in this case being primogeniture, and substitute those qualities of honest self evaluation and correct worship.  Pharaoh was not damned because God wanted pull rank, he was damned because he constituted in his very person, as Pharaoh, the essence of wrong worship.  Those who interpret chapter 9 as a manifesto for double predestination are leaving a step out, and that is the step of worship: he hardens those who worship amiss with a delusion, which in turn leads to unrighteous behavior.  This is an eternal law of the Kingdom of God, now true for Jew as well as Gentile.  Paul seems to be saying that while God had indeed been arbitrary before in his choice of Israel, he’s now operating on a rational basis in a way that involves personal choice in worship; a very different thing.   Again, a touchstone of Reformed soteriology?

Remember Paul’s intent.  The argument of Romans, from beginning to end, is that all humanity is unrighteous, and that true righteousness comes from God and is imputed to mankind in a forensic transaction involving the death and subsequent rising to life of Jesus Christ.  The term election occurs in 9:11, the term elect occurs in 11:7, and the term election recurs in 11:28.  Like Jesus, Paul uses the term “elect” to refer to those who, in contrast to the Jews, escaped a hardening of their hearts and maintained God’s favor.  Election, according to Paul, is used in to denote the process by which the elect are determined.  In the first instance, election is contrasted with works and is equated with God’s calling, and in the second it is used to describe God’s promise to the patriarchs which preceded the disobedience of the Jewish nation when confronted with their Messiah.  In keeping with the general argument of the epistle, Paul concludes by saying that all men, Jew and Gentile alike, have been bound over to disobedience at some point or other, so that He might have mercy on them all.  To Paul, then, election means not an arbitrary choosing of some individuals to salvation and others to preteration, but rather God’s provision of a means by which a sinful humanity might be reconciled to himself.  Election, therefore, is constant.  Whether for the patriarchs and their children or for Christians, it is based upon faith in the mercy of the one who calls, not on works.  The fact that the Jews had lost track of this fact and had developed the Law into a system that rewarded religious works is not germane; God still calls even when that call is misunderstood.

 

In Romans 9, Paul goes into the greatest detail yet in order to confound the claims of Jewish superiority over the Gentiles, which is his major thrust throughout this sublime work.  He’s not saying God is arbitrary, but that Isaac’s children were a metaphor for the Jewish nation (the older,) and the Church, (the younger.)  God’s plan of redemption would deal with groups of people, or types.  Election here refers to a new Covenant, a new system, based not upon race and accidents of birth, but rather upon the content of a person’s character in terms of their response to God’s offer of new life in Jesus Christ.  Jewishness is no longer a matter of genetics, but of faith and behavior.  Election implies its opposite, preterition; just as it is possible to succeed it is also possible to fail.  God is not becoming arbitrary, but rather is stating that from this point forth, those judged acceptable to God will be those who fulfill a new criterion, based not upon race but upon character.  Remember that repentance is not a work, a positive action taken through human initiative.  Rather, it is a gift of God, freely offered to all but not accepted by all.  It is not a work, but the cessation of work; the willingness to accept a righteousness from God apart from any initiative of our own, and a new Spirit from God as well.  Thus, Pharaoh, Esau and Ishmael fall short, not because they’re not chosen, but because they’ve chosen to exploit a path to righteousness that involves their own power, not God’s.  They are not rejected because God is capricious, they are rejected because they tried to operate outside God’s one plan for human redemption that suffers no competition or emendation.  Paul closes chapter 9 by emphasizing that the Jews failed not because they were somehow rejected by God, but because they had rejected God and his perfect plan of redemption first.  This theme of God allowing humans to frustrate His plan of redemption is continued by Peter in his second epistle, where he points out that effort, resolve and personal application are required to make their “calling and election sure.”  Election is no sure thing apart from appropriate response on our part, something the Jews resent but Gentiles welcome.  The former object to the New Covenant because their place of privilege is being taken away from them.  The latter rejoice because what was previously out of reach, inclusion in the Kingdom of God, has now been opened to them through the vehicle of faith.

 

Predestined in the Epistles

 

A similar pattern appears when we study the four instances where the term predestined is used in the Scriptures.  Twice in Romans (Gentile audience) and twice in Ephesians (Gentile audience,) Paul uses the term to bring encouragement to his readers.  He leaves no verb unused in his effort to tell his readers that in all ways, they have been targeted by God’s love, communication and provision that they might find themselves full and complete members in the Kingdom of God being built upon the justification and salvation accomplished by Jesus Christ.  What he is saying to his Gentile hearers is essentially this, “In spite of the treatment you receive from Jews and Judaizers in your midst, God has known from before time and forever that you Gentiles would also need a Savior and Lord, no less than the Jews, and that the time has now come from the barrier wall of separation to come down, and for you to accept your citizenship in the new Kingdom of God.”  This is what he means when he uses the terms “foreknew, predestined, called.”  They, no less than Jews, are justified by the blood of Christ and thereby freed from moral guilt, and are also offered the gift of the Holy Spirit, that they might also be saved by the life of Christ from the coming wrath against fruitlessness.  In no detail are they second class citizens.  Same point in Ephesians, where Paul wastes no time in recounting God’s provision for the salvation of Gentiles as well as Jews.  Paul says “We, who were the first to hope in Christ” to refer to Jews, but then immediately adds “…you also were included in Christ.”

 

An Alternative Soteriology

 

So if a virulent double predestination is not a legitimate result of this limited but telling exegesis, is there some other explanation that’s more credible?  Remember the attraction of Calvin’s interpretations: they are simple and seem to solve insoluble problems while preserving God’s sovereignty.  To come up with an alternative soteriology that is widely attested to, that reconciles the whole of Scripture, and that is relatively cogent and simple, you have to be on the alert for subtleties of language that Calvin and his adherents missed.  Specifically, you have to make sense of Romans chapters 5 and 10.  What Paul does in both is make a distinction between justification, the imputation of righteousness to a sinful humanity, which is universal, and salvation, the impartation of the life of Christ into the obedient believer that he might bear fruit for the Kingdom.  This latter is particular and by no means universal, because it involves the ceding of the will on the part of each individual.  This distinction, once made, allows for a simple typology of salvation that fulfills our requirements enumerated above.  A graph will help depict what I’m talking about.

 

Moral Actor Problem Judgment Solution Christ’s Role Sacrament
God Enmity with Man On Sin Death on the Cross Savior Baptism
Man Enmity with God On Fruitlessness Pentecost Lord Eucharist / Confirmation

 

There are two actors in the moral sphere, God and Man.  There are two problems, God is offended by human sin, and man is running from God.  This results in guilt on the part of man, and powerlessness to do anything about it.  God and man are at enmity with one another.  There are two solutions to these problems, both involving Jesus Christ.  His death on Good Friday removes our moral guilt by covering it with his sinless blood.  This applies to all people, in all times, and in all places.  Justification is universal; we do not participate in it in any way, shape or form.  That’s why we baptize infants; Jesus is Savior of all.  This is a first judgment, on sin.  The second problem is that of our powerlessness.  There is a second judgment, a coming wrath of God, recorded in the Scriptures, in Matthew 18 and 25 and Revelation 20.  This is a judgment on fruitlessness; on those who are forgiven, yet who blaspheme the Holy Spirit so that he cannot dwell in them effectually and bear fruit for righteousness.  These people are content to be in Christ, but do not want Christ in them.  The solution to this second problem is not Jesus’ death, but rather his life, as conferred on Pentecost.  He will come to those who ask, who stop running and cede their will to him as Lord, and bear fruit through them.  The only problem is that this second reality does in involve us, for it requires that we submit to Christ’s authority over ourselves: mind body and spirit.  Those who let him be Lord are the “elect” of these passages.  Those who refuse him as Lord are those who are preterit or lost.  References to God’s foreknowledge and choice are not referring to his attitude with respect to individuals, but rather his decision in his eternal councils that only those in whom Christ is found will be elect, whoever they may be.  The Book of Life contains the names of those in whom the life of Christ dwells.  Categories, classes if you will, not individuals.  Two problems, two solutions, two sacraments, a binary soteriology.  Two is better than five, don’t you think?

It’s difficult to argue from silence, but the lack of emphasis on election and predestination when addressing other churches in Gentile areas can easily be explained.  For one thing, not all churches were beset by Judaizers.  In fact, in the case of the church in Galatia, Paul’s audience was the Judaizers themselves!  Secondly, he still brings encouragement to Gentile Christians without resorting to these words per se.  This is certainly true of his letter to the Phillipians.  The other churches in Corinth, Colossae, and Thessasolica were all beset by behavioral problems Paul needed to address by means of reprimand, not encouragement.

 

Conclusion

 

In summary, we see that it would be an error to base one’s soteriology upon a limited number of passages without taking other passages, in the same book no less, into account.  The fruit of what has become orthodox Reformed soteriology is bitter indeed.  First, it defames God.  Jacobus Arminius was right in saying that for double predestination to be true, God would have to be the author of sin.  Secondly, Church health has been hopelessly compromised.  Christians are confused about the product they’re selling, with one communion or denomination saying one thing, while all others say something else.  As C.S. Lewis points out, the doctrine of predestination leads some to arrogance, and others to despair.  Bad soteriology also leads to organizational schism.  Which leads us to our third problem, and that is that theological inquiry has been thwarted.  Reformed soteriology, taken in a literal manner, simply states that God does what he does in his eternal councils and it is beyond questioning or knowing.  Pat excuses have been offered for legitimate questions, with the result that the Church is fractured with no hope of remediation.  Calvinists need to face a reckoning: John Calvin can in fact be wrong.  The Institutes of the Christian Religion is not the Bible, and JC doesn’t stand for John Calvin, it stands for Jesus Christ.  In his commentary on Romans Calvin completely missed the distinction between justification and salvation, ascribing the double verbiage to a desire to emphasize, not distinguish; perhaps parallelism but not discrimination.   Until we take him off of the throne Dort put him on, the Church will continue to be painted into a corner from which it is not able to extricate itself.  If the Reformation seeks to genuinely reform doctrine, it must not only criticize that which went before, it must offer an alternative that is synthetic and acceptable to Christians of all traditions, Eastern, Roman, and Protestant.

 

Further, if I were a professor of exegesis I would give John Calvin a D for doing much right, but also doing more wrong.  He had two handicaps we should not forget as we read him centuries later.  First of all, he was engaged in a polemic with Rome.  For an antagonist to overstate his case is understandable.  Perhaps if he shot for the moon, he might be happy if he got into low earth orbit.  Secondly, he approached a Hebrew canon with a Greek mindset.  Whereas the Scriptures were written by Jewish authors and inspired by a Jewish God, the western or Greek mind appreciates nothing of this.  In the place of synthesis the Greek seeks analysis, in the place of purpose he searches for process, in the place of meaning he settles for means.  More importantly, the Greek or Western thinker tends to focus on individuals rather than families, tribes, nations or civilizations, as the Easterner does.  The final faux pas is that Calvin failed to take the author’s perceptions of his intended audience into account, which is nothing less than bad exegesis.  As Will Durant says,

 

“…we shall always find it hard to love the man who darkened the human soul with the most absurd and blasphemous conception of God in all the long and honored history of nonsense.”

 

The Rev. Robert McLeod is an Episcopal priest, canonically resident in the Diocese of Central Florida.  He is the author of Everything You Know Is Wrong: The Case for a New Reformation, and manages the website RogueCleric.com.  At present he resides in Colorado and attends an Anglican Church under the auspices of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America.  

Jan 03
0

2011 Attempt on Denali With My Daughter Martha

By | Cleric Climbs | No Comments

One of the ironies of brain injury is that while it can make some things impossible, other activities remain unaffected.  My 2002 auto accident made it so difficult for me to work that I eventually applied for and was granted a disability pension through the national church.  I had tried to continue in my role as priest for a full year, but eventually had to admit it was not good for the parish or me.  I chose to move to Tucson so that I could be outside year round, for it is in nature that I feel capable and at peace.

 

Each summer for the past five years or so my younger daughter Martha and I have travelled the western United States going to National Parks in order to hike and climb.  We do technical roots with ropes and gear, as well as casual hikes that require nothing more than a bottle of water.  Somehow or other we got the notion, while negotiating the bottom reaches of the Grand Teton in Wyoming, that alpine climbing, as opposed to rock climbing, would be more to Martha’s tastes.  So we decided to start at the top, and attempt Denali, aka Mt. McKinley, the highest mountain in North America.

 

Now I’ve got some alpine experience under my belt.  I climbed the Matterhorn at age 12, and Mt. Blanc, the highest mountain in western Europe at age 13.  At 16 I climbed Monte Rosa, the highest mountain in Switzerland.  These were snow trudges that compare to some extent with Denali, but are really small jaunts.  Martha and I amassed gear, and more importantly studied the problem this mountain represents to those who would climb it.

 

The first problem with Denali is that it’s very far north, somewhere around the 65th parallel.  Being a polar peak, by far the highest in the world at that latitude, it has way less atmospheric pressure than mountains even much higher nearer the equator.  The second problem is that it’s near the ocean, and thus has less predictable weather and much more moisture to cause trouble.  Finally, the approach to the summit, which is 15.5 miles long, is mostly along glaciers with deep, hidden crevasses waiting for the unwary.  Martha and I studied the literature, which is voluminous, made our reservations with the Park Service and a flying service, and drove to Alaska at the end of last May.

 

The idea was to climb Mt. Shasta and Mt. Rainier on the way up, to refresh our alpine skills, or build them from nothing, as the case may be.  We made it about 1/3 of the way up Shasta before we were stormed off the mountain, and didn’t even get to start on Rainier for the same reason.  It was a very wet, snowy winter, and both mountains were pretty much unclimbable that early in the season.  So off to Alaska we drove, arriving at the end of the first week in June.

 

Typical Denali expeditions take three weeks from glacier landing to takeoff, but good weather let us advance more quickly.  There are five camps on the way up, and they get more difficult to reach than the previous one.  Martha had an attack of altitude sickness at the second camp, that delayed us but didn’t stop us.  We reached Camp 4, Basin Camp, on day 8, which is quite quick by local standards.  On  the one hand this meant that we had plenty of supplies.  On the other, it meant that we weren’t as acclimated as we might be.  On day 9 I climbed alone to Camp 5 at 17,200 feet and set up a borrowed tent and left supplies.  I returned that day and after another night at Camp 4, climbed with Martha to High Camp where we spent two nights and parts of three days.  We were kept in the tent by snow and cold temperatures, and it wasn’t until day three that the weather was stable and good.  The only problems were that the new snow was unstable, and would require several days to become firm, and low temperatures and high winds were discouraging any summit attempts.  In view of this and our weakened state, we descended on day 12 to Basin Camp, and the next day to Base camp and our awaiting airplane.

 

In retrospect, we realize that Denali doesn’t succumb to quick attempts.  I made the mistake of bringing only dehydrated food, which lacked fat and therefore energy.  By the time we were at High Camp, we were too worn out for the final 3,100 foot push to the top.  Further, I left our warmest clothes at Basin Camp, thinking we had done just fine in our intermediate gear up to that point.  Granted, but the summit push is unlike any other on the mountain, and requires everything to be just right if it is to be completed.  There was a man dead in his tent at 17,200 feet while we were there, who had made the summit and returned in 19 hours, only to die from exhaustion.  Eight people died that season, I believe, making it one of the worst on the mountain.  Three people we met who had climbed Everest said that it was a good warm up for Denali.

 

So we made it back in one piece, and Martha has given it a second try with a different group of climbers, not her father.  Sad to say she didn’t make it this time either, as she just couldn’t stay warm above Basin Camp.  She got to 16,000 feet, and decided that she needed to turn around.  I’m happy to say she got higher with me.  If I weren’t so darned old, I’d go back again.  Her great quote, “The problem was there was nobody who loved me who would carry all my shit for me.”

Jan 03
0

Standard Route – Ship Rock – Personal Observations

By | Cleric Climbs | No Comments

If you’re climbing Ship Rock in Navajoland, there are a number of accounts and route descriptions you can avail yourself to.  Problem is, it’s impossible to describe this mountain and the route in terms that are easy to understand, remember, and visualize; it’s just too big and different.  Probably the best is The Frito Banditos Climb Ship Rock.  The pictures in Desert Towers are indispensible.  Nevertheless, here are my recollections that stress those things that I was not prepared for, and which I wish I knew beforehand.

 

Access:  Lots of ink spilled about the 1970 ban on climbing this mountain.  The closure was due to an accident that seriously injured two climbers, not religious considerations.  It’s true the land belongs to the Navajos, and they are entitled to do what they please with it.  No doubt the pale face has given them the shittiest land they possibly could, never suspecting that climbers would want to go back and enjoy what was deeded away.  I’ve written what I think about acetic religions that proscribe enjoyment of creation elsewhere (see Devil’s Tower Closure Proposed by NPS for Religious Reasons) and I don’t need to kick that dead horse.  We were assured by two Navajo climbers who have themselves broken the prohibition that they would be thrilled to have us give it a try and clean up some of their detritus.  So I’m going to give Indians the right to take money from stupid pale faces in casinos, and I’m not going to rub their noses in my disregarding their ban on climbing Ship Rock.  I’m going to go about my business quietly and hope nobody notices.  I don’t want to see the place deluged with climbers, but those who do feel the call to climb it, I say proceed with due caution and be self-reliant.  Do not call for help, and have back up plans so you can self-rescue in the event of a rope incident or injury.  If you get caught, take your lumps and show respect.

 

Take Redrock Highway 13 west from Route 491 about 6 miles to the dike that runs north to the rock.  There is an open cattle guard just on the east side, and you drive through this on a dirt road that any passenger car can handle.  Stay on the east side until you approach the peak, and take the last opportunity to turn left or west to cross the ridge.  We camped just to the east of the ridge in a depression where we felt we could not be readily seen.  In the morning we drove north toward the mountain, crossed the ridge, and parked behind a berm about 100 feet from the actual end of the road.  The car was invisible except from directly west, and there are not too many people in that direction.  You then hike about 1/2 mile north, rising as you go, so that you are just past below the Crow, which is black basalt.

 

P1:  The start of the climb is found at the opening of the Black Bowl, which is on the NW corner of the peak.  The entrance is to the left of the Crow, and to the Right of Spinnaker Tower, and is identifiable as the confluence of two types of rock.  Spinnaker Tower is welded tufa, and the Crow is black basalt.  Climb up between the two, and when you can go no farther, look to your left and there is a recessed cave with cheater rocks piled up at the mouth.  Rope up, and if you are part French, have your partner put a knee on the rocks to give another couple feet of reach.  Using such a technique the pull onto the face is probably 5.8, and with no aid other than the rocks it’s more like 5.10.  You can get a couple of small cams in at your waist that might hold, and then move up and left to easy ground.  Another small headwall that accepts a cam is just below the belay anchors.  100 feet.

 

P2:  After you bring your partner up P1, you can scramble up the canyon about 50 yards to where you will see a plaque on the right for an early fatality; just what you need for confidence.  At this level, look to your left and go up the staircase of solid rock at perhaps 5.2.  The rock is compact and doesn’t present much in the way of protection, but the ease suggests that it’s not really needed.  Belay anchors are at the top on the right.  100 feet.

 

P3:  Coil your ropes and scramble up the bowl, keeping to the left against the wall.  You will curve up and end up going south to the base of the south wall with two parallel cracks ascending to the Sierra Col featuring lighter rock.  You can rope up at any time, but you’re just scrambling and dislodging stones to injure your follower.  Continue up a chossy ramp to the right, and set up a belay when the rock gets steep.  There’s an immediate corner you turn to start back left, or east, ascending toward the Sierra Col.   The crack accepts larger cams, but is of very poor quality.  The climbing is very easy, but there’s danger of pulling hand and foot holds.  At the top of the crack you will be confronted with a choice: belay here from a fixed pin and perhaps a girth hitch around the rock, or continue across the Colorado Col and up to the Sierra.  Because of communication and rope drag, we stopped and belayed just before the first Col.  75 feet.  This is the belay pictured in the photo above.

 

P4:  The scene here is one of the most appalling specters in climbing.  The Sierra Col is about the size of the back of a horse, with huge drop offs right and left.  On the far wall are two bolts.  The route goes across the Col, to the left, and up to the Colorado Col, about 50 feet distant.  When we were there, there was a descent line rigged from the upper Col to a belay stance just above and around the corner from the lower Col. The move from the two bolts left onto the ramp is very blank, and looks like 5.10 if not worse.  What we did was set up a belay at the fixed pin just before the crossing, have the leader cross, clip the two bolts on the far side with slings, and then use pockets to descend left (past an unused fixed pin) until he could stem and grab holds on the face to the left.  This involved going down about six feet, and the large holds on the far face then allowed an easy and confident way to get back up to the ramp to the upper Col.  Easy climbing with perhaps one piece of gear at the headwall and you’re at the Colorado Col and its belay/rappel anchors.  Perhaps 100 feet total.

 

Ascent Rap 1:  A short scoot down the ramp into the Rappel Gully deposits you at the most famous set of bolts in America.  At this holy spot the expansion bolt was first used to help climbers.  Now there are at least three 1/4 inch bolts mashed down and perhaps four larger diameter bolts with funky, dated hangers and attendant mank.  Put your ropes (two!) through the rings, and decide if you really want to finish the climb.  If you descend and pull this rope, you can’t get off the mountain without completing the climb.  Make sure you have time before darkness falls, and zip down the rope to the large chock stones in the gulley.

 

AR 2:  Work your way down the stones, and on the left wall you will find a single bolt rappel anchor, which will, with another two rope rappel, deposit you at another single bolt anchor.

 

P5:  Clip this anchor, and belay your partner across the face to skier’s right, climber’s left (south.)  There are bolts and pins here and there, and if you follow them, you will ascend to a crappy shelf with a scary reach around to a fixed pin, from which you must be lowered 20 feet to a large ledge where there is a belay anchor.  Rumor has it that by going low you can avoid the scary reach around, but at the expense of having less pro and the prospect of a real swing if you fall.  One account had the party going low, and having to climb a 5.9 crack to get to said ledge, but as we went high, we don’t know.  The traverse was nerve wracking, but no more than 5.8.  Taller climbers will bum out more at the reach around, as it’s a crouching move with a good, but not too solid, handhold.  The pin you lower off of is of dubious quality, but held 200 pounds and some bouncing from us.

 

P6:  Walk to the far end of the ledge, and as you go, look up and admire the famous Double Overhang the first ascensionists aided with ice screws in 1939.  There is a bizarre belay anchor in the cave at the far end, with one bolt in the tufa and one in a cobble stuck in the tufa.  Reach around the far corner to clip a bolt, and do a single 5.8 move to easier climbing, another bolt, and a belay anchor straight up below the small cliff.

 

P7:  Some accounts say unrope and walk, but it was pretty steep going.  We climbed roped, but largely unprotected, up the drainage.  The route map in Desert Towers shows the route going to the right and around some features by the north wall, but we went up the fall line, probably to our peril.  The angle eases, and you can walk to the base of the fin separating the South and Main summits.

 

P8:  There’s a small gulley to your right ascending to the base of the Horn pitch.  You can rope up now, but the moves are easy and if you fall, you just get jammed in the crack.  At the top you set up a belay for the wildest part of the climb.  The route goes up the arête formed by the Ramp up which you’ve climbed and the west face which must descend over 1,000 feet at this point.  The route is marked by bolts and pins, and the moves are stout at the beginning.  All footholds have been knocked off, and so it’s pretty smooth until you can get a left hand over the block and the right in the crack where the protection is.  Move up to the bolt, and then right over very small holds, including two monodoigts!  Scary.  We linked this short pitch with the next, which starts 15 feet past the top of the horn up a ramp to the right.  The crack is marked by three fixed pins.  The moves are rated vintage 5.9, because there’s nothing for the feet and not much for the hands, except a seam between the pins.  It made my French side come out.  Even after you pull yourself up there’s not much to grab on the flat to relieve your suffering, but once the whale beaches, you’re home free.

 

P9:  A short trip up over easy ground to the right brings you to some large blocks, on top of which there’s a ledge going left.  Rope drag prevents linking this with the last pitch, even though it’s short and easy.

 

P10:  The final pitch starts at a belay anchor of ancient tat found looped between two rocks at the far south end of the ledge.  The leader proceeds across the sloping rocks and steps left into a crack leading up to the final scramble.  The rappel anchors can be seen through a gap in the blocks to your right as you go, and the sight of them brings both joy and anxiety.  There’s plenty of room just below the summit block.  The register is under a rock at the western extremis of the summit area, just north of the actual summit.  It was placed there in 1962 to replace the original, which had apparently seen its day.  We were party 501, having missed the 500th by four weeks.  I incorrectly noted it as Third Sunday of Easter season, when it was actually the fourth.  The 500th climb had been on Maundy Thursday.

 

Descent Rap 1:  All descent raps except number 7 are with two 60 meter ropes, minimum.  Look east, and just to the left of the way you came up is a cleft that lets you access the rappel anchors.  There are two bolts high on the east side of the cleft in which you are standing.  When you descend, make SURE you see the next set of anchors off to your right, skier’s left, west, where the sun’s setting etc., before you drop over the sharp roof directly below you which WILL saw your ropes in half if you have to pendulum right to get to the anchors.  One of the reasons we were invited by those Navajo climbers to climb the peak was to retrieve two grievously damaged ropes they had abandoned at this point doing just that.  How they got down I do not know.  When you see the prow below you, make sure you move right to land in the proper spot.

 

DR 2:  Drop straight down and land on a large, sloping ramp.  All these belays are hanging, and rock pours off the face at the slightest touch.  Partners will hate each other by the time they get down.

 

DR3:  Make sure your ropes track over the edge of the ramp to your right, not down through the crack separating the ramp from the face.

 

DR4:  One more hanging rappel stance and you’re on the “ground” at the top of Long’s Couloir.  Turn around and gape at the north side of the Sierra Col.

 

DR5:  Scramble down the hill until you come to steep ground.  At the left edge of the talus there is a rappel anchor on a block of rock facing north.

 

DR6:  Anchors on the right hand wall are all you can reach with a double rope rappel, but there’s a lot of resistance when you go to pull the ropes.  Another set of anchors beckons from about 50 away, and are probably accessible without protection, though we didn’t use them.

 

DR7:  As the canyon narrows, a double bolt anchor with a single sling is found on the north side of the slot.  This can probably be done with a single rope.

 

DR8:  The last rap is done from anchors hidden from view until you’re about to fall into the void.  A double rope anchor allows you to make it all the way to the precious flat earth at the base.  Your packs and comfortable shoes await you back to skier’s right, about 100 yards away.  Took us 5.5 hours up, including wasting 45 minutes trying the center of the bowl on P2, and 2 hours coming down.  No problems with gendarmes or restless natives.  Had a couple beers to prepare ourselves for the long drive home, and thanked the Lord who calmed the very cold, consistent wind we woke up to.  “What kind of man is this?  Even the winds and waves obey him!”  Matthew 8:27

 

Jan 03
0

Devil’s Tower Closure Proposed by NPS on Religious Grounds

By | Cleric Climbs | No Comments

It’s commonly assumed that Christian culture and individual Christians do not have a theological or philosophical interest in the outdoors and mountains in particular. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. There is probably no other religion, for lack of a better term, that has such an appreciation for exploration and scaling heights. Let me explain.

Christianity, as described in the Old and New Testaments, is portrayed as a spiritual development that is closely linked to the created, natural order. In the beginning of creation, after each “day” or step, it is said that what has been created is “good.” Rather than fearing a natural world that is powerful and confusing, the Jew and then the Christian are encouraged that the whole cosmos has been created by a benevolent Creator who wants us to learn, explore, understand and master the world around us.  This has led to most of history’s developments in natural science, philosophy, medicine and political reform. We view ourselves as instruments of our God, who do His will in order to bring about greater order and beauty.  I’m reminded of a joke about a New England farmer.  He’s just worked very hard to clear a field of stones, when his parson comes by, and trying to be “spiritual,” says, “Nice field you and the Lord have.” To which the farmer replies, “Yeh, and you should have seen it when just the Lord had it!”

In keeping with this notion that we are to master and enjoy our surroundings, Christians have a long tradition of mountain climbing. Indeed, Francis Schaeffer points out that the first ascent of a mountain for the purpose of personal edification was undertaken by the writer Petrarch (1304-74). This man found in the ascent an enjoyment of nature as God made it good and proper. In short, it was a religious experience in that he was able to see beyond the creation to the Creator. An Anglican priest was in the party that first climbed the Matterhorn.  George Mallory, who may be the first man to ascend Mt. Everest, was the son of an Anglican clergyman.  Hudson Stuck, the first to climb Denali (Mt. McKinley) was an Episcopal priest and Archdeacon of the Yukon.  Writes Stuck, “Rather there was the feeling that a privileged communion with the high places of the earth had been granted; that not only had we been permitted to lift up our eager eyes to these summits, secret and solitary since the world began, but to enter boldly upon them, to take place, as it were, domestically in their hitherto sealed chambers, to inhabit them, and to cast our eyes down from them, seeing all things as they spread out from the windows of heaven itself.” Note well what these men share.  They all shared the idea that these places are sacred not because they are reserved for some or none, but because they are accessible to all who feel the call to experience them. It is not in their reservation that they are religious, but in their accessibility. In experiencing them, true potential is realized.  The words mount, mountain, mountains, mountainside, mountaintop and mountaintops are found 468 times in the Bible.

In contrast to this view, we have our ascetic religions: Buddhism, Hinduism, Mohammedism, and most animistic beliefs. Although Buddhism is technically not theistic, that is, doesn’t posit the existence of a god, these religions suggest that there are gods or a god who are not well-disposed toward the human experience, and who need to be mollified through self-denial and other ascetic observances. Buddhists in the area of Mt. Kailas practice immuration, where the devote allows himself to be walled into a cave with only a small passageway left into which food, and presumably from which human waste, can be passed. The younger the person who does this, the more positive karma is believed to be attained. Hindu women are expected to throw themselves on the pyre burning the bodies of their deceased husbands, and devotes are lauded when they throw themselves under the wheels of the juggernaut that crushes the life out of them. Mohammedans are told they must not drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, or eat pigs, as this is unclean, but classify women as dogs if they walk between a praying man and Mecca. Because of the lack of self control on the part of Mohammedan men, the women are forced to wear unsuitable and restrictive clothing and to undergo, in many cases, clitoral “circumcision” so as to not become wanton. The Sioux, aboriginal people originally from the Great Lakes region of the central United States who recently migrated to the Great Plains with the domestication of the horse, have a spiritual ritual in which a leader allows himself to be cut along the arms to inflict the most possible pain in order to receive prophetic knowledge.  What all these religions share is a dim view of god.  It has been said, “The Mohammedans have ninety-nine names for God, but among them all they have not ‘our Father.'” If god himself is opposed to our enjoyment of life, then how can we value creation? People who fly airplanes into buildings, or demand that people live in closed caves their whole lives, or crawl 55 miles on their knees, are merely transferring the disdain they feel from their deity to that which he has made. The Apostle Paul writes, “‘Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!’ These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.”

It’s a dangerous thing these days, though common, to forget the profound differences in religious belief, and to allow minority groups to lay claim to places or practices in the name of religion. It seems as though one man’s religion trumps another man’s freedom, simply on the basis of the sincerity and fervency of the believer. In the past, there was not much interaction between peoples of differing religious views, so conflicts were not so prevalent. Today, with better travel and communication, these conflicts are becoming more common and in many ways more serious.  When Winston Churchill was returning to England after attending the Yalta conference during WWII, he invited Ibn Saud to lunch as he passed through Alexandria.  Winston writes, “A number of social problems arose. I had been told that neither smoking nor alcoholic beverages were allowed in the Royal Presence.  As I was the host at luncheon I raised the matter at once, and said to the interpreter that if it was the religion of His Majesty to deprive himself of smoking and alcohol I must point out that my rule of life prescribed as an absolutely sacred rite smoking cigars and also the drinking of alcohol before, after and if need be during all meals and the intervals between them. The King graciously accepted the position.” I tell this story to illustrate the fact that capricious or culturally-defined religious beliefs are potentially mutually exclusive and contradictory.

In view of this reality, it behooves us to see how this matter was handled by our founding fathers in terms of the Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution says two things about religious observance.  First of all, it says that the government cannot embark on the “establishment” of a religion. Secondly, it says that the government shall not interfere in the free observance of religion.  These things must be taken together in order to understand the intent of our Constitution. The first thing we should note is that the term “establishment” is not a general term, but a technical term, not used in today’s English. The Church of England was said to be the “established” church, in that it was formally sanctioned by and incorporated into the government of the land. This is the sense in which the word is used in the Constitution. The clause does not say that there is a “separation of Church and state,” as many erroneously believe, nor does it say that the U.S. Government can have nothing to do with religion. It simply means that unlike England, the U.S. will not have a church as part of the government. Secondly, the free exercise clause suggests that the government will indeed get involved in religious matters to the extent that religious observance of its citizens is being impaired.

Thus, the United States is a liberal, capitalist republic. It is liberal in that the government is limited to regulating behavior, not belief. As long as everybody in the U.S. was nominally Christian, this was easy to enforce. I’m sure it was the farthest thing from the founders’ minds that one day people would come to the country and claim that their religious law trumped U.S. Civil Code, yet this is now happening.  As the world becomes more secular in many ways, people are finding themselves at a loss to explain their significance and purpose for living. One of the more popular responses to this existential angst is to look to the past to find what makes us unique. This response is particularly popular in peoples and situations where the current prospects for peace and happiness are distant. What we have now, even in the U.S., is people laying claim to places and practices based on religious interpretations that are mutually exclusive. The dispute over the proper use of places “sacred” to, or of “cultural relevance” to aboriginal Americans is an excellent example of this kind of conflict.

Claims to sacred places are as numerous as the people who make them. In Arizona, we’re told that Baboquivari Peak is the navel of the universe, and is the focus for many creation myths for the local aboriginal peoples. The Peak lies on land owned by the Tohono O’odham people, and they are gracious in letting others hike and climb the peak. All they ask is that care be taken to preserve the environment, and that nothing be done to anger I’itoi. This is perfectly reasonable, and as a result, there are no access issues with the peak. This is remarkable in that aboriginal claims often state that access to sacred sites be limited to either true believers (the Black Box in Mecca, the LDS Temple in Salt Lake City) or nobody at all (Devil’s Tower.)  On the island of Hawaii some aboriginal peoples believe a beetle living on the high mountain tops is sacred, and thus telescopes and other scientific apparati are not welcome there. If I remember correctly, the claimants demand that certain precautions be taken by the University of Hawaii which maintains the site, thus requiring the use of public funds to support their particular religious belief.

So what are we to do when religious views conflict?  Is there some sense in which people are entitled to regulation by fiat, simply because “we were here first.”  What about the right of conquest by the sword, which states unambiguously, that “we were here last.” Is there ever going to be some objective criterion that allows us to evaluate religious claims on the basis of truth or validity, and not historical guilt? A good starting point in resolving the dilemma caused by competing religious views is to realize that just because something is religious, doesn’t mean it’s fair, or right or worthwhile.  There are many religions, and they agree on very little. So the fervency of belief, the appearance of religiosity, longevity and the denial of the flesh are not sufficient grounds for saying that a religion is valid. At some point those in authority are going to have to vet them and say, here is a religion that produces behavior that is consistent with our ideals of a liberal, democratic republic.  Beliefs are beyond our scope, but behavior is not. Does the recognition of these beliefs further social harmony and mutual accommodation, or does it lend itself to further compartmentalization, separation and alienation to the detriment of the larger body?

Although in our ignorance of the true content of world religions we want to give them equal weight, this cannot be done. At some point those in authority are going to have to decide that restrictive, acetic religions cannot enjoy the same civil rights as those that are more benevolent and inclusive. To grant a restrictive religion preference over one that is experiential is to go against both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment, as it pits government power behind the peculiar restrictions of the one, at the expense of the free exercise rights of the other. It sets the Federal Government in the role of establishing a religion, for it uses its enforcement powers to impose religious observance upon all, including the unbelieving and unwilling. For example, to close the Devil’s Tower to rock climbing Christians like me is to deny me the ability to worship my Creator who made this wonderful phenomenon. By touching it, by climbing it, by being scared on it, I connect with the One who made it, gravity, and my own body in a way that cannot be duplicated by any other activity.  Now do I need to do that every day of the year? No. Closures for endangered animals species are allowable if they can be PROVEN to be necessary and effective. If a temporary closure for other groups who lay claim to a place helps them worship in their own way, then fine; we should wait our turn. But severe access limitations so that others can worship from afar is indefensible philosophically, theologically, and most importantly, legally.

I therefore submit these facts to you for your reflection, in full expectation that they will be incorporated in the Long Range Interpretive Plan for the Devil’s Tower. These are not opinions, these are not feelings, these are not religious tenets.  These are facts of history and logic that cannot be contravened without doing gross injustice to the rules of epistemology and common sense.  I look forward to an answer to my specific contributions, as well as news about further developments as you fulfill your responsibilities as a public servant in this great country of ours.  What makes this nation great is that first and foremost, we are a land of law.