Some Disturbing Parallels

This will probably be unpopular with some, but I have to share my concerns regardless.

I'm going to describe a political stance by Christians here, and let's try to guess what it is, ok? Don't read the footnotes until after I identify it, or it will give it away.

1. Use of Old Testament to define current national laws (not just ethics) (1)
   
2. Sees itself as the best possibility for political Christendom (2)
   
3. Justifies the criminalization of non-Christian activity or, in some cases, of simply not being Christian (3) (4) (5)
   
4. Sees a definitive regulative principle for all people given by God (in some cases, to be enforced by the Christian on the nonChristian) (6)
   
5. The highest (or a very high) goal is one united Christian nation (7)
   
6. Positive Christianity is connected with national pride (8)
   
7. Seeks to place 'strong' Christians in power and as government officials, sees them as the only ones fit to govern (9)
   

Now, if you're familiar with it, I'm sure you've already guessed the popular-in-parts-of-America 'Christian Reconstructionism', also called 'Theonomy' (10) – the idea that civil government should reflect Biblical Law. In some forms it proposes making homosexuality and adultery punishable by death. It has about zero religious tolerance, as any nonChristian expression would be legally forbidden. It also tends to want a gold standard, to make conscription impossible, and limit the taxation ability of the state, as well as often desiring to end all governmental welfare benefits.

If that makes you uncomfortable, you're not alone - but you're about to be made even more uncomfortable.

I'm not talking about Christian Reconstructionism, although the position I described fits it, too. You can read the footnotes now. What I described was the 'Glaubensbewegung Deutsche Christen', the church movement that supported Adolf Hitler and National Socialism in Germany.

Worried yet? You should be, there are adherents calling for revolution already (11).

The twisting of Scripture by politically-minded Christians to support their own causes and ends doesn't seem to end well – in my opinion it never does. And yet there's a movement in America to do just that. There's been quite a bit of opposition to it theologically, by folks such as Meredith Kline and Michael Horton, among others, and of course I stand theologically opposed to it. I only bring out these historical parallels because I believe that there's no such thing as a new heresy, merely old ones repackaged.

Different verses, different width of focus, same misapplication, same twisting. Christians should be interacting with the world and secular government in a manner that is Christian first, not conservative, not comfortable middle-class, not culture-X-value based. Perhaps soon I can visit the idea of exactly what that should be, as we need a biblically grounded, theologically stable definition of what that is.

Edit: Apparently footnotes in Word don't publish to Blogger. Added them in. Nonattributed German quotes are from "Volkstum gegen Bekenntnis: Die Richtlinien der Deutschen Christen und die Barmer Theologische Erklärung" by Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Sauer, quoting Richlinien von 6 Juni 1932

(1) For example, 2 Samuel 12:31

(2)"Wir finden aber bei näherem Zusehen, daß es in ihrem Besten Kopie des Christtums [sic] ist." - Erzbischof von Freibourg, 1944

(3)" Wir lehnen die Judenmission in Deutschland ab, solange die Juden das Staatsbürgerrecht
besitzen und damit die Gefahr der Rassenverschleierung und –bastardierung besteht.
Die Heilige Schrift weiß auch etwas zu sagen von heiligem Zorn und sich versagender
Liebe. Insbesondere ist die Eheschließung zwischen Deutschen und Juden zu verbieten."

(4) "Hierher gehört auch, daß unsere Kirche keine Menschen judenblütiger Art mehr in ihren Reihen aufnehmen darf. Wir […] haben immer wieder betont: judenblütige Menschen gehören nicht in die deutsche Volkskirche, weder auf die Kanzel, noch unter die Kanzel. Und wo sie auf den Kanzeln stehen, haben sie so schnell wie möglich zu verschwinden.“" - Reinhold Krause

(5) "So glaube ich heute im Sinne des allmächtigen Schöpfers zu handeln: indem ich mich des Juden erwehre, kämpfe ich für das Werk des Herrn", -Adolf Hitler, using Matthew 13:36-41

(4)" Wir sehen in Rasse, Volkstum und Nation uns von Gott geschenkte und anvertraute Lebensordnungen,
für deren Erhaltung zu sorgen, uns Gottes Gesetz ist."

(5)"...ein
Kirchenvolk zu werden. Wir wollen eine lebendige Volkskirche, die Ausdruck aller Glaubenskräfte
unseres Volkes ist."

(6) "Wir stehen auf dem Boden des positiven Christentums. Wir bekennen uns zu einem bejahenden
artgemäßen Christusglauben, wie er deutschem Luthergeist und heldischer Frömmigkeit
entspricht"

(7) "Wir wollen eine evangelische Kirche, die im Volkstum wurzelt, und lehnen den Geist eines
christlichen Weltbürgertums ab. Wir wollen die aus diesem Geist entspringenden verderblichen
Erscheinungen wie Pazifismus, Internationale, Freimaurertum usw. durch den Glauben
an unsere von Gott befohlene völkische Sendung überwinden"

(8)"Wir stehen auf dem Boden des positiven Christentums. Wir bekennen uns zu einem bejahenden
artgemäßen Christusglauben, wie er deutschem Luthergeist und heldischer Frömmigkeit
entspricht."

(9)„Kein einziges Volk der Welt hat so wie das unsere einen Staatsmann, dem es so ernst um das Christliche ist; als Adolf Hitler am 1. Mai seine große Rede mit einem Gebet schloß, hat die ganze Welt die wunderbare Aufrichtigkeit darin gespürt.“ - Emanuel Hirsch

(10) Unfortunately, Theonomy used to refer to Christian Reconstructionism is used wrongly. It really should refer to the idea that God is the sole source of ethics. See Corneilus Van Til and Paul Tillich. Greg Bahnsen and Gary North are responsible for this twisted usage, with North going so far as desiring to prohibit nonChristians from voting and citizenship

(11) such as, for example, the so-called 'Black Robe Regiment'

Bullshit

So I'm taking a break from my planned postings, due to a ridiculous amount of work, and the great desire to post the following:

 

I've recently gotten a copy of "Analytic Theology: New Essays in the Philosophy of Theology", edited by Oliver Crisp and Michael Rea. Now, I got the book as a resource, but I'm having an amazing amount of fun with it, most recently with the essay "Theology as a Bull Session" by Randall Rauser.

Apparently, "Bullshit" is an official philosophical term. It even comes in two varieties!

Frankfurtian (intentional) Bullshit: intentionally insincere communication

Cohenian (product) Bullshit: communication that is inherently nonsense

Naturally, Rauser deals with Cohenian Bullshit in the realm of academia, as we give the benefit of the doubt to those who communicate there that they aren't trying to deceive us. He identifies three types:

Unclarifiable Unclarity: something not only un-understandably worded, but done so in such a manner that one cannot explain it properly

Clarifiable Unclarity: something obscurely worded, that could be explained differently and be understood

Irretrievable Speculation: something that cannot possibly be verified as true or not

 

I find that I read, and have read, a lot of the latter Bullshit. Heidegger comes to mind as one who is particularly guilty, as does Moltmann (whom Rauser also accuses of Product Bullshit. Of note is also that Rauser suggests Moltman as the patron saint of the Emerging Church and McLaren, which I found hilarious and rather fitting). This is why I'm committed to clarity (though I'm sure I fail quite spectacularly)!

Law and Grace

There's a distinction that needs to be made here, in reading what the Bible presents to us. We have passages in which the Mosaic Law is presented, and passages in which the grace of Christ is presented. The idea of Old and New Testament lead to the idea that one leads right into the other…and it's not exactly that way.

The Law has to be distinguished from the Gospel. A traditional example comes from article IV of the Apology of the Confessio Augustana (by Philipp Melanchthon):

 

"All Scripture ought to be distributed into these two principal topics, the Law and the promises. For in some places it presents the Law, and in others the promise concerning Christ, namely, either when [in the Old Testament] it promises that Christ will come, and offers, for His sake, the remission of sins justification, and life eternal, or when, in the Gospel [in the New Testament], Christ Himself, since He has appeared, promises the remission of sins, justification, and life eternal."

 

The importance of this should be pretty self evident – note that Luther even wrote "…whoever knows well this art of distinguishing between Law and Gospel, him place at the head and call him a doctor of Holy Scripture"

So what is the distinction to be made?

The Lutheran Formula of Concord (Solid Declaration) states it thusly:

 

"Anything that preaches concerning our sins and God's wrath, let it be done how or when it will, that is all a preaching of the Law. Again, the Gospel is such a preaching as shows and gives nothing else than grace and forgiveness in Christ" (Article 5)

 

This is found also in the Reformed tradition, in the writings of Calvin as well as the Westminster Confession, and it gets implied in the Heidelberg Catechism (see below).

So, when we divide things this way, each has a purpose – what's the point of the Law? Was it a way to be holy before God, a way to get justified in the Old Testament? Absolutely not! Here's some more examples:

 

"The law comes, not to reform the sinner nor to show him or her the "narrow way" to life, but to crush the sinner's hopes of escaping God's wrath through personal effort or even cooperation."(Modern Reformation May/June 2003)

 

3.Q. From where do you know your sins and misery?

A. From the law of God.[1]

[1] Rom. 3: 20;

(Heidelberg Catechism)

 

"Since the Law was given to men for three reasons: first, that thereby outward discipline might be maintained against wild, disobedient men [and that wild and intractable men might be restrained, as though by certain bars]; secondly, that men thereby may be led to the knowledge of their sins; thirdly, that after they are regenerate and [much of] the flesh notwithstanding cleaves to them, they might on this account have a fixed rule according to which they are to regulate and direct their whole life"

(Epitome of the Formula of Concord Article VI)

 

And

"…it admonishes every one of his own unrighteousness, certiorates, convicts, and finally condemns him." (2.7.6) "…to curb those who, unless forced, have no regard for rectitude and justice." (2.7.10) "For it is the best instrument for enabling the daily to learn…what that will of the Lord is…and to confirm them in this knowledge;" (2.7.12)

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion)

 

So we have three uses of the law:

1. (2 according to Calvin) As a restraint upon the actions of men, also called a "curb"

2. (1 according to Calvin) As a method of making man aware of his own sin, or a "mirror"

3. As a method for the Christian to know the desires of God and regulate their own life, or a "rule"

 

These are the reasons the Law was given. No one is free to do what he pleases, but neither does the Christian hold to the Law through fear of punishment. As Christians, our lives are to conform to the will of God because He enables us to do it in the first place – God changes us.

There are some pretty big implications here for what we see in the OT, as well as how we think about grace, so hold on, it's coming up!

 

Some links for further reading, including supporting verses:

http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-lawandgospel.php

http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#VI.%20The%20Third%20Use%20of%20the%20Law.

http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#V.%20Law%20and%20Gospel

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

http://www.ccel.org/creeds/heidelberg-cat-ext.txt or http://www.wts.edu/resources/heidelberg.html

 

If it works, does it still need fixing?

Getting back into the swing of things here, I'm going to talk a little bit today about the idea of pragmatism in theology. Now, pragmatism in philosophy is something else, so don't confuse the two!

In a nutshell, pragmatism is the idea that as Christians, we have to do whatever it takes to get someone to accept Christ. Sounds good on the surface, right? A kind of giving-your-all?

Well, I've got a couple of problems with it:

First, it can promote a type of 'decision theology' that leads to synergism (see post from April 15 2010, Monergism and Synergism). Now, 'decision theology' in itself is a loaded phrase, so let me explain: I'm not saying that there is no place for a conscious decision to follow Christ, in a rational adult believer who has been intellectually convinced of the veracity of the Gospel. What I dispute is that the decision is an act of that individual's own will. For the man (gender neutral) in question, who makes such a decision, let's say because someone did a great job of apologetics, or without any proof at all based on straight out proclamation of the Gospel, the act of coming to faith is something that God does. God gives that man faith - the man doesn't decide on his own to have faith in God (Take a look at the post entitled 'Monergism and Synergism', from April 15 2010, for more explanation.) So when we make the emphasis that we do anything to get a man to make this decision, we have the focus off of the saving power of God. It's too easy to fall into the trap here of trying to convince the man, who can't believe without God.

Second, I see a problem with compromising the Gospel in order to reach this end. If a preacher can preach a sermon that an audience of Muslims or Jews don't get upset about, he hasn't preached the Gospel. Similarly, if your 'seeker service' isn't identifiably Christian, it's not a service. We weren't told to make the world comfortable, we were told to preach the Gospel.

Now, of course we have to do our best to make the Gospel relevant to the group we are talking to: Paul is our example for that. His method of approach was different in the Synagogues, different in Lystra, different at the Areopagus, and different before Festus or Agrippa. But he never failed to proclaim the Gospel in each case. (I'm indebted to someone for this observation, but I'm not sure where I heard it - if you know, please speak up!)

So, in short, we proclaim the Gospel to the lost and to the saved, because we were commanded to do so! We preach it to the lost because God commanded it, and because it's the power of salvation, and to the saved because God commanded it, and it is what we place our faith in (note in Romans 1 Paul's eagerness to preach to Gospel to the church in Rome, a group of believers!). Not to convince people, because that's God's work, be it through us or not. We need hardly 'do whatever it takes,' in the pragmatist sense, because God IS all that it takes.

Regarding preaching the Gospel, let me take this opportunity to recommend the book "Why Johnny Can't Preach" by T. David Gordon. I read this yesterday, and he makes some very pertinent points about both the nature and state of preaching. For every reader, and especially those in active ministry or preparing for it, this is a necessary observation - and I note that that which Gordon finds 'Johnny' lacking in was a PREREQUISITE for theological education, and should be the standard that every believer seeks to reattain.