An old friend Pastor Matt Mitchell, sent me a link to Scot McKnight's post at Jesus Creed regarding the question "Is the Reformation Over?" McKnight is quoted significantly in Mark Noll's recent book, whose title frames the question. McKnight did a significant study of Evangelicals who had converted to Roman Catholicism. His post on the Jesus Creed site spawned, as of this writing , 78 comments, many of them lengthy.
I got around to reading Noll's book a few weeks ago. In answer to the question at hand, I think it would be good to expand just a bit on a few of Noll's key points. Noll's view seems to be that though the Reformation is not quite over, some of the key points of contention have been significantly worked on, particularly since Vatican II.
A key chapter in Noll's book is a documentation of the numerous, lasting and significant dialogue the Vatican has initiated with various Protestant groups. These included, according to Noll, dialogue with Anglicans 1966-1996, Methodists 1967-1996, Pentecostals 1969-1997, Reformed 1970-1990, Lutherans 1972-1999, Disciples of Christ 1977-1993, Baptists 1984-1988, Evangelicals 1977-1984.
All in all the dialogues are described as cordial, productive and positive. What strikes me is that almost no one I know in the Evangelical community is even aware that these dialogues have been taking place, with the possible exception of that with the Lutherans and the Joint Declaration of the Doctrine of Justification. This is unfortunate, in that it has allowed acrimony to continue rather than dialogue on local levels to be initiated.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Contend for the Faith - Part IV
Once again, T.M. Moore has surprised me with part four of his series on contending for the faith. This time, the heresy of our age is anti-supernaturalism. His evidence of this problem is a lack of spiritual discipline for one. He says,
"Through prayer, meditative reading of Scripture, solitude, fasting, singing, and other disciplines, one draws aside from the normal routine of things to concentrate on meeting with the Lord, coming into the presence of His glory and experiencing new depths of His love, often with transforming effects."
He includes a lack of spiritual vision, the tendency to rely on human strength and methods and expect spiritual results. And he cites a preference for "activisim" over spiritual discipline, wanting to promote a cause rather than live a life.
"Through prayer, meditative reading of Scripture, solitude, fasting, singing, and other disciplines, one draws aside from the normal routine of things to concentrate on meeting with the Lord, coming into the presence of His glory and experiencing new depths of His love, often with transforming effects."
He includes a lack of spiritual vision, the tendency to rely on human strength and methods and expect spiritual results. And he cites a preference for "activisim" over spiritual discipline, wanting to promote a cause rather than live a life.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Is Democracy Possible?
Much in the news in the last few days about the plight of an Afghan convert to Christianity who faces the death penalty for his faith. According to a Washington Times story,
"Abdul Rahman, 41, was arrested last month after his family accused him of becoming a Christian, Judge Ansarullah Mawlavezada said. Mr. Rahman was charged with rejecting Islam, and his trial was held Thursday."
In a statement reminiscent of the worst of Soviet doubletalk from a generation ago, the judge in the case said:
"We are not against any particular religion in the world. But in Afghanistan, this sort of thing is against the law," the judge said. "It is an attack on Islam."
Let's get this straight, not against any religion -- against the law. Not against any religion but if you convert to another religion you are "attacking Islam" and face the death sentence.
"Abdul Rahman, 41, was arrested last month after his family accused him of becoming a Christian, Judge Ansarullah Mawlavezada said. Mr. Rahman was charged with rejecting Islam, and his trial was held Thursday."
In a statement reminiscent of the worst of Soviet doubletalk from a generation ago, the judge in the case said:
"We are not against any particular religion in the world. But in Afghanistan, this sort of thing is against the law," the judge said. "It is an attack on Islam."
Let's get this straight, not against any religion -- against the law. Not against any religion but if you convert to another religion you are "attacking Islam" and face the death sentence.
Why is This Man Still a Bishop?
John Spong is at it again, presuming to stand in judgment over the Bible. His newest rant is called "The Sins of Scripture". I haven't and won't read the book. I just wonder -- if the role of a Bishop is supposed to be to preserve and defend the faith, how is it that this guy is still tolerated in that role when he repeatedly alters and attacks the apostolic faith?
I've been thinking about leadership and the office of "overseer" and the failures in both congregational and episcopal forms of church government. It seems to me that when the office of overseer, bishop, district superintendent, etc., becomes an administrative position instead of a pastoral one, the battle is already lost.
I've been thinking about leadership and the office of "overseer" and the failures in both congregational and episcopal forms of church government. It seems to me that when the office of overseer, bishop, district superintendent, etc., becomes an administrative position instead of a pastoral one, the battle is already lost.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
The Growing Divide
Four related items caught my eye last week.
The first was the decision of the Presbyterian church to take no action of ministers bless same-sex unions. The AP article said that a regional commission determined Rev. Jane Spahr had a right of conscience to perform such a ceremony, using amazing double-speak to justify its ruling:
Because the section of the faith's constitution that reserves marriage for a man and a woman "is a definition, not a directive," Spahr was "acting within her right of conscience in performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples." ...The judicial commission appeared to accept that reasoning, writing that the Bible proclaims "a message of inclusiveness, reconciliation, and the breaking down of barriers that separate humans from each other."
From a related story in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review
"'Determining where the boundaries lie for same-sex couples is difficult,' said the Rev. Daniel Merry, Pittsburgh Presbytery acting pastor. 'There are interpretations all over the book on that one, and that's why we're doing an investigation -- to decide where that stands,' Merry said.
Many interpretations. Predictably, the issue is not what scripture says, but how it is interpreted that matters...
The second story relates to Gay rights groups targeting Christian Colleges. Christianity Today refers to a seven-week bus tour, called "Equality Ride" taking 35 gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and straight 18- to 28-year-olds to colleges with behavior codes that are felt to be discriminatory.
Equality Ride leader Jacob Reitan is quoted as saying, "We also hope to send out a clear message to gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender students that God loves them as they are. Today, it's gay and lesbian people who are the outcasts of the church, and later the church will have to repent from it." He added more interpretation, "When Paul was writing in the New Testament, he didn't have an understanding of homosexuality as we know it today," he said. "We believe that Christ is our best defense, because the message of Christ was always to embrace people and love them."
Christian colleges are responding in a variety of ways, some quietly trying to ignore the whole thing, others engaging with the activists. From CT,
"Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota, is filling the Equality Ride's April 18 visit with events. Plans are tentative, but the school has agreed to allow Soulforce to distribute information near post office boxes, visit classes on invitations, perform a dramatic presentation, and hold a forum with Bethel.
Bethel President George Brushaber said he thinks Soulforce is using the Equality Ride as a media stunt, but that the riders are sincere people.
"I think these are people who are very, very wise in the use of media and have chosen many of the schools because of the potential for media prominence," he said. "I do think they're people who genuinely think they can bring about change in position or in attitude."
I'm not sure what the Bethel President means by "sincere". But just like the mainline churhes have discovered, if the issue is Biblical authority, then interpretation becomes a way to circumvent it.
I found this third item of interest in this regard. At the World Council of Churches, an Orthodox bishop is suggesting that the only way to reverse the loss of values that seems to be worldwide is the formation of an Orthodox Catholic Alliance, suggested by Russian Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev.
"We (Orthodox and Catholics) are on the same side of the divide. Traditional Christianity's very survival is in jeopardy. We have no right to delay this strategic alliance, because in 20-40 years it will be too late."
"His comments echoed ideas supported by Roman Catholic Pope Benedict, who has said closer ties with Orthodox churches are a top priority of his papacy. "
What are the threats he sees? "warrior secularism, warrior Islam or warrior liberalism present in Protestantism."
Three big "warrior" enemies. Secularism, Islam, and Liberalism Present in Protestantism. The article continued,
"The Russian Orthodox Church recently broke off relations with the Lutheran Church of Sweden after it established an official ceremony to bless same-sex marriages, he said.
Alfeyev said Russian theologians thought decades ago to "establish full Eucharistic contact" with the Anglican church. In the past years, it has become clear that it is completely impossible – dogmatically, ideologically and from the point of view of moral teaching, as the Anglican church shifted very far away from Orthodox dogma," he said.
I just find it interesting that this Bishop sees the only way to prevent complete moral collapse to be an alliance with Rome and sees Protestantism an insidious threat. I find it interesting that the Roman and Eastern churches have not, (in spite of sins of individual priests) succumbed to altering official church teaching to accommodate modern sexual opinions the way mainline churches have.
There is something of a hedge against sudden seismic shifts in those churches where tradition plays a role. The long consensus helps prevent the sudden change in direction. If tradition is seen as a common interpretation of written scripture, then radical re-interpretation is harder to pass off as authentic. (The converse is that some traditions may not be what the apostles originally taught.) Again the issue is, what is the right interpretation of scripture, modern ideas or a long consensus?
Which leads to story number four. A group of renegade moralists from Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, decided a good way to protest America's rapid embracing of gay lifestyles as normal, was to dance at the funeral of U.S Soldiers killed in Iraq. Church founder Fred Phelps, apparently believes the individual deaths of U.S. Soldiers is somehow God's judgment on the nation for being "fags and fag enablers". He has apparently taken it upon himself to interpret scripture according to his own absolutely disgusting hermeneutic. And unfortunately, many will see all Christians defined by his unconscionable arrogance.
Let's be clear. If terrorism is attacking the innocent to make a political point, this was no less than terrorism. Whatever one feels about homosexuality, the families of soldiers killed in battle, many of whom may well be very upright people and orthodox believers for all we know, cannot be seen as the direct cause. Phelps says even 9-11 is God's judgment on this country. But he practices precisely the same tactic as the terrorists of that day - targeting the innocent to avenge a God he claims to be a unique spokesman for.
Christianity is not about Christians taking retribution into their own hands. It is, unlike Islam, a faith that stands for truth and morality while at the same time offering compassion and forgiveness.
I guess some could say that's just my interpretation. I don't think so. It is what I have learned from both the written text and a common understanding of it. It is what the majority of Christians have always understood from the words of scripture and the long history of biblical teachers across twenty centuries.
There is a chasm. A growing divide, not only in culture at large, but in the organizational bodies of American Christianity. The good news is it is easier to tell the wheat from the tares. The bad news is we don't have a good way of forming and maintaining alliances between Christians of different heritages. And how desperately we need alliances in these times.
The first was the decision of the Presbyterian church to take no action of ministers bless same-sex unions. The AP article said that a regional commission determined Rev. Jane Spahr had a right of conscience to perform such a ceremony, using amazing double-speak to justify its ruling:
Because the section of the faith's constitution that reserves marriage for a man and a woman "is a definition, not a directive," Spahr was "acting within her right of conscience in performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples." ...The judicial commission appeared to accept that reasoning, writing that the Bible proclaims "a message of inclusiveness, reconciliation, and the breaking down of barriers that separate humans from each other."
From a related story in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review
"'Determining where the boundaries lie for same-sex couples is difficult,' said the Rev. Daniel Merry, Pittsburgh Presbytery acting pastor. 'There are interpretations all over the book on that one, and that's why we're doing an investigation -- to decide where that stands,' Merry said.
Many interpretations. Predictably, the issue is not what scripture says, but how it is interpreted that matters...
The second story relates to Gay rights groups targeting Christian Colleges. Christianity Today refers to a seven-week bus tour, called "Equality Ride" taking 35 gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and straight 18- to 28-year-olds to colleges with behavior codes that are felt to be discriminatory.
Equality Ride leader Jacob Reitan is quoted as saying, "We also hope to send out a clear message to gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender students that God loves them as they are. Today, it's gay and lesbian people who are the outcasts of the church, and later the church will have to repent from it." He added more interpretation, "When Paul was writing in the New Testament, he didn't have an understanding of homosexuality as we know it today," he said. "We believe that Christ is our best defense, because the message of Christ was always to embrace people and love them."
Christian colleges are responding in a variety of ways, some quietly trying to ignore the whole thing, others engaging with the activists. From CT,
"Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota, is filling the Equality Ride's April 18 visit with events. Plans are tentative, but the school has agreed to allow Soulforce to distribute information near post office boxes, visit classes on invitations, perform a dramatic presentation, and hold a forum with Bethel.
Bethel President George Brushaber said he thinks Soulforce is using the Equality Ride as a media stunt, but that the riders are sincere people.
"I think these are people who are very, very wise in the use of media and have chosen many of the schools because of the potential for media prominence," he said. "I do think they're people who genuinely think they can bring about change in position or in attitude."
I'm not sure what the Bethel President means by "sincere". But just like the mainline churhes have discovered, if the issue is Biblical authority, then interpretation becomes a way to circumvent it.
I found this third item of interest in this regard. At the World Council of Churches, an Orthodox bishop is suggesting that the only way to reverse the loss of values that seems to be worldwide is the formation of an Orthodox Catholic Alliance, suggested by Russian Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev.
"We (Orthodox and Catholics) are on the same side of the divide. Traditional Christianity's very survival is in jeopardy. We have no right to delay this strategic alliance, because in 20-40 years it will be too late."
"His comments echoed ideas supported by Roman Catholic Pope Benedict, who has said closer ties with Orthodox churches are a top priority of his papacy. "
What are the threats he sees? "warrior secularism, warrior Islam or warrior liberalism present in Protestantism."
Three big "warrior" enemies. Secularism, Islam, and Liberalism Present in Protestantism. The article continued,
"The Russian Orthodox Church recently broke off relations with the Lutheran Church of Sweden after it established an official ceremony to bless same-sex marriages, he said.
Alfeyev said Russian theologians thought decades ago to "establish full Eucharistic contact" with the Anglican church. In the past years, it has become clear that it is completely impossible – dogmatically, ideologically and from the point of view of moral teaching, as the Anglican church shifted very far away from Orthodox dogma," he said.
I just find it interesting that this Bishop sees the only way to prevent complete moral collapse to be an alliance with Rome and sees Protestantism an insidious threat. I find it interesting that the Roman and Eastern churches have not, (in spite of sins of individual priests) succumbed to altering official church teaching to accommodate modern sexual opinions the way mainline churches have.
There is something of a hedge against sudden seismic shifts in those churches where tradition plays a role. The long consensus helps prevent the sudden change in direction. If tradition is seen as a common interpretation of written scripture, then radical re-interpretation is harder to pass off as authentic. (The converse is that some traditions may not be what the apostles originally taught.) Again the issue is, what is the right interpretation of scripture, modern ideas or a long consensus?
Which leads to story number four. A group of renegade moralists from Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, decided a good way to protest America's rapid embracing of gay lifestyles as normal, was to dance at the funeral of U.S Soldiers killed in Iraq. Church founder Fred Phelps, apparently believes the individual deaths of U.S. Soldiers is somehow God's judgment on the nation for being "fags and fag enablers". He has apparently taken it upon himself to interpret scripture according to his own absolutely disgusting hermeneutic. And unfortunately, many will see all Christians defined by his unconscionable arrogance.
Let's be clear. If terrorism is attacking the innocent to make a political point, this was no less than terrorism. Whatever one feels about homosexuality, the families of soldiers killed in battle, many of whom may well be very upright people and orthodox believers for all we know, cannot be seen as the direct cause. Phelps says even 9-11 is God's judgment on this country. But he practices precisely the same tactic as the terrorists of that day - targeting the innocent to avenge a God he claims to be a unique spokesman for.
Christianity is not about Christians taking retribution into their own hands. It is, unlike Islam, a faith that stands for truth and morality while at the same time offering compassion and forgiveness.
I guess some could say that's just my interpretation. I don't think so. It is what I have learned from both the written text and a common understanding of it. It is what the majority of Christians have always understood from the words of scripture and the long history of biblical teachers across twenty centuries.
There is a chasm. A growing divide, not only in culture at large, but in the organizational bodies of American Christianity. The good news is it is easier to tell the wheat from the tares. The bad news is we don't have a good way of forming and maintaining alliances between Christians of different heritages. And how desperately we need alliances in these times.
Pragmatism
T.M. Moore has part three of his Contend for the Faith series at BreakPoint. This time the topic is pragmatism. He does not call pragmatism heresy, but rather a road to heresy. "The pragmatic spirit afoot in the Church today tends to be allied with questionable ends and dubious means—not overtly evil ends and means, just not those God has clearly indicated. Here is where the slippery slope to heresy begins." The slippery slope. Incremental change. Like the frog in the kettle. Says Moore,
"Jesus wants a church growing in unity and maturity, not just numbers and noise. He wants, first and foremost, a community of martyrs, not buildings with staff and programs. A family where the Spirit flows in fruit, gifts, power, righteousness, peace, and joy, and not just a spiritual mall, complete with coffee shops and entertainment. An army following Him into the culture, conquering and to conquer, not a people comfy in their cushy theater chairs and classrooms, admiring the latest PowerPoint on Romans. A people united community by community, region by region, seeking the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and not just a collection of religious organizations competing for the dwindling pool of putative “seekers” after who-knows-what.
Key phrases jump out at me: "numbers and noise" - "coffee shops and entertainment". His article begins by discussing how the tabernacle in the Old Testament was to be constructed according to specific plans, given by God, not Moses. He begins with worship. He suggests that the error of pragmatism is thinking that we can find better ways of doing things than the ones God has prescribed.
"Jesus wants a church growing in unity and maturity, not just numbers and noise. He wants, first and foremost, a community of martyrs, not buildings with staff and programs. A family where the Spirit flows in fruit, gifts, power, righteousness, peace, and joy, and not just a spiritual mall, complete with coffee shops and entertainment. An army following Him into the culture, conquering and to conquer, not a people comfy in their cushy theater chairs and classrooms, admiring the latest PowerPoint on Romans. A people united community by community, region by region, seeking the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and not just a collection of religious organizations competing for the dwindling pool of putative “seekers” after who-knows-what.
Key phrases jump out at me: "numbers and noise" - "coffee shops and entertainment". His article begins by discussing how the tabernacle in the Old Testament was to be constructed according to specific plans, given by God, not Moses. He begins with worship. He suggests that the error of pragmatism is thinking that we can find better ways of doing things than the ones God has prescribed.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Alternate Endings
I was in church yesterday, a respectable and growing church that uses the seeker format of Willow Creek or Saddleback. I heard a good respectable sermon, based in Acts 4, stressing bravery and boldness in living and proclaiming the Christian faith. In the course of the message, near the end, the Pastor told the story of Telemachus, a monk who came to ancient Rome from what is now Turkey and by his martyrdom ended the gruesome spectacle of gladiator contests in the coliseum. The pastor stressed in his telling of the story how the courage of one individual can alter the course of whole cultures.
Being a curious fellow, I decided to find out more about Telemachus and found that there are really two different endings to his story. Both of which can be found at a site called The Prayer Foundation. The first version of the story goes like this:
"Telemachus was a monk that lived in Asia in the fourth century. He felt an inner voice from the Lord to go to Rome, but didn't know why. He went anyway. He saw crowds going into the Coliseum, so he followed. He saw two gladiators fighting to the death, so he jumped down and tried to stop them but he kept getting knocked down by the gladiators. On the third time one of the gladiators ran his sword thru Telemachus and for the third time said "In the name of Christ, forbear", then he died. As the crowd saw Telemachus lying there in a pool of blood, there was silence and one by one the Coliseum emptied. Never again was there another gladiator fight."
Now this is truly an inspiring story. Telemachus was an historical figure and a fellow who was instrumental in ending the fights of the gladiators. There are details that need clarification. For example, Telemachus actually lived in the fifth century, which is significant in that Rome was officially friendly to Christianity, post Constantine, a fact that might somewhat alter the mental picture folks have of the culuture in hearing the story. (For example, why, were the games still going on? And why were so many in the stands?)
But the other version of the story is found in the Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret of Cyrus, Book V, Chapter XXVI. It has a very different ending. It goes like this.
"HONORIUS, who inherited the empire of Europe, put a stop to the gladiatorial combats which had long been held at Rome. The occasion of his doing so arose from the following circumstance. A certain man of the name of Telemachus had embraced the ascetic life. He had set out from the East and for this reason had repaired to Rome. There, when the abominable spectacle was being exhibited, he went himself into the stadium, and, stepping down into the arena, endeavoured to stop the men who were wielding their weapons against one another. The spectators of the slaughter were indignant. and inspired by the triad fury of the demon who delights in those bloody deeds, stoned the peacemaker to death.
"When the admirable emperor was informed of this he numbered Telemachus in the array of victorious martyrs, and put an end to that impious spectacle."
I'm sure everyone sees the obvious, that the difference in the two versions of the story is primarily in the response of the crowd. But as a sermon illustration, the focus tends to be on Telemachus and his altering of the course of a civilization. And the different implications in the different ending deserve discussion.
In my Evangelical experience, I have long noted the tendency to be fascinated by the inspirational story, to be drawn to the emotional impact of the great stirring ending. The hollywood climax of the first version of the story -- with Telemachus uttering the inspiring words "In the name of Christ, forbear", not once but three times in some tellings, the last time while lying in a pool of his own blood, leading to the stunned silence of 80,000 onlookers, who stricken with shame, slowly file out of the coliseum -- makes great theater.
The second version, on the other hand, has the ring of reality to it. Instead of Telemachus having a great "line" which pricks the conscience of the onlookers, he simply tries to stop two men from killing each other. Rather than the people being moved to repentance, the base human nature responds with the same selfish lust for blood that brought them to the arena in the first place. Telemachus is killed, just the same, but the effects of his action are not immediately felt. There is no "altar call" moment.
And I find that such a subtle distinction has great implications for how such a sermon illustration is applied.
Those of us listening to such a sermon are subtly inspired by the first version of the story to think that if we take a stand for what is right, the results will be just like the Hollywood ending. There will be immediate and visible fruit. If we are courageous, we will find just the right words to turn hearts from evil -- in a mere moment, great things will occur.
The reality is, I think somewhat different. We need to be told, reminded, warned, that standing for what is right often does not lead to immediate results. Telemachus never saw anyone changed by his action. Instead he saw an angry mob throwing stones with the intent to murder him. 80,000 people did not immediately repent. Rather they simply added him to their list of victims. Presumably the games went on that day and few in the stands gave his death a second thought.
We become disillusioned as Christians when our lives, our bold stands for truth, our struggles to be faithful do not lead to happy endings, do not lead to dramatic visible results. And that disillusionment is often the result of hearing a few too many "happy ending" stories. Not that ministers who use the first version of Telemachus' story intentionally mislead. But there is a temptation to go for the maximum emotional impact to get the maximum motivation. And for a moment, folks are motivated. Then the time to take a stand comes. And when the results are mixed, negative, or even completely nill, we wonder why. When will the climactic musical score rise? When will the dramatic final scene begin?
But the truth is that for every missionary who sees great numbers of converts and changed lives, there are other missionaries who see none at all. My hunch is for every act of courage that leads to dramatic change there are dozens of similar acts which have no visible effect on anyone. Yet which act is more faithful? Which is more effective? Which will God judge us by? Only he knows the effect of our faithfulness or lack thereof.
Of course, the end result, in the case of Telemachus, was that the gladiator games did end. His deed did produce results. The results were not perhaps what he might have planned for or hoped for, and he may have had no plan at all. Nor did he live to see any of it. Those are details that should not be left out. We need to know that standing for the truth often does not lead to visible results, the instant victory, the hollywood ending. Our faithfulness should be based on the truth of the faith, not the results we see in this life.
Being a curious fellow, I decided to find out more about Telemachus and found that there are really two different endings to his story. Both of which can be found at a site called The Prayer Foundation. The first version of the story goes like this:
"Telemachus was a monk that lived in Asia in the fourth century. He felt an inner voice from the Lord to go to Rome, but didn't know why. He went anyway. He saw crowds going into the Coliseum, so he followed. He saw two gladiators fighting to the death, so he jumped down and tried to stop them but he kept getting knocked down by the gladiators. On the third time one of the gladiators ran his sword thru Telemachus and for the third time said "In the name of Christ, forbear", then he died. As the crowd saw Telemachus lying there in a pool of blood, there was silence and one by one the Coliseum emptied. Never again was there another gladiator fight."
Now this is truly an inspiring story. Telemachus was an historical figure and a fellow who was instrumental in ending the fights of the gladiators. There are details that need clarification. For example, Telemachus actually lived in the fifth century, which is significant in that Rome was officially friendly to Christianity, post Constantine, a fact that might somewhat alter the mental picture folks have of the culuture in hearing the story. (For example, why, were the games still going on? And why were so many in the stands?)
But the other version of the story is found in the Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret of Cyrus, Book V, Chapter XXVI. It has a very different ending. It goes like this.
"HONORIUS, who inherited the empire of Europe, put a stop to the gladiatorial combats which had long been held at Rome. The occasion of his doing so arose from the following circumstance. A certain man of the name of Telemachus had embraced the ascetic life. He had set out from the East and for this reason had repaired to Rome. There, when the abominable spectacle was being exhibited, he went himself into the stadium, and, stepping down into the arena, endeavoured to stop the men who were wielding their weapons against one another. The spectators of the slaughter were indignant. and inspired by the triad fury of the demon who delights in those bloody deeds, stoned the peacemaker to death.
"When the admirable emperor was informed of this he numbered Telemachus in the array of victorious martyrs, and put an end to that impious spectacle."
I'm sure everyone sees the obvious, that the difference in the two versions of the story is primarily in the response of the crowd. But as a sermon illustration, the focus tends to be on Telemachus and his altering of the course of a civilization. And the different implications in the different ending deserve discussion.
In my Evangelical experience, I have long noted the tendency to be fascinated by the inspirational story, to be drawn to the emotional impact of the great stirring ending. The hollywood climax of the first version of the story -- with Telemachus uttering the inspiring words "In the name of Christ, forbear", not once but three times in some tellings, the last time while lying in a pool of his own blood, leading to the stunned silence of 80,000 onlookers, who stricken with shame, slowly file out of the coliseum -- makes great theater.
The second version, on the other hand, has the ring of reality to it. Instead of Telemachus having a great "line" which pricks the conscience of the onlookers, he simply tries to stop two men from killing each other. Rather than the people being moved to repentance, the base human nature responds with the same selfish lust for blood that brought them to the arena in the first place. Telemachus is killed, just the same, but the effects of his action are not immediately felt. There is no "altar call" moment.
And I find that such a subtle distinction has great implications for how such a sermon illustration is applied.
Those of us listening to such a sermon are subtly inspired by the first version of the story to think that if we take a stand for what is right, the results will be just like the Hollywood ending. There will be immediate and visible fruit. If we are courageous, we will find just the right words to turn hearts from evil -- in a mere moment, great things will occur.
The reality is, I think somewhat different. We need to be told, reminded, warned, that standing for what is right often does not lead to immediate results. Telemachus never saw anyone changed by his action. Instead he saw an angry mob throwing stones with the intent to murder him. 80,000 people did not immediately repent. Rather they simply added him to their list of victims. Presumably the games went on that day and few in the stands gave his death a second thought.
We become disillusioned as Christians when our lives, our bold stands for truth, our struggles to be faithful do not lead to happy endings, do not lead to dramatic visible results. And that disillusionment is often the result of hearing a few too many "happy ending" stories. Not that ministers who use the first version of Telemachus' story intentionally mislead. But there is a temptation to go for the maximum emotional impact to get the maximum motivation. And for a moment, folks are motivated. Then the time to take a stand comes. And when the results are mixed, negative, or even completely nill, we wonder why. When will the climactic musical score rise? When will the dramatic final scene begin?
But the truth is that for every missionary who sees great numbers of converts and changed lives, there are other missionaries who see none at all. My hunch is for every act of courage that leads to dramatic change there are dozens of similar acts which have no visible effect on anyone. Yet which act is more faithful? Which is more effective? Which will God judge us by? Only he knows the effect of our faithfulness or lack thereof.
Of course, the end result, in the case of Telemachus, was that the gladiator games did end. His deed did produce results. The results were not perhaps what he might have planned for or hoped for, and he may have had no plan at all. Nor did he live to see any of it. Those are details that should not be left out. We need to know that standing for the truth often does not lead to visible results, the instant victory, the hollywood ending. Our faithfulness should be based on the truth of the faith, not the results we see in this life.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Pollyanna Preachers
I referred to a First Things article in which Richard John Neuhaus commented about Joel Osteen. Neuhaus has heard from readers on the issue and about half agree, half do not. He refers to a Breakpoint article, Pollyanna Preachers, which mentions Osteen, but focuses more on the deeper question of evil by Roman Catholic Mark Gauvreau Judge. The "Pollyanna" term is used to describe a tendency to see every event, no matter how horrible, as par of "God's plan", thus no horrible thing is ever really horrible and evil becomes a mere word.
"Osteen doesn’t seem to believe in evil—or free will. To him, every event under—and around—the sun is the work of Divine Providence. Lost your job? God’s got something better prepared for you. Flat tire? God’s just testing your patience. Home and family wiped out by Hurricane Katrina? The hand of Jesus. Child accidentally killed? It’s the will of the Maker."
Judge refers to a book by Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart The Doors of the Sea: Where was God in the Tsunami? which takes a look at evil from a far different perspective. Judge summarizes Hart's main thesis:
"More exasperating [than the cry of doubters that there is no God] were the attempts of well-intentioned Christians to rationalize the catastrophe in ways that, however inadvertently, succeeded only in making the arguments [of the atheists] seem at once both germane and profound.” If God is behind the tsunami and everything else that happens, Hart notes, then God is nothing but a pure expression of will—an expression that leaves no room for freedom."
This is the Calvinist-Arminian debate, from a different angle. Most folks focus on the sovereignty of God vs. free will from a perspective that is concerned primarily with salvation. Calvinists are zealously committed to guarding against salvation by human works and the bondage of the will is vital to that system of thought. In the end all things, including human choices and evil events are part of God's cosmic plan set forth from the foundation of the world. The saved are "eternally secure" because God chose them before the foundation of the world.
But as total sovereignty is seen through the lens of suffering, it causes even committed believers to question God. Why would God plan a tsunami from before the foundation of the world? And if they do not question God, they have to find ways to reconcile themselves to the idea that the evil is somehow part of God's plan.
I have long struggled to reconcile Jesus' weeping at the tomb of Lazarus with the idea that the whole death and miraculous raising of Lazarus was somehow part of a plan. If Lazarus was meant to die so that Jesus could raise him and demonstrate his power and glory, then why did he weep? Why did he not, like the Pollyanna preachers, simply reassure the grieving onlookers that something better was just around the corner? Why didn't he march in with a cheerful grin and tell everyone that all was under control, this was all part of God's will and things will all work out fine? Instead, scripture says he was "deeply moved", even angry as he stood before the tomb of his friend. To say that "everything is God's will" is a compact little pat answer, but it falls short...
"Furthermore—and this is Hart’s most compelling point—to say so is to contradict the actual message of the Gospel. Christ did not call leprosy, disability, and death “good things that come from heaven.” He came to overthrow those things, to conquer that which is rejected by God."
I tend to believe the Eastern church, less influenced by Augustine and thus bypassed by the Calvinist-Arminian debate has a better balance between God's sovereignty and human freedom. How much better, when faced with evil and suffering, to be able to say that we can fight God's enemies - suffering, death, and evil - with acts of mercy, justice, righteousness. How much better to not have fight the urge to blame God or question God. How much better to not have to pretend that the suffering and evil are unimportant or are just an "opportunity" for something better (which often never comes in this life). How much better to believe we have free will, and can choose to make a difference.
"Osteen doesn’t seem to believe in evil—or free will. To him, every event under—and around—the sun is the work of Divine Providence. Lost your job? God’s got something better prepared for you. Flat tire? God’s just testing your patience. Home and family wiped out by Hurricane Katrina? The hand of Jesus. Child accidentally killed? It’s the will of the Maker."
Judge refers to a book by Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart The Doors of the Sea: Where was God in the Tsunami? which takes a look at evil from a far different perspective. Judge summarizes Hart's main thesis:
"More exasperating [than the cry of doubters that there is no God] were the attempts of well-intentioned Christians to rationalize the catastrophe in ways that, however inadvertently, succeeded only in making the arguments [of the atheists] seem at once both germane and profound.” If God is behind the tsunami and everything else that happens, Hart notes, then God is nothing but a pure expression of will—an expression that leaves no room for freedom."
This is the Calvinist-Arminian debate, from a different angle. Most folks focus on the sovereignty of God vs. free will from a perspective that is concerned primarily with salvation. Calvinists are zealously committed to guarding against salvation by human works and the bondage of the will is vital to that system of thought. In the end all things, including human choices and evil events are part of God's cosmic plan set forth from the foundation of the world. The saved are "eternally secure" because God chose them before the foundation of the world.
But as total sovereignty is seen through the lens of suffering, it causes even committed believers to question God. Why would God plan a tsunami from before the foundation of the world? And if they do not question God, they have to find ways to reconcile themselves to the idea that the evil is somehow part of God's plan.
I have long struggled to reconcile Jesus' weeping at the tomb of Lazarus with the idea that the whole death and miraculous raising of Lazarus was somehow part of a plan. If Lazarus was meant to die so that Jesus could raise him and demonstrate his power and glory, then why did he weep? Why did he not, like the Pollyanna preachers, simply reassure the grieving onlookers that something better was just around the corner? Why didn't he march in with a cheerful grin and tell everyone that all was under control, this was all part of God's will and things will all work out fine? Instead, scripture says he was "deeply moved", even angry as he stood before the tomb of his friend. To say that "everything is God's will" is a compact little pat answer, but it falls short...
"Furthermore—and this is Hart’s most compelling point—to say so is to contradict the actual message of the Gospel. Christ did not call leprosy, disability, and death “good things that come from heaven.” He came to overthrow those things, to conquer that which is rejected by God."
I tend to believe the Eastern church, less influenced by Augustine and thus bypassed by the Calvinist-Arminian debate has a better balance between God's sovereignty and human freedom. How much better, when faced with evil and suffering, to be able to say that we can fight God's enemies - suffering, death, and evil - with acts of mercy, justice, righteousness. How much better to not have fight the urge to blame God or question God. How much better to not have to pretend that the suffering and evil are unimportant or are just an "opportunity" for something better (which often never comes in this life). How much better to believe we have free will, and can choose to make a difference.
More Craziness From the WCC
Bishop Tutu isn't the only one substituting politics and misguided theology for Christianity at the WCC. The Weekly Standard discusses the speech of some who took it on themselves to apologize for America.
There is more at World.
Can this organization really be represented by 348 denominations? Can it really represent 500 million people? I find the quote from moderator Leonid Kishkovsky instructive.
"It is entirely possible that, in returning to the U.S., I will be subjected to criticism within my own church."
There is more at World.
Can this organization really be represented by 348 denominations? Can it really represent 500 million people? I find the quote from moderator Leonid Kishkovsky instructive.
"It is entirely possible that, in returning to the U.S., I will be subjected to criticism within my own church."
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Tradition
T. M. Moore has a second installment of his Contending For the Faith series on Colson’s Breakpoint website. Surprisingly to me, the topic this time is “Anti-Traditionalism and Ahistoricalism”. Moore seemed to indicate in installment one that he would be dealing with heresies, old false teachings that keep rearing their ugly head in contemporary evangelicalism. So this topic caught me by surprise. But it is a pleasant surprise. Moore introduces the topic:
“Protestants in general and evangelicals in particular are characterized by a wariness of, if not an outright aversion to, tradition… in the main, Christians today have adopted the chic contemporary view of all things traditional or historical: What could this possibly have to do with me?”
A number of evangelicals, like D. H. Williams are attempting to reconnect with tradition without going to the excess of making tradition equal to scripture. I believe most, however, remain staunchly opposed to tradition, seeing anything “traditional” as “pharisaical”. Moore describes this.
"This scorn for tradition—“anti-traditionalism”—and for the past in general—'ahistoricalism'—takes a variety of forms. In Christian worship it can mean abandoning traditional hymns, forms of music and liturgy, and even approaches to communicating God’s Word. It involves a studied lack of interest in anything written in previous generations, especially anything ancient—only what is hot and new is worth reading. It is exhibited by Christians who are woefully ignorant of the vast, rich heritage of Christian cultural achievement but who do not consider themselves to be in the least disadvantaged for it. It is visible in the seemingly unquenchable need that some church leaders demonstrate for always finding new ways to do and say things, all “old” methods and ways—including the precious heritage of doctrine and Christian confession—being regarded as inapt for our contemporaries. The anti-traditionalism and ahistoricalism of our day is much more in tune with the spirit of the age than with the spirit of the Church that transcends all ages."
Moore makes a point others have made, that all of us embrace some form of tradition. This is a major theme of Leslie Newbegin’s book, "The Gospel in a Pluralist Society". Newbegin argued that none of us can think from point zero to a conclusion, that in order to think at all, we have to assume something is true. What we assume to be true is generally what we have learned from a particular heritage, whether it be science, history, nationalism or faith.
“Today’s anti-traditionalists and ahistoricalists cannot completely escape the tradition and history they seek so eagerly to avoid. They still sing about the cross and the empty tomb, dramatize a morality of love for neighbors, assemble at familiar times for the rituals of the faith, and make use of disciplines and practices handed down from the generations that have preceded them in the Church. For all their attempts to deny their ancient or recent provenance, or to condemn the traditions of other communions, today’s anti-traditionalists and ahistoricalists, of whatever stripe, cannot escape immersion in some elements of the longstanding heritage of the life of faith, even as they earnestly work to create new traditions and begin new histories, packaging them for the consumption of curious inquirers and aspiring wannabes.”
Moore admonishes Evangelicals not to ignore the past and abandon the heritage that informs orthodox belief.
"In the midst of all this tradition-denying and history re-writing we would do well to consider Paul’s admonition to the Thessalonians: 'Stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught by us.' We cannot live apart from some traditions, some immersion in history. So we’d better make certain that, whatever course we steer, we are careful to connect our chosen practices with those of the apostles and of the generations who, having received, adapted, and practiced those traditions with the evident blessing of God, have preserved the faith of Christ for our benefit today.
While I tend to think that some former evangelicals have embraced too much tradition, placing it over scripture in some areas, I also suspect Moore’s welcome urgings do not go quite far enough. There is a big difference between tradition as a fondness for the “old” hymns of the 16th or 19th centuries or arrangements of church government that support “deacon” boards vs. “elder” boards as opposed to the critical “traditions” which defined the orthodox creeds, finalized the canon of the New Testament, defeated the heresies of the early church. In other words, there are traditions and there is tradition. Tradition, as I understand church history, is the “passing along” of the apostolic faith, not quaint familiarity with customs of a few generations ago. It is the soil in which sound doctrine grows and the grid through which scripture can correctly be understood. Tradition creates nothing new, but is the consensus of what the church has always believed.
How desperately pluralistic and fragmenting Protestantism needs to stand on the consensus of the giants of church history again. Moore is right in seeing anti-Traditionalism and a-historicalism as departures from the faith. Hopefully, more evangelicals will move back toward the standards of the whole of church history and not just back to the Reformation.
“Protestants in general and evangelicals in particular are characterized by a wariness of, if not an outright aversion to, tradition… in the main, Christians today have adopted the chic contemporary view of all things traditional or historical: What could this possibly have to do with me?”
A number of evangelicals, like D. H. Williams are attempting to reconnect with tradition without going to the excess of making tradition equal to scripture. I believe most, however, remain staunchly opposed to tradition, seeing anything “traditional” as “pharisaical”. Moore describes this.
"This scorn for tradition—“anti-traditionalism”—and for the past in general—'ahistoricalism'—takes a variety of forms. In Christian worship it can mean abandoning traditional hymns, forms of music and liturgy, and even approaches to communicating God’s Word. It involves a studied lack of interest in anything written in previous generations, especially anything ancient—only what is hot and new is worth reading. It is exhibited by Christians who are woefully ignorant of the vast, rich heritage of Christian cultural achievement but who do not consider themselves to be in the least disadvantaged for it. It is visible in the seemingly unquenchable need that some church leaders demonstrate for always finding new ways to do and say things, all “old” methods and ways—including the precious heritage of doctrine and Christian confession—being regarded as inapt for our contemporaries. The anti-traditionalism and ahistoricalism of our day is much more in tune with the spirit of the age than with the spirit of the Church that transcends all ages."
Moore makes a point others have made, that all of us embrace some form of tradition. This is a major theme of Leslie Newbegin’s book, "The Gospel in a Pluralist Society". Newbegin argued that none of us can think from point zero to a conclusion, that in order to think at all, we have to assume something is true. What we assume to be true is generally what we have learned from a particular heritage, whether it be science, history, nationalism or faith.
“Today’s anti-traditionalists and ahistoricalists cannot completely escape the tradition and history they seek so eagerly to avoid. They still sing about the cross and the empty tomb, dramatize a morality of love for neighbors, assemble at familiar times for the rituals of the faith, and make use of disciplines and practices handed down from the generations that have preceded them in the Church. For all their attempts to deny their ancient or recent provenance, or to condemn the traditions of other communions, today’s anti-traditionalists and ahistoricalists, of whatever stripe, cannot escape immersion in some elements of the longstanding heritage of the life of faith, even as they earnestly work to create new traditions and begin new histories, packaging them for the consumption of curious inquirers and aspiring wannabes.”
Moore admonishes Evangelicals not to ignore the past and abandon the heritage that informs orthodox belief.
"In the midst of all this tradition-denying and history re-writing we would do well to consider Paul’s admonition to the Thessalonians: 'Stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught by us.' We cannot live apart from some traditions, some immersion in history. So we’d better make certain that, whatever course we steer, we are careful to connect our chosen practices with those of the apostles and of the generations who, having received, adapted, and practiced those traditions with the evident blessing of God, have preserved the faith of Christ for our benefit today.
While I tend to think that some former evangelicals have embraced too much tradition, placing it over scripture in some areas, I also suspect Moore’s welcome urgings do not go quite far enough. There is a big difference between tradition as a fondness for the “old” hymns of the 16th or 19th centuries or arrangements of church government that support “deacon” boards vs. “elder” boards as opposed to the critical “traditions” which defined the orthodox creeds, finalized the canon of the New Testament, defeated the heresies of the early church. In other words, there are traditions and there is tradition. Tradition, as I understand church history, is the “passing along” of the apostolic faith, not quaint familiarity with customs of a few generations ago. It is the soil in which sound doctrine grows and the grid through which scripture can correctly be understood. Tradition creates nothing new, but is the consensus of what the church has always believed.
How desperately pluralistic and fragmenting Protestantism needs to stand on the consensus of the giants of church history again. Moore is right in seeing anti-Traditionalism and a-historicalism as departures from the faith. Hopefully, more evangelicals will move back toward the standards of the whole of church history and not just back to the Reformation.
Richard John Neuhaus meets Joel Osteen
But not to be outdone by the excesses of mainline revisionists, evangelicals continue to deal with incursions of false gospels of their own. There is a rather humorous post at First Things. It began with a discussion of “worship music” in Catholic churches, in which a couple of writers lamented that the influx of evangelical style music was simply distracting.
One writer, Al Kimmel, noted that the amplified vocal of the worship leader overshadowed the voices of the rest of the congregation and diminished the reverence of the liturgy. Amy Welborn responded that Catholics are only emulating what they see in Protestant churches, a format that "works". Pragmatism. But in this context, she referred to Joel Osteen's TV program.
"I watched a few minutes of Joel Osteen’s program tonight, live from Reliant Arena down there in Houston. It’s a unique animal, of course, but it’s just what goes on across America, on a very grand scale. There was the huge choir arrayed on both sides of the stage, and for fifteen minutes or so, a woman stood center stage, dressed in the most amazing outfit that featured what sort of looked like a quilted Victorian topcoat with a purple lining and ruffled sleeves. I’m sure the choir made its noise, but the focus was on the woman, her voice dominated on air, and I’m sure in the arena as well, and her presence filled the big screens.
"Different service. Different expectations. Different (very important) tradition of congregational singing. But I’m saying that this is what Catholic music directors see, this is what they think they want to and can duplicate."
Now I have no problem at all with musical styles in church, as long as there is reverence and as long as there is content. I would prefer that worship leaders demonstrate humility, that the congregation is participating. I actually agree that amplification can short-circuit both reverence and community.
But I think that is not what Catholics should be concerned about. The content, the ideas expressed in many Christian gatherings and in much "worship" music remains shallow, devoid of theological content, as Chuck Colson discussed not long ago.
Neuhaus did pick up on this theme.
"Forget about the egregious music, I was listening to his sermon, so to speak. It brought to mind H. Richard Niebuhr’s terse comment on the theology of liberal Protestantism: 'A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.'”
I grew up Catholic and I've heard plenty of Catholic sermons that were "egregious", but I find this startling, that Neuhaus would draw a parallel between liberalism and evangelical entrepreneurial theology. As I have argued often on this site, there is a pattern, first downplaying the importance of doctrine, then slowly forgetting about doctrine altogether, then forgetting basic moral and ethical truths which extend from understanding of God, until a whole new gospel replaces what was once orthodoxy. It happened in the mainline churches and it is beginning in the evangelical movement. Neuhaus goes on...
'The guy is really quite good at what he does. Prancing and preening around the stage, and flashing a smile that must have brought a pleasurable tremor to orthodontists everywhere, he repeatedly assured the audience, numbering in the thousands, that he and they are really, really wonderful. Each one of them, it seems, has an “anointing,” which means, as he put it, that you have to be you and I have to be me."
Ah yes. Easily discerned is the standard goal of so much of the word of faith message – we are all meant to be happy, healthy and well fed. That Neuhaus picked it up in just one sitting is instructional. He finished with a flourish...
"I don’t know if the program was representative of what Joel Osteen calls his ministry. But that evening he was in fine form. The showbiz genre is motivational speaking, and the goal is the building of self-esteem, making people feel really good about themselves. I’m more than OK and you’re pretty OK, too. What he does he does very well, and it obviously draws an appreciative crowd. Of course it has nothing whatsoever to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ."
Amen.
One writer, Al Kimmel, noted that the amplified vocal of the worship leader overshadowed the voices of the rest of the congregation and diminished the reverence of the liturgy. Amy Welborn responded that Catholics are only emulating what they see in Protestant churches, a format that "works". Pragmatism. But in this context, she referred to Joel Osteen's TV program.
"I watched a few minutes of Joel Osteen’s program tonight, live from Reliant Arena down there in Houston. It’s a unique animal, of course, but it’s just what goes on across America, on a very grand scale. There was the huge choir arrayed on both sides of the stage, and for fifteen minutes or so, a woman stood center stage, dressed in the most amazing outfit that featured what sort of looked like a quilted Victorian topcoat with a purple lining and ruffled sleeves. I’m sure the choir made its noise, but the focus was on the woman, her voice dominated on air, and I’m sure in the arena as well, and her presence filled the big screens.
"Different service. Different expectations. Different (very important) tradition of congregational singing. But I’m saying that this is what Catholic music directors see, this is what they think they want to and can duplicate."
Now I have no problem at all with musical styles in church, as long as there is reverence and as long as there is content. I would prefer that worship leaders demonstrate humility, that the congregation is participating. I actually agree that amplification can short-circuit both reverence and community.
But I think that is not what Catholics should be concerned about. The content, the ideas expressed in many Christian gatherings and in much "worship" music remains shallow, devoid of theological content, as Chuck Colson discussed not long ago.
Neuhaus did pick up on this theme.
"Forget about the egregious music, I was listening to his sermon, so to speak. It brought to mind H. Richard Niebuhr’s terse comment on the theology of liberal Protestantism: 'A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.'”
I grew up Catholic and I've heard plenty of Catholic sermons that were "egregious", but I find this startling, that Neuhaus would draw a parallel between liberalism and evangelical entrepreneurial theology. As I have argued often on this site, there is a pattern, first downplaying the importance of doctrine, then slowly forgetting about doctrine altogether, then forgetting basic moral and ethical truths which extend from understanding of God, until a whole new gospel replaces what was once orthodoxy. It happened in the mainline churches and it is beginning in the evangelical movement. Neuhaus goes on...
'The guy is really quite good at what he does. Prancing and preening around the stage, and flashing a smile that must have brought a pleasurable tremor to orthodontists everywhere, he repeatedly assured the audience, numbering in the thousands, that he and they are really, really wonderful. Each one of them, it seems, has an “anointing,” which means, as he put it, that you have to be you and I have to be me."
Ah yes. Easily discerned is the standard goal of so much of the word of faith message – we are all meant to be happy, healthy and well fed. That Neuhaus picked it up in just one sitting is instructional. He finished with a flourish...
"I don’t know if the program was representative of what Joel Osteen calls his ministry. But that evening he was in fine form. The showbiz genre is motivational speaking, and the goal is the building of self-esteem, making people feel really good about themselves. I’m more than OK and you’re pretty OK, too. What he does he does very well, and it obviously draws an appreciative crowd. Of course it has nothing whatsoever to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ."
Amen.
Tutu on Islam and Christianity
Two different sources on my regular morning reading list picked up on speeches by Anglican Archbishop and Nobel Prize winner Desmond Tutu at a UN conference in Qatar and a World Council of Churches conference in Brazil. One focused on Tutu’s “willful ignorance” in matters relating to the cartoon jihad over images of Mohammed printed in Denmark. The other focused more on the theological content of the address.
John Hinderaker at Powerline referred to Tuto as “the appalling Bishop Tutu” for taking a line of moral equivalence between the occasional vocalizations of Christians and Jews toward media types who hurl insults and the random killing and rioting in multiple countries over a handful of cartooons, killing of individuals who had nothing to do with those cartoons. He seems to think the Danish government had more to apologize for than murderous mobs. Tutu is quoted:
''Had relationships been different, one, the cartoons might not have happened, or if they had, they probably would have been handled differently...'Imagine if the subject had been the Holocaust and it had been treated in a way that the Jews had deemed offensive and the reaction of the Danish government and international community had been as it is now."
The writer correctly sees a horrifying foolishness in the very question:
"'Imagine'? 'Imagine'? Does Bishop Tutu really not know that this happens all the time? Is he unaware that Iran is, in fact, sponsoring a Holocaust cartoon contest, the reaction to which has been a big yawn? This is willful ignorance.
Tutu blundered further into historical silliness…
"He lamented the negative stereotyping of Muslims and wondered why North Ireland's Protestants and Catholics, the Oklahoma City bombers or even the Nazis had never been labeled ''Christian terrorists.'''
This brought the inevitable response from Hinderaker...
"Well, let me see if I can think of a few reasons. One, the Nazi leaders were atheists or pagans, not Christians. Two, none of the individuals cited purported to kill in the name of Christ or Christianity…Three, no Christian priests or ministers advocate murdering those of other faiths. That's "none," as in zero. Same with Jewish rabbis."
Tutu wants peace and "justice" at the expense of truth and reason…and that carries over from truth about the basic facts of what is happening in the news of the day to what is happening in the spiritual realm.
Parker Williamson reported on Tutu's speech to the WCC at Virtue Online
"The Rev. Desmond Tutu, archbishop and primate of Southern Africa, has weighed in with World Council of Churches leaders who seek to have the council transcend Christian boundaries. 'After all,' said Tutu, 'God is not a Christian.'"
One wonders what Tutu means. Do the words of Christ “No one comes to the Father but by me” have any objective meaning at all? Tutu goes on to embrace universalism further and more explicitly.
"Jesus, it appears, was quite serious when he said that God was our father and that we belonged all to one family, because in this family all, not some, are insiders. None is an outsider - black and white, yellow and red, rich and poor, educated and not educated, beautiful and not so beautiful, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, all belong, all are held in a divine embrace that will not let us go - all, for God has no enemies."
Is this the Jesus who cast the moneychangers out of the temple? Is this the Jesus who said it is better to be cast into the sea with a millstone around the neck than to lead a child astray?
More came at a later press conference…
"I have said that God is not a Christian," said Tutu. "Some people chewed me up for saying that, but I believe it. Some like to think that we Christians have the duty of protecting God. But I wish these people could meet the Dalai Lama. He is a holy person, incredible. We are the ones who keep trying to put limits on God, but God gives the incredible gift of grace."
Hey, the Dalai Lama may be a nice guy, but does that mean that the basics of Christian faith can be simply discarded?
"God is the God of all...We are too prone to excommunicate. God welcomes all of us. Today we Christians have moved a long way toward understanding that we don't have a corner on the God market. Once we said that all who are not Christians are pagans . We must do away with social apartheid in the world. Religion is like a knife. You can use it for cutting a sandwich or to kill."
I had always thought that the role of a “bishop” was to guard the deposit of faith as proclaimed by the apostles and documented in the scriptures. As I read the early church documents, it seems the role of the bishop is supposed to be essential to the church. It is easy to see why evangelicals are so skeptical of Episcopal structures when those in such lofty positions holding the title of "Bishop" can so easily and visibly proclaim a completely new vision of the world and the faith with impunity.
It was Tertullian, I believe who asked "Do we prove the faith by the man or the man by the faith?" This was a massive failure.
John Hinderaker at Powerline referred to Tuto as “the appalling Bishop Tutu” for taking a line of moral equivalence between the occasional vocalizations of Christians and Jews toward media types who hurl insults and the random killing and rioting in multiple countries over a handful of cartooons, killing of individuals who had nothing to do with those cartoons. He seems to think the Danish government had more to apologize for than murderous mobs. Tutu is quoted:
''Had relationships been different, one, the cartoons might not have happened, or if they had, they probably would have been handled differently...'Imagine if the subject had been the Holocaust and it had been treated in a way that the Jews had deemed offensive and the reaction of the Danish government and international community had been as it is now."
The writer correctly sees a horrifying foolishness in the very question:
"'Imagine'? 'Imagine'? Does Bishop Tutu really not know that this happens all the time? Is he unaware that Iran is, in fact, sponsoring a Holocaust cartoon contest, the reaction to which has been a big yawn? This is willful ignorance.
Tutu blundered further into historical silliness…
"He lamented the negative stereotyping of Muslims and wondered why North Ireland's Protestants and Catholics, the Oklahoma City bombers or even the Nazis had never been labeled ''Christian terrorists.'''
This brought the inevitable response from Hinderaker...
"Well, let me see if I can think of a few reasons. One, the Nazi leaders were atheists or pagans, not Christians. Two, none of the individuals cited purported to kill in the name of Christ or Christianity…Three, no Christian priests or ministers advocate murdering those of other faiths. That's "none," as in zero. Same with Jewish rabbis."
Tutu wants peace and "justice" at the expense of truth and reason…and that carries over from truth about the basic facts of what is happening in the news of the day to what is happening in the spiritual realm.
Parker Williamson reported on Tutu's speech to the WCC at Virtue Online
"The Rev. Desmond Tutu, archbishop and primate of Southern Africa, has weighed in with World Council of Churches leaders who seek to have the council transcend Christian boundaries. 'After all,' said Tutu, 'God is not a Christian.'"
One wonders what Tutu means. Do the words of Christ “No one comes to the Father but by me” have any objective meaning at all? Tutu goes on to embrace universalism further and more explicitly.
"Jesus, it appears, was quite serious when he said that God was our father and that we belonged all to one family, because in this family all, not some, are insiders. None is an outsider - black and white, yellow and red, rich and poor, educated and not educated, beautiful and not so beautiful, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, all belong, all are held in a divine embrace that will not let us go - all, for God has no enemies."
Is this the Jesus who cast the moneychangers out of the temple? Is this the Jesus who said it is better to be cast into the sea with a millstone around the neck than to lead a child astray?
More came at a later press conference…
"I have said that God is not a Christian," said Tutu. "Some people chewed me up for saying that, but I believe it. Some like to think that we Christians have the duty of protecting God. But I wish these people could meet the Dalai Lama. He is a holy person, incredible. We are the ones who keep trying to put limits on God, but God gives the incredible gift of grace."
Hey, the Dalai Lama may be a nice guy, but does that mean that the basics of Christian faith can be simply discarded?
"God is the God of all...We are too prone to excommunicate. God welcomes all of us. Today we Christians have moved a long way toward understanding that we don't have a corner on the God market. Once we said that all who are not Christians are pagans . We must do away with social apartheid in the world. Religion is like a knife. You can use it for cutting a sandwich or to kill."
I had always thought that the role of a “bishop” was to guard the deposit of faith as proclaimed by the apostles and documented in the scriptures. As I read the early church documents, it seems the role of the bishop is supposed to be essential to the church. It is easy to see why evangelicals are so skeptical of Episcopal structures when those in such lofty positions holding the title of "Bishop" can so easily and visibly proclaim a completely new vision of the world and the faith with impunity.
It was Tertullian, I believe who asked "Do we prove the faith by the man or the man by the faith?" This was a massive failure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)