The Internet Monk Archives

Civil Religion Series: Wealth, the Social Gospel, and Holy War

Civil Religion, part nine
Wealth, the Social Gospel, and Holy War

Presidential election years in the U.S. provide American Christians an opportunity to reflect upon our faith and how it applies to our lives as citizens and to the public issues that affect us all. We are taking many Tuesdays throughout 2016 to discuss matters like these.

At this point we are looking at the second book for this series: Was America Founded As a Christian Nation?: A Historical Introduction, by John Fea. Fea is Associate Professor of American History and Chair of the History Department at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania. He blogs at The Way of Improvement Leads Home.

• • •

In the United States, after the Civil War and through the early decades of the twentieth century, Protestant Christianity found itself developing into three primary streams of belief and practice: evangelicals, fundamentalists, and liberals (or modernists). John Fea describes these basic groups and the sometimes surprising ways they sought to promote a more “Christian” America.

Evangelicals in those days, for example, often took the lead with regard to social concerns. It might surprise some today to learn that, in addition to such moral issues as temperance and Sabbath reform, evangelicals were leading advocates of labor reforms such as the eight-hour workday, arbitration to decide labor disputes, equitable apprenticeship laws, and settlers’ rights vs. corporations such as the railroads. They even backed establishing the bureau of labor statistics.

But it is Fea’s discussion of “liberal” Protestant Christianity in this period that I found most intriguing.

Evangelicals and fundamentalists were not the only Protestants in America between the Civil War and the 1920s. Liberal Protestants were much more open to adapting their faith to the spirit of the age. They would engage in “battle royal” with the fundamentalists for control of Protestant denominations, but in the process they never abandoned their ardent belief that the United States was a Christian nation and needed to be defended as such. Indeed, the rhetoric that liberal Protestants used to defend Christian America was considerably stronger than that employed by the fundamentalists. (p. 35)

Liberal Christianity was criticized as “modernist” theology for their approach in which they applied modern methods of reason and scientific inquiry to the Bible and theological matters. They saw the Bible more as a witness to God than the revealed Word of God. They used methods of historical criticism with regard to the biblical texts in order to develop theories about how the Bible came to be and to separate the historical background from scripture’s “myths.” A chief example of this was the Documentary Hypothesis, a theory about various sources behind the Pentateuch that led scholars to deny the Mosaic authorship of these books. Furthermore, liberals were enchanted with modern scientific progress and accepted evolution over the creations accounts in the Bible. They denied the Virgin Birth and doubted scriptural reports of the miraculous.

This type of faith fit well with the American notion of progress. As Fea puts it: “Ultimately, they tied their theological wagons to the train of progress. Society was advancing toward the kingdom of God and Christians needed to play a part in its coming.” The liberals were condemned by evangelicals and fundamentalists for their overly optimistic view of human nature, their dismissal of original sin, and their faith in the advancement of knowledge, reason, and human cooperation to bring about worldwide transformation of this world into God’s Kingdom.

Some of these liberals put their emphasis on the great economic blessings God had given to the people of the U.S. Preachers like Henry Ward Beecher and William Lawrence, for example, emphasized that the opportunities available to make and accumulate wealth in this land were favorable to the nation’s progress in virtue and morality. They encouraged the spirit of capitalist progress as a means to moral and spiritual revival. As Lawrence put it, prosperity would lead to a national character that would be “sweeter, more joyous, more unselfish, more Christlike.”

Another emphasis within liberal Christianity was on Jesus’ social teachings. Also called “the social gospel,” one of the strongest proponents of this teaching, Washington Gladden (who wrote “It Came Upon the Midnight Clear”), described his vision of this gospel for transforming the nation:

Every department of human life—the families, the schools, amusements, art, business, politics, industry, national politics, international relations—will be governed by the Christian law and controlled by Christian influences. When we are bidden to seek first the kingdom of God, we are bidden to set our hearts on this great commission; to keep this always before us as the object of our endeavors; to be satisfied with nothing less than this. The complete Christianization of all life is what we pray and work for, when we work and pray for the coming of the kingdom of heaven. (p. 37)

Some accused Gladden of being a theocrat — something rarely said of “liberals” or “progressive” Christians today!

But perhaps the most surprising feature of liberal Christianity during this era was their support for the U.S. at war.

Though there were many pacifists in their ranks, the majority of liberal Protestants at the turn of the twentieth century saw war as a means of securing a peaceful world—the kind of world that would spread God-inspired democracy and precipitate the second coming of Christ.

For example, Lyman Abbott, Henry Ward Beecher’s successor at the Plymouth Congregational Church in Brooklyn, believed believed that the U.S. victory in the Spanish-American War was a harbinger of the kingdom of God. It demonstrated the nation’s compassion and care for the suffering and oppressed of Cuba and the Philippines. 34 Abbott offered a spiritualized version of American imperialism not unlike Rudyard Kipling’s poem “The White Man’s Burden.”

While evangelical clergy eased into their support for World War I, Protestant liberals understood it as a “war for righteousness.” It pitted the forces of God, in the form of the United States of America and its commitment to democracy and social justice, against the forces of evil, as embodied in the religious tribalism and antidemocratic tendencies of Germany. Progressive ministers led their churches in patriotic hymns such as “Onward Christian Soldiers” and “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” They described the war as “redemptive” and did not hesitate in portraying it as a holy war designed to usher in the kingdom of God on earth.

Historian Richard Gamble has described the liberal Protestant response to World War I as nothing short of messianic in nature. (p. 38-39)

The great spokesperson for this liberal Christian “messianic” vision was President Woodrow Wilson, an elder in his liberal Presbyterian church. John Fea describes Wilson’s combination of faith and country:

As president of the United States, Wilson blended Christianity and patriotism. Both taught people how to sacrifice their lives for something larger than themselves. There was little difference in Wilson’s mind between the United States of America and the kingdom of God. This kind of religious idealism naturally found its way into Wilson’s foreign policy. (p. 39)

Urged on by groups of liberal ministers and leaders, including Harry Emerson Fosdick, Wilson, who had originally campaigned on a peace platform, changed his mind and the U.S. went to war. For progressive Christians in the early 20th century, World War I was a holy war for the Christian faith.

Mondays with Michael Spencer: June 27, 2016

Mondays with Michael Spencer: June 27, 2016

Today we continue a series of Monday posts with excerpts of Michael Spencer’s thoughts about the Bible and what it does and does not promise to do for us.

• • •

Sometimes, the Bible doesn’t give you enough evidence, one way or the other, to settle a question beyond the possibility of a continuing discussion and debate. If this is true, and if the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit does not remove this ambiguity, then there are points beyond which dicsussion and debate ought to proceed only with considerable and generous amounts of respectful humility.

Now, I don’t know if you need to read this seven times (complete, in the Authorized Version) to “get it,” but this is pretty significant stuff, and I would like to recommend that my thoughtful readers consider the implications of this idea, assuming we actually ever acted in accordance with it.

…Uncertainty of any kind is sin to many Bible-believing Christians, and an insult to lots of the smart ones. They see the recognition that scripture may sometimes be less-than-perfectly clear as a surrender on inspiration and authority. Of course, the Apostle Peter himself said that Paul’s writings contained some things that were hard to understand. While we are often reminded that the church councils worked to remove all disagreement, we sometimes imagine that the Christian movement read the scriptures and agreed on everything, with disagreement and diversity coming along later, when modern Bible translations.

Did the early church agree completely on modes of baptism? On the presence of women in worship? On the the standards for communion? On the process of discipline and restoration? On the use of “non-canonical” material? On the form of church government? On detailed theories of the atonement? On the role of art? On eating meat offered to idols? On the appropriateness of marriage between believers and unbelievers? On the support of the poor? On who had apostolic authority?

Listening to some full-time Christian defenders of orthodoxy, you would think the “humilty zone” was a concept so Satanic, so diabolical, that it should be opposed at every point. Instead, it ought to be encouraged, modeled and developed.

Why can’t we have a conference where those with differing points of view on Baptism or church government present their positions, and discuss questions/objections without hearing that some “simply won’t believe what the Bible plainly teaches.?”

Why can’t Christians who homeschool, go to Christian schools and participate in public schools work together, recognizing that Christian parents can love Jesus and the Bible and come to differing conclusions?

Why can’t Christians who differ on issues of war, economics and politics discuss their approaches as all rooted in Biblical teaching, but not in a Bible that unambiguously indicates pacifism or just war?

Is it possible for Calvinists and Arminians to consider the possibility that they are both reading the same Bible, with much of the same devotion and training, but with differing interpretative approaches, leading to differing conclusions? (I think of how these teams refer to one another’s God as a “monster” or a “wimp,” and wonder at how few intelligent interpreters can acknowledge that both views grow out of the Bible.)

I am not trying to start a quarrel with the Bible, nor am I writing suggesting how we resolve ambiguity when we HAVE TO (and sometimes we must, even at great pain,) but I am suggesting that we nurture and even insist on this “humility zone.” It is not a mark of maturity to demean points of view that are rooted in the same New Testament we all believe to be God’s Word. We are going to differ on dozens of topics because, sometimes, we forget that the Bible’s perspicuity on some matters does not gurantee its clarity on others.

If you have a humility zone, some will be grateful and meet you there to talk. Others will attack you and call you apostate, liberal and “postmodern” (or whatever the new buzzword happens to be.) I think it comes down to honestly facing the Bible itself, and settling within ourselves that God has not commanded us to fight with our fellow Christians until one side or the other “wins.” We fight side by side, in divisions that sometimes differ on many things, but which agree on what matters most.

Pic & Poem of the Week: June 26, 2016

Pic & Poem of the Week
June 26, 2016

For your pleasure and contemplation, I am posting an original photograph and a corresponding poem each week on Sundays. May these offerings help lead us to a deeper place of rest on the Lord’s Day.

Click on the picture for a larger image.

• • •

Walker, your footsteps
are the road and nothing more;
Walker, there is no road,
the road is made by walking.

Walking you make the road
and turning to look behind
you see the path you never
again will step upon.
Walker, there is no road,
only foam trails on the sea

Antonio Machado
Songs and Poems
Trans. by Willis Barnstone

Saturday Ramblings, June 25, 2016

Hello, friends, and welcome to the weekend. Ready to Ramble?

Rambler Classic; as sexy as a station wagon can get.

The big news this week, of course, is the Brexit. Were you surprised by the results? I was. I mean, what is going on this year? Have we tried unplugging 2016, waiting ten seconds and plugging it back in?

Meanwhile, at the chunnel:

And India is blown away that you can get Britain to leave by just voting.

This actually came out a few weeks ago, but, like me, you might have missed it. I am talking about the emoji Bible. Now, of course, it’s not like every word is replaced by an emoji, though when they figure out what to use for “circumcision” that day may come. Rather, The 3,282-page book is based on a computer program that detects certain characters or strings of characters in the King James Version of the Bible and automatically substitutes an emoji, numeral, or other symbol (e.g., &) in their place. That’s why, for example, “twined linen,” from the section of Exodus about building the tabernacle, shows up as a wine glass sandwiched between a “t” and a “d.” The emoji for God? Two happy faces with halos.

Said one of the co-creators.”A major goal of this whole process was to take a book that I think is very non-approachable to lay readers and try to make it more approachable by removing a lot of its density.”

In related news, Apple announce seventy-two new emojis, including one of a pregnant woman. Apparently it’s the emoji you get nine months after texting, “You awake?”

The University of Missouri has published a helpful chart of microagressions. Some are reasonable and helpful. Others? Well, what do you think? Are these microagressions?

Saying that people overcoming disabilities are “inspiring”.
Claiming that, “I believe the most qualified person should get
the job.”
Asking a Black person: “Why do you have to be so
loud/animated? Just calm down.”
Asking an Asian or Latino person: “Why are you so
quiet? We want to know what you think. Be more
verbal.”
Television shows and movies that feature
predominantly White people, without
representation of people of color

An Oregon judge has allowed a 52-year-old retired Army tank mechanic to change gender identity. Not from male to female, or vice versa. That’s so old hat. But to a new, third gender. Jamie Shupe is now legally non-binary — widely believed to be a first for the United States.

As of now, the state isn’t fighting the court’s decision. In a few months, Oregon driver’s license applications will have new gender designations, in addition to male and female.

“Is it a third box? Or will it require multiple boxes?” a BMV executive asked. “We just don’t know the answer to those questions; we’re going to need to study that.”

More than 30 people who attended an event with motivational speaker Tony Robbins have been treated for burns after Robbins encouraged them to walk on hot coals as a way of conquering their fears, Dallas fire officials said this week. Robbins conducts a variety of empowerment seminars — which can range from about $1,000 to up to $3,000 — and “Unleash the Power Within” is described on his website as “designed to help you unlock and unleash the forces inside that can help you break through any limit.” Hopefully they feel empowered enough to sue him.

Democrats held a big sit-in on the House floor to protest Congress’ refusal to vote on gun control. Or in other words, congressmen were tired of Congress not getting anything done, so they refused to get anything done until someone got something done. And by the way, you know the state of our Congress is terrible when you see a bunch of politicians sitting on their butts and think to yourself, “Wow, they’re finally doing something!”

House Speaker Paul Ryan referred to the Democratic-led sit-in for gun control as “nothing more than a publicity stunt.” He then reaffirmed his endorsement of this man:

It’s been reported that after leaving office, President Obama is considering owning an NBA team. Apparently he feels it’s his only chance to get someone on the court.

And Bernie Sanders admitted this that he “doesn’t appear” to be the nominee, but, just to make sure, he’ll remain in the race for three more years.

At a meeting with nearly 1,000 evangelical leaders this week, Donald Trump told the attendees that Hillary and Obama are not worthy of their prayers.

[…Anything] about Hillary in terms of religion. She’s been in the public eye for years and years and yet there’s nothing out there, there’s, like, nothing out there. She’s going to be an extension of Obama but it’s going to be worse because with Obama you had your guard up, with Hillary you don’t and it’s going to be worse. So, I think people were saying, some of the people were saying, ‘Let’s pray for our leaders.’ Well, you can pray for your leaders, and I agree with that, pray for everyone, but what you really have to do is you have to pray to get everybody out to vote, and for one specific person. We can’t be politically correct and say we pray for all of our leaders because all of your leaders are selling Christianity down the tubes, selling the evangelicals down the tubes, and it’s a very, very bad thing that’s happening.

Man, he sounds just like the Apostle Paul, doesn’t he?

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all Godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. – 1 Timothy 2-4

In any case Hillary’s prayers were already answered when Trump won the GOP nomination.

Jerry Falwell Jr, of course, was one of those evangelical leaders, and is now of Trumps evangelical advisory board. After the meeting, Falwell tweeted this picture.

ClgEx2jUsAAuV5J — And why does the Donald have TWO copies of the same magazine cover of himself?

And yes, that picture over Becky Falwell’s shoulder is a Playboy cover featuring some porn star wearing Donald’s coat and apparently nothing else.

Falwell refused to apologize (shocker) and hit back at his critics (super-shocker) with this nuanced and profound analysis:

Honored for same hypocrites who accused Jesus of being a friend of publicans and sinners to be targeting me over a decades old mag cover! TY

The Playboy Magazine cover, however, did apologize, the Babylon Bee reports.

“I’m super ashamed about this,” the Playboy issue’s press release read, in part. “Donald takes tons of pictures with people in this office, and they’re usually friendlies—I wasn’t paying enough attention Tuesday afternoon to realize he was taking a picture with Jerry Falwell, Jr., son of political moral crusader Jerry Falwell, both of whom have spoken out against me thousands, if not tens of thousands of times, telling people to hate me while openly questioning the morality of anyone who would gaze upon my pages.”

“Frankly it makes me question Trump’s moral acumen, to have a guy like that in his office,” it continued, noting that Jerry Falwell, Sr., used to organize protests of Playboy back in the 80s, and that the magazine is officially forbidden from being brought on the campus of the college Falwell, Jr. runs. . . I assure you I’ll be more vigilant in the future about whom I’m being photographed with,” the magazine promised.

More headlines from Babylon Bee:

It’s being reported that LeBron James’ 11-year-old son already has basketball scholarship offers from Duke and Kentucky. Hey Lebron, that means you can stop saving for college!!

Ticketmaster is settling a class action lawsuit for overcharging customers. As part of the settlement, they’re giving out $5 million in free concert tickets. Minus the $3 million “convenience” fee.

We end today with one of my favorite pieces. I would choose your favorite, but I don’t know who you are. And you probably like country or something. And you didn’t just spend five hours writing the Ramblings, did ya? No, I DIDN’T THINK SO. So I get to choose. And today it’s Holst. Enjoy!

Make the Way by Walking

Note from CM: My work requires me to be around death and dying people every day. That means I am also with the people from whom these loved ones’ lives are being torn. From one perspective, life is a series of losses and we all find ourselves bereft. Therefore, the simple human ministry of supporting each other through seasons of loss is one of the ways we are called to relate in this world.

We do not always do this well. Despite its ubiquity, we would rather not face loss in our own lives or in the lives of others. It is uncomfortable. People of faith are no less uncomfortable, and in addition we find ourselves laden with an additional storehouse of “answers” that leads us to think we can short circuit natural processes of mourning and grieving. We can be miserable comforters.

I wrote the following to counter this tendency, to give permission for the sorrowing to sorrow. We accompany people through grief, we do not enable them to get over it.

• • •

Make the Way by Walking

My friend, I have good news for you: you don’t have to “do grief right.” In our culture, we expect people to follow a certain path in the wake of a loss. I’m here to tell you: there is no defined path. Just be yourself, keep walking, and you will make a way.

You may be introverted, drawing strength from solitude. Or, as an extrovert, you may find help being with others. Some people need to sleep while others need to stay busy. Talking about it may help or hinder. Some read everything they can find to answer the questions that haunt them. Others want to simply forget. There is no “right” way.

Furthermore, you don’t have to come up with a “reason” or “purpose” for your loss. The plain fact is, there might not be one, at least one any of us will ever know.

You are not required to smile and say things are alright. You need not put on a positive front in order to “be strong” for others. “Falling apart” is normal. Give yourself permission.

You don’t have to always try to balance your sad feelings with positive ones. Your tears honor the immense importance of your loss. If it hurts, it hurts.

On the other hand, don’t feel guilty if you have a good day or want to do something fun. Even in a season of grief, there are ups as well as downs. It’s okay to still enjoy life’s blessings, to laugh, to lighten things up.

And perhaps you are one of those people who rarely cries and is not demonstrative about your feelings. Don’t let people pressure you into feeling bad about that. If you simply prefer to deal with your loss privately and process your thoughts and feelings more stoically or analytically because that is your personality, that’s okay.

If you are a person of faith, don’t automatically imagine that God will “speak” to you about your loss or give you a vision or a word that will explain it to you.

Don’t assume that, through your loss, God is giving you a “message” to share with others. Some of us are activist types, always looking for ways to help other people. But grief is not about that. Grief is about you — your loss, your pain, your darkness. It is not “selfish” to focus on yourself. Grief means you have received a serious wound, and there is a time to tend wounds.

“God-talk” can mean well, but it can also ramp up the pressure to “do grief right” and be “heroic” at a time when you need to heal.

It’s okay to hurt, to cry, to fall apart, to withdraw, to get depressed, to be angry, to struggle within yourself and with God and others, to rage against the senselessness of it all, to have no words, and to feel like that for as long as you need. Grief doesn’t follow a timetable. Be patient with yourself, and seek the help of others who will let you be yourself.

There is no sure guide that can cut a straight path through the wilderness of grief. You will make your own way by simply walking. And you will make it.

Scott Lencke – Misunderstanding Jesus: If You Don’t Have a Sword, Sell Your Cloak and Buy One

We welcome Scott Lencke today. He blogs at The Prodigal Thought. Scott also has a book coming this fall with Wipf & Stock, called Change for the First Time, Again, and a side project at the book’s website, where you can join in and share your own story of change.

• • •

There’s much talk these days (and these decades) about second amendment rights in the U.S., the particular amendment that focuses on the right to bear arms. For those Christians who champion this right, one obvious goal is to find biblical support for the claim.

Many times, there is a naive perspective floating around that says something like this: “God said it; I believe it; that settles it.” If God “said it” in his word (the keyword being “it,” referring to bearing arms), then we are now authorized to practice it.

One of the main go-to Scripture passages for those who promote the private right to bear arms (and use those arms) is found in Jesus’ words in Luke 22:

36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied.

The highlighted portion contains the most important of words.

But what is really going on in the text here?

For starters, as we refer to it, this is Christ’s “passion week.” Jesus has just had his “last supper” with his closest friends and now he is to be betrayed by the infamous, Judas Iscariot. This is all headed towards the greatest act of self-sacrificial love ever known to humanity – the crucifixion of God’s son and messiah.

Jesus has just reminded his friends about an earlier expedition he had sent them on. In preparation, he had told them not to take purse, bag or sandals. Standing before his disciples now, he asks a simple question – Did you lack anything?

Their quick response was, “No.”

But the tables have turned of sorts. Jesus says it’s now time to take up purse and bag. Of even greater interest is that he replaces the word sandals with sword. If they didn’t have a sword, no problem. They could sell their cloaks to obtain one.

Hardship was coming; enemies were on the prowl. Grab your stuff and get ready for the attack; get ready to defend yourselves with sword.

At least that’s what it seems to suggest on the surface.

Yet, what many fail to do is to continue reading the Gospel narrative.

Jesus immediately quotes Isa 53:12: And he was numbered with the transgressors.

It’s interesting how this little statement about being numbered with transgressors is embedded within the context of Isaiah’s final servant song (52:13-53:12). Though originally the Isaiah passage spoke of the old Hebrew people within the context of their own collective suffering, we as the followers of Jesus identify the song as expounding upon the most gruesome of events in history – the crucifixion of God’s messiah, the holy and innocent one.

In this Isaianic poem, we are told the innocent messiah would be reckoned as a transgressor, or literally as a rebel. He was no transgressor; he was no rebel. He was right, good and innocent. Still, he would be counted as such.

This is what was taking place: Jesus’ words were employing a prophetic drama that would be integral in playing out his own sacrifice of self. However, what he was not doing was laying forth some kind of “command for all time” about weaponry that he expected his followers to embrace. These words were not arguing for personal self-preservation; they were not prescribing an opportunity to kill any intruder; they were not advocating retributive violence. Nothing of the sort.

If they were, then the cross means absolutely nothing!

Take up arms to defeat your enemies!

That’s the exact opposite message of the cross.

This becomes clear when Jesus’ friends say, “Hey, we have two swords!” Jesus responds with, “That’s enough.”

Were two swords really going to defeat the onslaught that was forthcoming? Really?! Two swords for a mob? Two swords when facing Rome’s contingency over the next couple of days?

Of course not.

I’m not quite sure of the body language and tone in Jesus’ statement, “That’s enough,” but I imagine a deep sigh and a looking up to the Father as if to acknowledge his friends just don’t get it.

Not only that, but if we dip into the other Gospel accounts, we find a rebuke when Peter actually does pull out his sword to lop off one of the soldier’s ears: “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matt 26:52).

What was taking place is that those who were his closest friends were abandoning the ways of Jesus, invoking the ways of rebels and Rome, embracing violence through the sword. Hence, as the well-known suffering servant song went, Jesus was going to be counted amongst the transgressing rebels.

However, we are certain of one thing: In this atrocious act of capital punishment at the cross, the great evils of the age, the powers and authorities, would be disarmed (Col 2:15). Jesus did this not with a sword, not with a weapon, but with self-sacrificial love expressed in a bloody death.

And, as Isaiah expresses elsewhere, this was to propel us toward a new day and era:

They will beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore. (Isa 2:4)

We still await that day, at least fully. The followers of Jesus can begin now. If we do, it would resemble the one we are named after. That’s exactly what our early sisters and brothers did. In the midst of grave injustice, great persecution, and the slaughtering of many, they maintained the perspective of self-sacrificial love. Read the stories in church history.

It’s difficult. I cannot even imagine – for Jesus or his early followers. But that is the call of the cruciform life shaped after the crucified one. I imagine the grace will be sufficient at the time it is needed.

There are many other Scripture passages worth considering on the topic of bearing arms. My great challenge here is that we stop mis-utilizing Luke 22. Those words do not empower Christians (Christ-followers) to bear arms. America might allow one thing, and we have to wisely and collectively consider what our government allows. But the words of Jesus in Luke 22 and the second amendment are not one and the same.

Wednesdays with James: Lesson Four

Ordinary Time provides an opportunity for those who follow the liturgical year to take a different direction in their approach to the Scriptures. In Ordinary Time, we go week by week, examining how we might live the life we share together in Christ. Ordinary Time is therefore a good season for the Church to study books of the Bible, in particular the epistles, which were written to various congregations and individuals to guide them in the Christ-life.

Our study this summer is on the Epistle of James.

• • •

Wednesdays with James
Lesson Four: An Encyclical from James

James, a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus the Messiah, to the twelve dispersed tribes: greetings.

• James 1:1 (Kingdom NT)

This epistle begins with a standard letter greeting, indicating that:

It was a letter.
It represented the teaching and counsel of a well-known Christian leader.
It was a letter designed to be circulated and read in a number of different communities.
It was sent to Jewish-Christian communities outside of Palestine.

As a letter, James is rather impersonal. Perhaps we should call it a “pastoral letter” or a “teaching letter” so that we don’t confuse it in our minds with a letter containing news and personal greetings and so on. We find none of that in James. I like the word “encyclical,” as it combines the ideas of official communication and circulation.

It was sent out representing James. As we saw in an earlier study, this most probably refers to James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus and a leader in the church of Jerusalem. Whether or not James actually penned the epistle as we have it now is an open question, but it is certainly cast as representing a body of his teaching. Quoting Peter Davids:

G. Kittel appears to be correct in arguing for an early date for the book, in that the source material probably was early, and this means that this material is probably by James the Just. In the light of the Greek idiom used in the work, it is likely that either James received assistance in the editing of the work or that his teaching was edited at a later date (perhaps after his death) as the church spread beyond Jerusalem and began to use Greek more extensively….

The preceding section has argued that James is a two-stage work, an initial series of sermons and sayings, which ostensibly come from James the Just…, and a later redaction of these units into an epistle by either James or a member of the church.

James’s description of himself is consistent with that of a Jewish Christian leader. To call oneself a “slave” of God (doulos) was to employ a “thoroughly Hebrew term” (Hartin) expressing the relationship between God and his people. “It captures the concept of God’s ownership of God’s people and their willingness to carry out God’s will” (Hartin). The following phrase designates James as a follower of the one he believed to be the promised Messiah of Israel. He also calls him “Lord,” a title used in the LXX to refer to God, and a common NT designation indicating his kingly authority.

This immediately adds an eschatological flavor to the letter of James. James sees himself as a representative and servant of the true Messiah (King) who came to inaugurate the “last days,” to reconstitute the “twelve tribes” of Israel and bring righteousness and peace to the world.

This eschatology is further confirmed by his description of the addressees: “to the twelve dispersed tribes.” Patrick Hartin explains:

The end-times have begun with these Christian communities emerging within the house of Israel. James uses the eschatological perspective as motivation for his wisdom advice. This horizon culminates at the end of the letter with an exhortation to his hearers/readers to patient endurance: “Be patient, then, my brothers (and sisters), until the coming of the Lord” (5:7). As the first fruits of the reconstitution of God’s people, his hearers/readers must hold fast to this identity until the end-times have reached fulfillment. (p. 52)

Some have suggested a more “spiritual” meaning to the twelve tribes here. They say that James is addressing Christians (Jewish and/or Gentile) as exiles in a metaphorical sense, as Peter seems to do in 1Peter 1:1. Heaven is their true home and, until the day they arrive there, they are dispersed throughout the world.

This viewpoint fails to give enough weight to the thoroughly Jewish character of this letter. It is much more likely that James’s words are going out to communities of (mostly) Jewish Christians, who would have been seen as a sect within Judaism at this early date. “The parting of the ways between the house of Israel and Christianity has not yet taken place” (Hartin). These believers are members of communities outside of Palestine, geographically separated from what would have been understood by them as “home” — Jerusalem and the Promised Land.

• • •

A few thoughts on this text…

(1) If the “James” we read about in 1:1 was Jesus’ brother, we have here an example of humility and Christian identity. He presents himself as a “slave” to God and Jesus the King. His identity is rooted in God and what he has done in Jesus.

(2) Christianity is Jewish. A letter like James reminds us of our heritage and the continuities between the Hebrew Bible and the Greek NT, between the patriarchs and the apostles, between the Torah of Moses and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

(3) The “end-times” are not characterized by spectacular, supernatural, other-worldly events, but represent the working out of God’s promises in history, to be grasped by people of faith in communities of faith, whose lives among their neighbors evidence wisdom and love. The “twelve dispersed tribes” will receive that kind of instruction in this letter, and we would do well to listen in so that we may apply this wisdom to our own contexts today.

List of “Science and the Bible” Posts

When I published Mike’s final post, I forgot to include links to the entire series. I will do it here, so that you can have easy access to all of these fine pieces.

Science and the Bible Series
By Michael McCann

Science and the Bible, Lesson 1

Science and the Bible, Lesson 2

Science and the Bible, Lesson 3

Science and the Bible, Lesson 4

Science and the Bible, Lesson 5

Science and the Bible, Lesson 6

Science and the Bible, Lesson 7

Science and the Bible, Lesson 8

Science and the Bible, Lesson 9

Kudos and many thanks to Mike the Geologist for these thought-provoking and discussion-inducing posts.

Mike the Geologist: Science and the Bible (Lesson 9)

Science and the Bible – Lesson 9
By Michael McCann

Thus far we have looked at the phenotypic evidence for evolution. This system of classification was first formulated in the 19th century based on:

1. Comparative anatomy

2. Biogeography – distribution of species around the world

3. The fossil record

But beginning with the Watson and Crick discovery of the DNA structure in 1953; science can now study genetics at the molecular level. And has since sequenced the structure of the genomes of various organisms including man.

The science of modern comparative genomics could have completely overturned the evolutionary structure of taxonomy. There is no reason why a family tree constructed by molecular genetics would have to match that family tree constructed by: 1. comparative anatomy, 2. biogeography, and 3. the fossil record. What I am about to summarize is presented here and here.

The gist of the argument:

1. Ubiquitous genes: There are certain genes that all living organisms have because they perform very basic life functions; these genes are called ubiquitous (universal) genes.

2. Ubiquitous genes are uncorrelated with species-specific phenotypes: Ubiquitous genes have no relationship with the specific functions of different species. For example, it doesn’t matter whether you are a bacterium, a human, a frog, a whale, a hummingbird, a slug, a fungus, or a sea anemone – you have these ubiquitous genes, and they all perform the same basic biological function no matter what you are.

3. Molecular sequences of ubiquitous genes are functionally redundant: Any given ubiquitous protein has an extremely large number of different functionally equivalent forms (i.e. protein sequences which can perform the same biochemical function).

4. Specific ubiquitous genes are unnecessary in any given species: Obviously, there is no a priori reason why every organism should have the same sequence or even similar sequences. No specific sequence is functionally necessary in any organism – all that is necessary is one of the large number of functionally equivalent forms of a given ubiquitous gene or protein.

5. Heredity correlates sequences, even in the absence of functional necessity: There is one, and only one, observed mechanism which causes two different organisms to have ubiquitous proteins with similar sequences (aside from the extreme improbability of pure chance, of course). That mechanism is heredity.

CONCLUSION: Thus, similar ubiquitous genes indicate genealogical relationship: It follows that organisms which have similar sequences for ubiquitous proteins are genealogically related. Roughly, the more similar the sequences, the closer the genealogical relationship. An example:

Cytochrome c is an essential and ubiquitous protein found in all organisms, including bacteria. It is a necessary part of a universal common metabolic process all cells with mitochondria need to synthesize energy used by the cell. The oxygen we breathe is used to generate energy in this process.

Cytochrome c is absolutely essential for life – organisms that lack it cannot live. It has been shown that the human cytochrome c protein works in yeast (a unicellular organism) that has had its own native cytochrome c gene deleted, and human cytochrome c inserted, even though yeast cytochrome c differs from human cytochrome c over 40% of the protein. Using a ubiquitous gene such as cytochrome c, there is no reason to assume that two different organisms should have the same protein sequence or even similar protein sequences, unless the two organisms are genealogically related.

Hubert Yockey has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 10⁹³ possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, based on genetic mutational analyses. For perspective, the number 10⁹³ is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional cytochrome c sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no a priori reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, cytochrome c protein sequences.

From the theory of common descent and the standard phylogenetic tree we surmise that humans and chimpanzees are quite closely related. It is therefore predicted, in spite of the odds, that human and chimpanzee cytochrome c sequences should be much more similar than, say, human and yeast cytochrome c — simply due to inheritance. This has been confirmed: Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 10^-93 (1 out of 10⁹³).

Thus, the high degree of similarity in these proteins is a spectacular corroboration of the theory of common descent. Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by about 10 amino acids from all other mammals. The chance of this occurring in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 10^-29.

Further, bat cytochrome c is much more similar to human cytochrome c than to hummingbird cytochrome c. Porpoise cytochrome c is much more similar to human cytochrome c than to shark cytochrome c.

The phylogenetic tree constructed from the cytochrome c data fairly well repeats the relationships of major taxa as determined by the completely independent morphological data. It appears to be a nested hierarchy of phenotype and genotype that match each other.

Why would two organisms have such similar ubiquitous proteins when the odds are astronomically against it? We know of only one reason for why two organisms would have two similar protein sequences in the absence of functional necessity: heredity. Thus, in such cases we can confidently deduce that the two organisms are genealogically related. It is the same mechanism we deduce paternity from DNA tests. Let that sink in for a minute, dear evangelical reader.

Evidence from Chromosomes

All members of Hominidae except humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.

The evidence for this includes: 1. The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan. 2. The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere. 3. The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.

Evidence from Endogenous Retroviruses

Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) are lingering remnants of failed viral infection, which occurred in an ancestor’s sex cell and got propagated in its offspring. The viral insertion site is completely random and finding one in the same location in two individuals indicates they each had that same ancestor. There are at least sixteen different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans. The Odds of 16 in the exact same place are not possible except as explained by hereditary mechanisms.

Genomic Archaeology: Evidence from Pseudogenes (inactive genes)

The human genome contains the mutated remains of a gene devoted to egg yolk formation in egg-laying vertebrates at the precise location predicted by common ancestry. The human genome contains the inactive gene for tails (complex structures which have muscle, blood vessels, occasional vertebrae and cartilage, can move and contract). The master or controller (HOX) genes suppress this gene’s expression, but medical literature records cases where the gene is expressed. Yes, dear evangelical reader, you read that right, we have the gene for TAILS. Google images for “human bony tails”; prepare to be shocked. God surely has a sense of humor.

Conclusion

Well, dear readers, we have come to the end of this series.

1. You are the result of natural physical-chemical-biologic processes over a long period of time (billions of years). These processes, as best as science can determine, are stochastic (randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely).

2. You are a creation of God, made in His image. Your life has purpose and meaning. Your life culminates in meaning and purpose as fulfilled in relationship with him through Christ and other people. There is no chance to the matter, in fact:

We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son (Romans 8:28-29 NIV).

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world and in him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will (Ephesians 1:4,11 NIV).

So the question is; does the proximate truth of number 1 invalidate the teleological truth of number 2? Or, as our YEC friends would have it; does the ultimate revelation of #2 form a basis to judge the scientific merits of #1?

And your answer to the question depends on your conception and buy-in to different categories of truth. If you believe that all truth is a variant or subset of empirical knowledge then science is the hands-down best method to evaluate truth claims. In which case your logic leads you to INEXORABLY exclude all supernatural truth claims and conclude there are no ultimate answers to transcendent questions. So the #2 statement is mere epiphenomenon.

BUT

If you are a believer in Jesus you know that #1 CANNOT invalidate #2. My main thrust in giving this series is to help evangelical believers deal with the science of an old earth and evolutionary origins without resorting to pseudo-science or, of course, jettisoning their faith.

Obviously, I haven’t answered all the difficult questions; but I think I have given reasonable arguments for:

1. All truth is God’s truth. If it is true in reality then we, as Christians, must accept the truth.

2. It isn’t necessary or even desirable to reconcile the Bible with modern science. The Bible is a collection of writings of ultimate truth not proximate explanations. The Galileo/Copernicus episode should serve as the template; we (the church) have been through this before, let’s not repeat the same mistakes again. It’s not even desirable to reconcile the Bible with modern science; to do so makes the Bible into a magic book; ultimately dishonoring sacred scripture instead of defending it. The scriptures are God-breathed; if you receive them as truth, God breathes life into your being by revealing Jesus to you.

3. It’s not about the authority of the Bible, it’s about hermeneutics. As Pete Enns puts it:

Literalism is a hermeneutical decision (even if implicit) as much as any other approach, and so needs to be defended as much as any other. Literalism is not the default godly way to read the Bible that preserves biblical authority. It is not the “normal” way of reading the Bible that gets a free pass while all others must face the bar of judgment.

So, when someone says, “I don’t read Genesis 1-3 as historical events, and here are the reasons why,” that person is not “denying biblical authority.” That person may be wrong, but that would have to be judged on some basis other than the ultimate conversation-stopper, “You’re denying biblical authority.”

The Bible is not just “there.” It has to be interpreted. The issue is which interpretations are more defensible than others. Hence, appealing to biblical authority does not tell us how to interpret the Bible. That requires a lot more work. It always has.

4. We modern Christians have to think our way through this. It is one thing to rely on church tradition but the church has never before had to deal with the mounting scientific evidence for old earth and evolution. But we modern Christians do; we cannot stick our heads in the sand and pretend these issues are going away. They are not; in fact they will intensify. And so WE ARE the church and we will set the tradition for future generations to deal with this question. Can we look to past traditions for help? See Galileo/Copernicus template again.

Overall, I’m optimistic. We’ll come to terms with it just like we came to terms with geocentrism. It isn’t an issue anymore; except for a tiny minority of… ummm… how to put this… nut jobs, whack-a-doodles… fanatics… extreme believers; well you pick. In fact, to a lot of young Christians now it is fading as a major issue. In a couple of more generations the evolution issue will be like the earth revolving the sun; we’ll wonder what the big deal ever was.

Mondays with Michael Spencer: June 20, 2016

Mondays with Michael Spencer: June 20, 2016

Today we continue a series of Monday posts with excerpts of Michael Spencer’s thoughts about the Bible and what it does and does not promise to do for us.

• • •

If you are not used to reading the current non-Christian approach to Paul, I’m here to tell you that what many have to say about the apostle would likely raise your blood pressure. But that raises a question:

Do we idealize Paul to the point that we are blind to his faults, and also blind and justifying to those flaws in ourselves that are similar to his?

Defending Paul is a natural response for Bible believing evangelicals because they believe he is the author of holy and authoritative scripture. (Inerrant scripture for many evangelicals.) What he says — about anything — is the Word of God. How he says it is the Word of God. The complex of personality factors that frame a thought or a feeling before it is written in an epistle are the prelude to the written word of God.

For New Testament believers, therefore, defending Paul’s quirks, flaws, shortcomings and possible inconsistencies and errors is serious business.

Can you name a statement of Paul, which if made in your own ministry or church would be inappropriate, rude or outrageous, that isn’t defended by evangelical preachers and theologians as acceptable?

Would you tell your congregation to follow you as an example? Would you tell the women of the church to be silent and ask their husbands at home? Would you call your critics names and invite them to emasculate themselves? Would you preach entire sermons defending your ordination? Would you focus on your critics to the extent Paul does?

Would you allow a church planter sponsored by your church to be as divisive as Paul? Would you allow him/her to change target groups in frustration? Would you accept his “parting of the ways” with his/her partner in ministry (Barnabas)? Would you be comfortable with the constant appeal to personal experience? With the inability to bring new congregations to the point of having solid and dependable leadership?

Of course, many of you reading the preceding paragraphs already have a response to each one of these questions, and that is well and good. I probably agree with much of what you would say. The larger question is, however, if we justify all of what appears to be Paul’s flaws and issues as a fallen, imperfect man, then how do we treat our own?

What happens to our rudeness, insecurity, self-justification and inconsistency if we excuse it completely in Paul? If we have to have a “perfect Paul” to have a “perfect revelation,” do we then whitewash and baptize sins in ourselves that should be admitted and repented of? Have we made abrasiveness, divisiveness and contention into virtues because we see Paul doing the same things in the cause of Christ? Have we decided that a lack of insight into our own meanness/motives/actions, and stubborn loyalties to our own conclusions is just another name for being a “serious” Christian?

Frankly, I’m tired of meeting and experiencing people who are simple immature, rude, mean jerks, and having to listen to what great Christians they are. Paul may have confronted Peter, but did anyone ever need to confront Paul? Or had he run them all off?

Paul wasn’t perfect. Far from it. It may take non-Christians writing about Paul to make the necessary points, and to remind us that we can’t excuse ourselves from the example of Jesus by citing the example of Paul.

• • •

Photo on Flickr by Yiannis Chatzitheodorou. Creative Commons License