Entries Tagged 'Theology' ↓

To show this is not just a Lutheran blog, I offer here Carl Trueman offering some semi-whimsical reflections about taking life as it comes, which he calls Zen Calvinism:

Like the Buddhist movement which shares the same name, Zen-Calvinism is a school of religious thought which allows its adherents to live at one with the world, untroubled in any ultimate sense by the slings and arrows which life throws their way. It is also counter-cultural and thus represents a deeply alternative lifestyle. Let me elaborate a little on this counter-cultural mentality.

At the heart of Zen-Calvinism is the belief that all human beings are morally flawed, unlike the worldviews projected by the celebrity-saturated commercial culture of the modern West. . . .Zen-Calvinists also accept that they are themselves no better than anyone else; and, understanding their own tendencies to treat everyone else in a less-than-perfect fashion, they will not be surprised when they are repaid in kind. Zen-Calvinists are at one with the depravity of the fallen universe; they expect to be treated as they know they have treated others.

The second major element of Zen-Calvinism is the mantras which we use to worship. Unlike those used to hide from reality, whether the latest Britney Spears ditty or some nostalgic song extolling the mythical virtues of yesteryear, the Zen-Calvinist mantra book is rooted in the 150 songs we find in the Bible’s book of Psalms. Here, both Zen master and novice find words to express their deepest longings, their profoundest fears, and their most passionate desires in words which, as inspired by God, have the divine imprimatur. . . .

The final element of Zen-Calvinism is perhaps the most important: the realization that all evil has been subverted for the greater good purposes of the God who loves his church. If the supreme crime of human history – the judicial murder of the very Son of God – can be used for the greatest good, then any other crime, sin or moral failing can also be frustrated and turned to good account. And that applies not just to the loutish and corrupt behaviour of others; it applies supremely to that of the Zen-Calvinist who reflects upon these things.

The most conservative Calvinists sing only Psalms in their worship. (Though they are actually metrical paraphrases: to Calvinists, I ask, why don’t you chant them, a musical form that allows you to sing non-metrical lines directly from the Bible? Surely you can’t think chanting the Psalms is too “Catholic” when it would allow you to be even more directly Biblical!) Anyway, I respect that practice, and it’s similar to our liturgical worship that consists nearly always of worshipping with texts from the Word of God.

Anyway, what do you think about this Zen-like serenity? What is distinctly Calvinist about this particular formulation? What is lacking (Christ’s Atonement? His presence? His Gospel? Suffering and the Cross?) and what difference would these make to the Christian’s serenity?

HT: Rob Spinney

In church yesterday the sermon was about the Kingdom of God as opposed to the Kingdom of Satan; that is, the reign of sin. Christ’s Kingdom breaks in as a subversive power, undermining that kingdom’s rule over our lives.

We speak of God’s two kingdoms, but this one of Satan’s gets less attention, but it too is real and a factor in how we live in the other two. I suppose Satan too has an earthly and a spiritual kingdom, with the usurper aping the rule of the true King.

Anthony Sacramone goes off on a sublime rant occasioned by the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America pursuing full fellowship with the United Methodists. In doing so, he poses an ecumenical solution:

Why not merge the churches and be done with it—they’re already bleeding more members than a mohel convention. Why not create one great American mainline Protestant denomination—called the First Church of the Grand High Exalted Mystic Vague—where all are welcome, because all are one, and between self and nonself exists only an unpaid student loan. The gospel, like Gaul, will be divided into three parts: The Law, the Gospel, and the Adorable Huggables. And the only moral theology will consist of being overdrawn on your carbon credits . . .

Avery Cardinal Dulles, after surveying Roman Catholic teaching through the ages about who can be saved gives this bottom line answer:

Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God’s saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given.

So if Catholicism is correct, I guess most of us in other churches are OK. I worry that the atheists will be unhappy to find themselves in Heaven, irked that in not believing in God they nevertheless worshiped him under some other name, so what kind of Heaven would that be for them?

But let me get this straight, and keep in mind that Cardinal Dulles is no touchy-feely Catholic but a conservative Catholic in close association with the Pope. To be saved, you do not have to have faith in Jesus Christ. You can have faith in God. Or, despite the first commandment, you can have faith in God under some other name. Or, if you don’t believe in any gods, you can have faith in something else, such as truth or justice. Or, if you don’t have faith in anything, you can be saved by your good works, though this seems to be the main point even for Christians.

Certainly, if salvation is by good works, anyone who does good works–people of other religions, atheists–will be saved. And since Catholics define good works as having been produced by faith, one can predicate some sort of efficacious faith to anyone who does them. But what an impoverished view of sin we see here! So even this blatantly human rationalization to make God seem nice turns out to be of little comfort to an actual sinner who is burdened by his bad works.

But more than that, if faith in virtually anything is enough or even optional for salvation, why do we need the church, why should anyone evangelize, and why did Jesus need to die?

FW wrote this comment on yesterday’s witnessing post:

I literally got goosebumps reading this post.

I daily am forced in my vocation ( ok i am a sinner and do few things that are NOT self centered by choice) to deal with and witness to homosexuals, transgenders, drug addicts, very religious pentecostals who are in reality terrified of God, truly good and pious people who do not have Jesus and all those other people who look exactly like me in some way or other.

I feel utterly unprepared, unworthy and deficient for this task.

What you write is wonderful. Tell us more please. Can you share some personal experiences of what this looks like to you in practice?

Actually, I can, but while I sometimes tell about it in person, I hesitate to write it on as public a forum as a blog without that person’s permission. But, hey, this is an anonymous forum for most of you.

Sometimes “witnessing” is a cursory canned presentation void of both law and gospel, an annoying attempt to manipulate someone into registering a decision that they may well do just to get rid of you. Sometimes the whole process ties into a simplistic conversionist mindset unconnected to the Word and Sacraments of the Church. Still, the Bible speaks much of conversion, and, with so many people today utterly without a background in the church, God is very likely to reach them via one-on-one contact.

Do any of you have any accounts of someone bringing Christ to you or of you bringing Christ to someone? Anything to help Frank and the rest of us witness effectively to our faith?

Related to yesterday’s post on people looking to their Christ-likeness for the assurance of their salvation is the insistence that I keep hearing that the best witness to the Gospel is the example of our lives. You know, all that “use words only if necessary,” but I-don’t-have-to-say-anything-about-Jesus-just-impress-unbelievers-with-my-virtues talk.

First of all, as the Bible explains, faith comes from hearing of the Word. Someone who sees a Christian do Christian things will have no idea what any of it is about unless he or she hears about Jesus through human language. And that Word of the Gospel has power. (I sometimes think about a reader of this blog who reads, say, our posts yesterday about the assurance of salvation or about Christ’s baptism and the gospel, and, penetrated by the true message of Christ, maybe passes from death to life.)

Second, I agree that a Christian might have an impact on an unbeliever through his life, causing the unbeliever to want to know what lies behind the hope he sees, leading to an occasion for proclaiming and hearing the Word, or, perhaps more effectively, taking the unbeliever to church, where he will hear that Word. In general, relying on how good we are is seldom a wise idea to impress others, since our true goodness is very limited. What unbelievers may well pick up on is that we are putting on a front of being good, when in reality we are not. The perception of hypocrisy is the big witness-killer.

Third, what we Christians often think of as our virtue and holiness is NOT impressive to unbelievers. They are not impressed by our pieties, even our sincere pious actions, or by individual behaviors that Christians often think are pious, such as not drinking or going to R-rated movies. Unbelievers are usually repelled by that sort of thing.

Fourth, we are indeed to live out our faith in our vocations by loving and serving our neighbors. This is, indeed, something our neighbor will respond to. However, many of our pious virtues have little to do with love and service to our neighbors. Rather, they often consist of feelings of moral superiority to our neighbor. That only antagonizes our unbelieving neighbor.

Finally, we might do better to present ourselves to our unbelieving neighbors as sin-prone and struggling, on the same level as the person we are witnessing to, so that both identify with each other. Applying the law to ourselves helps in applying the law to others. When one sinner tells another of his rescue and forgiveness through Christ, the message comes across as Good News.

Christianity Today had a column on the assurance of salvation, addressing the question of how can you know you are saved if you can’t remember the moment of your conversion. Read it here. The conclusion:

For those who question their salvation, the best evidence is not the memory of having raised a hand or prayed a prayer. Nor is it having been baptized or christened. The true test of the authentic work of God in one’s life is growth in Christ-like character, increased love for God and other people, and the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-25; James 2:18). A memorable conversion experience may serve as an important referent to God’s saving work in one’s life. But the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in making a person more like Jesus is the clearest indicator that one has been made a new creation in Christ.

Internetmonk replies, “The ‘best evidence’ is ‘growth’ in ‘love’ and ‘fruit.’ Being more ‘like Jesus.’ Good grief. Can anyone spell ‘despair?’”

Trusting how good we are for our salvation? Getting assurance from how much we are like Jesus? It isn’t downplaying good works to question whether one can find assurance of one’s salvation by measuring oneself by Jesus! We should indeed do that, and the result should be conviction of our sin, followed by the realization that this Jesus has borne that sin and imputed to us His righteousness. (See post below.)

Internetmonk (a.k.a. Michael Spenser) goes on to refute the column in detail. Assurance of salvation, he says, comes from believing that you are a sinner and that Jesus died for your sins. That is to say, JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST.

HT: GeoChristian

What a great service we had again at our church. Military chaplain the Rev. Keith Lingsch was our guest preacher, and his sermon on Christ’s baptism, commemorated on this day of the
Epiphany, gave me epiphanies of my own.

He pointed out that John’s was baptism explicitly for SINNERS. (”Repent! Flee the wrath to come!”) So no wonder he was surprised that Jesus wanted this baptism. But Jesus’s baptism marked His identification with sinners and His taking their sins into Himself. “A sinner’s baptism prefigured a sinner’s death.”

This would have been plenty for a good sermon, but then Rev. Lingsch built up to this epiphany: Because of this exchange, what God said of Christ’s baptism applies now to YOU and YOUR baptism. The heavens open for YOU. The Holy Spirit descends on YOU. God in His Word says, ” YOU are my beloved son. In YOU I am well well pleased.”

I picked up John Warwick Montgomery at the airport last night. He is now back in the states, where he will serve on the faculty of Patrick Henry College. He will keep his residence in France and continue his Apologetics Institute in Strasbourg, but he will be in residence here for one semester each year. Although he and his wife had been on an airplane for some 13 hours, they were crackling with energy, wit, and insight. It will be great to have him here, and I know our students will appreciate getting to study under someone of his magnitude.

Just idly surfing the other day, I came across this brilliant essay of his, showing how his evidentialist approach to apologetics fits in with Luther’s teachings about the incarnation, the sacraments, that salvation is “outside ourselves,” and that we must learn about God “from the bottom up,” not beginning with abstractions about God but beginning with the tangible God in the manager and on the Cross. Faith remains a gift of God, not something we figure out with reason as such, but it must begin with object truth. Read the essay yourself. It’s entitled
The Incarnate Christ: The Apologetic Thrust of Lutheran Theology.

Can someone explain to me the position of the “preterists”? I had assumed that had something to do with that confusing tense construction in Greek, but it has reference to Christians who believe that Jesus ALREADY came back in 70 A.D. This position is held, as I understand it, by some conservative Calvinists who, if they are Presbyterians, would have to subscribe to the Nicene Creed, which commits a person to believing that “He will come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead.”

Why do preterists believe what they do? Are they breaking from historical Christian orthodoxy?

In the rioting in Kenya over a disputed election that has sparked inter-tribal warfare, Springs of Life Lutheran Church has been looted and burned. The congregation is a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Kenya, which is in fellowship with the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. The home of the ELCK bishop, Dr. Walter Obare, a noted spokesman for orthodox Christianity against the liberal west, was said to be in danger.

Springs of Life lost not only its sanctuary but its nursery school and its medical clinic that ministered to the Kenyan poor. That clinic had just been remodeled with the help of American congregations.

For more details and for a way you can help click here.

 UPDATE:  This conflict is NOT between Muslims and Christians.  Both of the tribes tearing each other apart are predominately Christian from many different denominations.  The Kikuyus have been the ruling tribe, with the Luos feeling oppressed and mistreated.  The riots started when the Kikuyu president was re-elected amidst charges of stealing the election, whereupon the Luos rose up in protest. 

According to my research, the Lutherans are primarily Luos.  It was Luos–hopefully, not any of the relatively small number of Lutherans–who burned the Assemblies of God church and slaughtered between 30 and 50 Kikukyus who had gone there for sanctuary.  Apparently, the Kikuyus are now burning Luo churches. Or perhaps this is not so much revenge as what happens in a state of anarchy when all social order breaks down. 

 If anyone has any more background information. please comment.

UPDATE: Rev. Mark Sell, whose Friends of Mercy organization does work in Kenya, gives some more perspective in a comment here. And on his blog he gives more details and pictures, including of the people the church ministered to and of the church burning.

HT:  Mary Moerbe

Still more from Gallup: A recent poll on how many Americans believe in Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design.

A mere 18% believe that evolution is “definitely true,” while 39% believe that the Bible’s creation account is “definitely true.” (Other responses were about shades of “probably true” or “probably false.”)

From another angle, 14% believe that man developed with no guidance from God; 38% believe that man developed but with God’s guidance (apparently reflecting some version of theistic evolution); and 43% believing that God created man in his present form. (4% offered no opinion.)

What is linked above is raw data, going into much more detail and with a range of related questions and comparisons, so feel free to offer your own analysis.