As I said, I loved about 90% of N.T. Wright’s book, “Surprised By Hope.” I agree that the resurrection demands, not just acceptance and belief, but an active response in the here and now. But I think he gets seriously off track when he discusses the specifics of what that response should be.

Let’s start with his suggestion that the church work for justice. Sounds good, doesn’t it? Who could possibly object to “working for justice?”

The problem comes in defining what is and is not just. This is relatively easy when there are clear written laws to follow. Justice means punishing those who break the law. Injustice would include punishing people who have not broken the law, or failing to punish a lawbreaker. But even here it is rarely black and white. That’s why there are juries, judges, attorneys, and appeals procedures. And we still often cannot agree. Want to stir up some lively debate? Start with this premise – “O.J. Simpson got what he deserved. The verdict was just.”

But defining “justice” when there are no laws to follow is nearly impossible. I know many people in health care who will maintain that it is absolutely unjust that the uninsured get less health care than the insured. But I know just as many who would argue it would be unjust if the insured did not get more health care, given that they pay maybe $10,000 a year for coverage. Why should someone who paid nothing get the same? Now that would be unjust — and not just unjust, but profoundly impractical. Why would anyone pay $10,000 if they could get the same care for free?

The Occupy Wall Street people think that income inequality is unjust. The Tea Party people argue people should be paid according to their efforts and talents – it would be unjust to pay everyone the same regardless the quality of their work. What one person calls justice another would call injustice.

Same applies to N.T. Wright. What he considers the great injustice of our time is – wait for it — third world debt. Third world debt? This is left over from the “Jubilee 2000” movement of twenty years ago when many people were calling on the developed world to forgive the debts of the undeveloped world.  Wright equates forgiving third world debt as a moral crusade on a par with abolishing slavery. He writes:

“… this is the number one moral issue of our day…. The present system of global debt is the real moral scandal, the dirty little secret… of glitzy, glossy Western capitalism. Whatever it takes, we must change that situation or stand condemned by subsequent history alongside those who supported slavery two centuries ago and those who supported the Nazis seventy years ago.”

He dismisses other views by saying:

“… notice how the rhetoric regularly employed against remission of global debts echoes the arguments against the abolition of slavery.”

He is so convinced of the correctness of his position that he calls other views “rhetoric” rather than reasoned arguments and tars his opponents with the brush of being like defenders of slavery and Nazi-ism. He goes on for page after page in this vein, bashing the “Western global empire” and mischaracterizing and trivializing the views of anyone who doesn’t agree with his opinion of “justice.”

Where to start? Wright’s rhetoric is so outlandish that I really need to spend some time with it.

First, you probably haven’t heard much about this movement in the past ten years. It was a momentary fad, like the “nuclear freeze” movement of the 1980s. One has to wonder about Wright’s judgment in ramping up such inflammatory rhetoric over a passing fad.

Associating every reform movement with the campaign against slavery is intellectually lazy and is a great way to kill constructive discussion. This is not a new tactic. Consider the Temperance Movement. It followed Abolition as the next great societal improvement cause of the Christian church, at least in America. Like Wright, the proponents of it closed their ears to any caution or objection, and marched full speed ahead with banners waving. A little humility would have served the advocates well. Prohibition was a completely predictable disaster.

Slavery was in a class all its own. It had been a near universal condition of human kind for as long as we have records. Changing our minds about it was an amazing achievement, but it was also one that was made possible with advances in technology, especially the invention of the steam engine. Industrialization in manufacturing and agriculture was rapidly making slavery obsolete anyway.

Debt isn’t anything like that. Debts come and debts go. Even since Wright first formed his opinion twenty years ago, conditions have changed dramatically. Some of the “third world” countries that held the most international debt are no longer considered third world. These include emerging powerhouses like Brazil and India. Even nations like Indonesia and Malaysia are developing economies that can easily handle their debts.

These are examples of the fact (and it is a fact) that countries can control their own destinies. Granted some nations end up with corrupt leaders who rob their own people blind, but that has always been true on every continent. Successful economies can pop up in the least likely of places. Consider Hong Kong and Singapore – tiny nation-states with small populations and no resources. The only resource they have is entrepreneurialism and the wit of their people.

Who would have ever thought in the time of Jesus that England would one day become a global empire far exceeding Rome? It was a small, poor, uneducated backwater of a country. I would argue two things allowed for England’s success: Christianity and capitalism.

The Sub-Saharan debt Wright is really concerned with was not an evil plot by greedy capitalists. Almost all of it is held by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund – governmental organizations, not private banks. They made the loans with the best of intentions, trying to help poorer countries develop. The loans were made to the governments in power at the time, which was probably a big mistake given how corrupt those governments were. But the idea was to help them grow into the world economy. If the loans had not been made, the Wrights of the world would have called that decision an injustice – greedy capitalists hoarding all their money to keep the poor from advancing. These institutions have no interest in keeping these countries poor and dependent. There is no advantage in that to anyone.

One final point on this topic. Wright cites the Lord’s Prayer to support his case – “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.” Indeed. But we can only forgive those who have sinned against us. I can forgive Joe for what he has done to me, but how can I forgive Joe for what he did to Sally? How do I have the authority to do that? Doesn’t Sally have something to say about it?

It is easy enough, you might call it “cheap grace,” to forgive someone his debts if you are using someone else’s money. It makes you feel good, and it makes the debtor feel good, and as long as you can dehumanize the third party it isn’t necessary to feel any guilt about what you have done to him.

And this brings us to another problem with Wright’s approach – he makes no distinction between the corporate church and the church as a people. He sees part of the mission of “the church” as influencing –

“The world of space, time and matter… where parliaments, city councils, neighborhood watch groups, and everything in between are set up and run for the benefit of the wider community…  And the church that is renewed by the message of Jesus’s resurrection must be the church that goes to work in precisely that space and claims it in advance as the place of God’s kingdom, of Jesus’s lordship, or the power of the Spirit.”

There are two problems with this, in my view. One, it is veering dangerously close to a theocracy in which the church is responsible for governing civil society. That may seem unremarkable in Wright’s England, where the Queen is also the head of his church, but it is completely alien on this side of the Atlantic and it makes me shudder.

Second, as we are seeing with the good ol’ PCUSA, the more the church involves itself in politics, the more it alienates half of the population. Look at how contentious and divisive Wright’s opinions on global debt are. He doesn’t just disagree with his opponents, he despises and belittles them. Is that really the best way to proclaim the gospel?

Individual Christians may and should get involved in every aspect of human life and stand up for Jesus in whatever vocation they may pursue. The corporate church should support and nurture them in these activities, and it should equip them with knowledge and love. But it should not dictate to its members, or to the larger community, what political views are acceptable to Jesus.

I think Michael Horton has it about right when he says –

“The Reformers were convinced that when the church is properly executing its ministry of preaching, sacrament, and discipline, there will be disciples who reflect their Christian faith in their daily living. The goal of the church as an institution is not cultural transformation, but preaching, teaching, baptizing, communing, praying, confessing, and sharing their inheritance in Christ. The church is a re-salinization plant, where the salt becomes salty each week, but the salt is scattered into the world.” (Christ and Culture Once More)

I have spent my entire life in politics, policy and economics. I don’t need the church for that. Indeed, I find the church is not very good at it — ham fisted and clumsy. I need the church to teach me about God’s love. Once I am grounded in grace, I can apply that grace to the world as I encounter it. A church that is wrapped up in political posturing is of no value to me whatsoever. Which is why I am leaving the PCUSA.

 

So last time we left N.T. Wright saying that heaven is not up in the clouds or in outer space somewhere, but right next to us in another dimension, and the resurrection and ascension of Jesus was the first hint of how heaven and earth will merge into a New Heaven and a New Earth. We can’t really imagine what it will be like, but it will involve some form of physical bodies living in a physical world, but one without death, disease, and sin. God will not destroy the creation he once declared Good, but will redeem and purify it.

This is quite different than the childish image we grew up with (and still have embedded in our heads) of heaven being a place where we sit on clouds and play harps all day. Speaking of childish images, remember the Soviet cosmonaut who came back to declare that he looked and found no God up there?

Luke for one keeps quoting Jesus as saying the Kingdom of God is near us or in the midst of us. Consider –

• Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you. Heal the sick in it and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ But whenever you enter a town and they do not receive you, go into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near.’ (Luke10: 8-11)

• Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” (Luke 17: 20-21)

• And he told them a parable: “Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. As soon as they come out in leaf, you see for yourselves and know that the summer is already near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all has taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.  (Luke 21: 29-33)

Now, maybe Jesus was saying it is near in the sense of time, but maybe in the sense of distance as well.

Is this fanciful? Not at all. Even scientists are increasingly accepting the possibility of there being multiple universes, to the point that some believe they can detect “bruising” of our universe as it encounters others. Now scientists are well equipped to track phenomenon within our natural universe, our sense of time, space, matter, and energy. But they would be totally clueless about any other dimension. Such a thing would be outside of our nature – supernatural—by definition.

Isn’t that the core of the conflict between science (at least atheistic science) and Christianity? They keep arguing that what we are saying is not possible within nature, and we keep responding that we are not talking about nature, but about something outside of nature. Something supernatural. Many scientists (not all) are simply not equipped to talk in those terms. They tend to get frustrated and angry and call us crazy. We are tempted to get angry right back at them, but we shouldn’t. They really can’t help themselves. They have not yet been given the gift of faith we have received. If anything we should pity them for their close-mindedness and their limited ability to perceive.

But then Wright asks, “so what?”  What difference does it make if heaven is right next door, in outer space, or just a place where disembodied souls go? And this is what the second half of the book is about.

He argues that the hope of eventual resurrection into a new heaven and a new earth is “not what the New Testament sees as the main result of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.” It is “not simply about ourselves and about whatever future world God is ultimately going to make.” Rather, it is “a vision of the present hope that is the basis of all Christian mission.” He writes:

“As long as we see salvation in terms of going to heaven when we die, the main work of the church is bound to be seen as saving souls for that future. But when we see salvation as the New Testament sees it, in terms of God’s promised new heavens and new earth and of our promised resurrection to share in that new and gloriously embodied reality… then the main work of the church here and now demands to be rethought in consequence.”

When I read this I immediately thought of Ephesians 2, which includes (in my opinion) the best summary of what this is all about –

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (Ephesians 2: 8-10)

We are not simply saved for our own benefit. We are saved so that we can perform the work God has assigned us.

Wright notes that Jesus himself “got a hearing from his contemporaries because of what he was doing. They saw him saving people from sickness and death and heard him talking about salvation…” And this was not just parlor tricks to get their attention, it was a demonstration in the here and now of what the new heaven and new earth would be like.

So what is the work God has assigned to us as a resurrection people? Wright says:

 ”Heaven’s rule, God’s rule, is thus to be put into practice in the world, resulting in salvation in both the present and the future, a future that is both for humans and through saved humans, for the wider world. This is the solid basis for the mission of the church.”

He explains this is not man trying to build the kingdom in the here and now, but to build for the kingdom which is still to come. He has quite a laundry list of projects, some of which I will come back to in the next post. These include:

• Working for justice,
• Creating beauty, and
• Supporting evangelism.

He also has a great deal to say about how the church has in the past, and should continue, to influence the space, time, and matter of this world through its worship, prayer, and sacraments, ultimately to become representatives of God’s love for mankind.

As far as all this goes, I agree 100%. God has given us a gift of faith that has transformed us into new people who are required to respond in our own time and place. It is not an option.

In my view Wright gets into trouble when he gets specific about what he thinks that response should be. I will deal with that next time.

 

This is going to take a couple of posts. Here is the first one.

I just finished N.T. Wright’s, “Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church.” Wright is, of course, a Bishop in the Church of England, a prolific author, and one of our generation’s best Biblical scholars.  He is also a gifted writer for the layman and seems grounded in Reformation theology.

I was thrilled with about 90% of the book – the theological part – but disappointed in the 10% (or less) devoted to social policy. Let’s start with the good stuff.

In this book, Wright wants to summarize for us laymen the more scholarly work he has done in several other works. He begins with the widespread fascination and confusion over life after death, even among devoted Christians. He says the most popular views of death and afterlife today fall into several categories;

• Total annihilation – you die and rot. End of the story.
• Some form of reincarnation, a kind of Hinduism.
• A spiritual unity with nature, a kind of Buddhism.
• Even nominally Christian cultures, he says, envision some kind of ethereal Heaven to which souls go to be reunited with loved ones.

All of these views except the first feed a culture of mysticism, including communicating with dead relatives and the appearance of ghosts. Wright argues that this is all influenced by Plato and the Greeks who maintained that the material world is corrupt, while the spiritual world is pure — we should be glad to depart the one and enter the other.

Wright says none of this is Christian.  He says the New Testament is not about our going to heaven when we die, but of heaven coming to us:

“Heaven, in the Bible, is not a future destiny but the other, hidden, dimension of our ordinary life – God’s dimension, if you like. God made heaven and earth; at the last he will remake both and join them together forever. … in Revelation 21-22, we find … the new Jerusalem coming down from heaven to earth, uniting the two in  lasting embrace.”

Next, Wright moves to the Resurrection of Christ. He has written far more extensively in his “The Resurrection of the Son of God” (2003), which I am eager to read. But in a nutshell, this moment was unique in history. No one at the time thought such a thing was possible. Even the Jews who believed in bodily resurrection believed that the entire people would be resurrected at the same time — on the last day.  The Greeks and the Pagans thought bodily resurrection was not only impossible, but a really bad idea. They wanted to get out of the material world, not bring it with them.

That is why the disciples were so perplexed when Jesus told them what was about to happen. Rising from the dead? Huh? So, when it happened, they were stunned and amazed. It was the defining moment of Christianity. This is what they needed to tell the world about. This is why they were willing to be imprisoned, tortured, and killed – because this event was so important and so unprecedented. Wright says:

“The first Christians… virtually never spoke simply of going to heaven when they died. When they did speak of heaven as a postmortem destination, they seemed to regard this heavenly life as a temporary stage on the way to the eventual resurrection of the body.”

This is why, Wright says, the Christian emphasis should be on Easter. He goes pretty deeply into the Easter story in the gospels, especially how unexpected they are. For instance, one would expect the resurrected Messiah to be depicted as glorious – shining like a star – but that is not how he is described. Quite the opposite.  He seems so normal he can be mistaken for a gardener or a fellow traveler on the road. He is solid and can eat, but he also appears suddenly in a locked room, and disappears as quickly. Wright says, “This kind of account is without precedent. No biblical texts predict this kind of body.”

Wright proceeds to pretty well demolish the arguments of the skeptics about the resurrection. I won’t summarize it all here, but we are left with the conviction that it happened just as the bible says it did. This allows him to launch into the next subject: the new creation. He writes:

“To put it at its most basic: the resurrection of Jesus offers itself, to the student of history or science no less than the Christian or the theologian, not as an odd event within the world as it is but as the utterly characteristic, prototypical, and foundational event within the world as it has begun to be.”

And this is the whole point of the book – that God’s new creation, the new heaven and the new earth, has broken into our space and time in the resurrection of Jesus. God’s merger of heaven and earth has already begun. And, as Christians and as a church, we need to respond, now, in our own time. But, first, Wright wants to clarify the context of our response.

He examines what currently drives much of human activity. The first, is “the myth of progress.” This is something that has been sold to us by political and commercial interests for the past three centuries. It is actually devoid of hope in favor of entertainment. It offers a false “utopian dream (that) is in fact a parody of the Christian vision.” As he describes it:

“Humans can be made perfect and are indeed evolving inexorably toward that point…. Instead of dependence on God’s grace, we will become what we have the potential to be by education and hard work.”

This might seem plausible, provided we put on blinders and ignore the Twentieth Century experiments of Soviet Communism, Nazism, Maoism, and all the other efforts at secular utopianism. Wright says, “The real problem with the myth of progress is… that it cannot deal with evil.”

The other form of activity rejects all this, and in fact all materialism, in favor of a disembodied spiritualism. This is the root of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Gnosticism, and goes back to Plato. Even many Christians are inclined in this direction. Some figure if God is going to destroy the earth in the final days, why bother with the here and now?

Wright offers an alternative view, one that goes back to the early Christians. They did not think the world is getting better all the time (progress to utopia), nor did they think it is getting worse all the time (destruction to the end times). Rather, they believed “that God was going to do for the whole cosmos what he had done for Jesus at Easter.” They believed God’s creation was good until the Fall, and that goodness would be restored.

“Evil then consists not in being created but in the rebellious idolatry by which humans worship and honor elements of the natural world rather than the God who made them.”

Importantly, the Creator is not and cannot be part of his creation. He is outside of our creation, outside of our time and space. But, Wright says, the whole world is yearning for the time when the two realms will be united:

“Heaven and earth… are not after all poles apart, needing to be separated forever when all the children of heaven have been rescued from this wicked earth. Nor are they simply different ways of looking at the same thing, as would be implied by some kinds of pantheism. No, they are different, radically different, but they are made for each other in the same way… as male and female.”

The first indication of this coming together is the ascension of Christ. He did not rise up and go into the clouds or somewhere into outer space. He went into heaven, which most likely is right beside us.

This is where I will pick up next time.

Newsweek and the Daily Beast were pleased to publish a message from Andrew Sullivan for Easter. The uplifting theme is “Christianity in Crisis.”

This is the same Andrew Sullivan who has spent the last four years obsessing about Sarah Palin’s womb. He is convinced, without any evidence whatsoever, that the real mother of Palin’s child Trig is Bristol Palin. The man is – quite simply – unhinged. See this wrap up from the NewsBusters web site.

But, believing in redemption, as I do, I decided to tale a look at what he has to say about Christianity. Alas, like so many Leftists commentators, Mr. Sullivan proves himself a fool by thinking he knows more than he does.

The best example of this phenomenon is a delightful clip from the Chris Matthews show mocking Sarah Palin for reading C.S. Lewis for “divine inspiration.” Matthews’ guest, Richard Wolffe, can bare contain himself – “divine inspiration from a series of kid’s book?” Hoo, hah, snigger, snigger. The man is apparently completely unaware the C.S. Lewis was perhaps the greatest writer of Christian apologetics of the 20^th Century.

Sullivan is in very much the same tradition. He is greatly impressed and begins his article with the story of a 77 year-old Thomas Jefferson cutting out all of Jesus’ words from a Bible and re-assembling them into a much slimmer version – the “most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man.” He thinks everything else in the Bible is a “dunghill.”

I am a great admirer of Thomas Jefferson, but we can all be forgiven for doing silly things when we are 77. Mr. Sullivan doesn’t have that excuse.  He is so taken by this idea that he says these words of Jesus represent – “the purest, simplest, apolitical Christianity, purged of the agendas of those who had sought to use Jesus to advance their own power decades and centuries after Jesus’ death.“

Where to begin?

First, if the writings of the Apostles are not to be trusted, how can we trust them to accurately quote the words of Jesus? If everything else they wrote was designed to “advance their own power,” why would we assume the words they attribute to Christ not also be invented for that purpose?

It is also hard to see how the Apostles were trying to “advance their own power” when their witness ended in imprisonment, torture, and death. Their power would have been better advanced if they had renounced the whole thing.

Next, Christ was a man not only of words, but of deeds. The essence of Christianity is not only in what Jesus said to us but what he did for us. This is the proof of the pudding. The Apostles reported both his words and his deeds. Why should we trust them for one but not the other?

Plus, even the words Jesus spoke cannot be understood without an understanding of the rest of the Bible. Much of what he said was invoking passages from the prophets and the Psalms, with the assumption that his listeners knew the references. He said repeatedly that he was here to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament. How can one possibly know what he is talking about if one doesn’t know what those prophecies were? Even in his cry from the Cross – “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” – is in fact a quote of the first line from Psalm 22 and is meant to invoke the whole Psalm which goes on to say, for instance,

            All who see me mock me;

they make mouths at me; they wag their heads;

“He trusts in the LORD; let him deliver him;

let him rescue him, for he delights in him!”

(Psalm 22:7-8 ESV)

Which is precisely what the crowd at the Cross was saying. Adam Hamilton, in his book “24 Hours That Changed the World,” notes that, “the Psalm ends on a note of triumph and hope,” and that was the message Jesus was conveying. Not only despair, but ultimate triumph. Without knowing the reference, one would think Jesus was expressing hopelessness, when it was just the opposite.

Now, there have always been people who would like to pick and choose those passages from the Bible that justify their lifestyles, so Mr. Sullivan isn’t doing anything new. He may think he is a cutting edge thinker, but really he is performing a very old parlor trick.

Similarly with his conclusion that “Christianity is in crisis.” He believes this because there are many people who use Christianity for their own political ends. He bemoans the “gospel of prosperity,” and fundamentalists who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, and Christians who support “torturing terror suspects.” But they aren’t doing anything Mr. Sullivan isn’t also doing himself. He is an active homosexual and would like Christianity to endorse his lifestyle, so of course he would as soon purge those inconvenient passages. He writes:

“It seems no accident to me that so many Christians now embrace materialist self-help rather than ascetic self-denial—or that most Catholics, even regular churchgoers, have tuned out the hierarchy in embarrassment or disgust. Given this crisis, it is no surprise that the fastest-growing segment of belief among the young is atheism, which has leapt in popularity in the new millennium. Nor is it a shock that so many have turned away from organized Christianity and toward “spirituality,” co-opting or adapting the practices of meditation or yoga, or wandering as lapsed Catholics in an inquisitive spiritual desert.”

Christianity is always “in crisis.” There are always people who use it for their own ends, who twist and distort it for material gain or narcissistic purposes. But, in fact, Christianity is currently undergoing enormous growth across the globe. Atheism may be “the fastest-growing segment of belief” in Mr. Sullivan’s Upper West Side neighborhood, but in Ghana, in Korea, in Brazil, evangelical Christianity is exploding.

Mr. Sullivan’s model of a good Christian is Francis of Assisi. What does he admire so much? He writes:

“Francis renounced his inheritance, becoming homeless and earning food by manual labor. When that wouldn’t feed him, he begged, just for food—with the indignity of begging part of his spiritual humbling.”

Now, isn’t that convenient? Christians should go off, be homeless, and beg for food. Never mind using the gifts God has given us to proclaim the Gospel — something Christ himself actually instructed us to do. Instead, Mr. Sullivan would have a Christianity that:

… is as meek as it is quietly liberating. It does not seize the moment; it lets it be. It doesn’t seek worldly recognition, or success, and it flees from power and wealth. It is the religion of unachievement.

Yes, Christians should sit down and shut up. Of course, Mr. Sullivan is referring only to those Christians he disagrees with. I expect he was more than happy to cash the check Newsweek provided for writing this gibberish. No homelessness or begging for food for this fellow, no sirree.

Personally, I would encourage Mr. Sullivan to go back to fretting over Sarah Palin’s womb.

With the U.S. Supreme Court taking up the Arizona immigration law this week, I thought it would be timely to review the PCUSA’s posturing on this issue.

The Presbyterian Church USA has been in the forefront of all of the recent disputes over immigration policy, especially regarding the issue of illegal immigration. While not as burning an issue as its stance on abortion or Israel, it does provide some insights on how the PCUSA has left scripture behind to advance a political agenda.

It joined in the boycott against Arizona, calling that state’s efforts to clean up the problem of illegal immigration and the violence associated with it “reactionary and hateful.” It said it was “a clear representation of the politics of division and exclusion.”

It then threatened to boycott Indiana when that state was considering similar legislation.  This was called off after the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly issued a statement saying that, while the bill was “inhospitable and unjust towards immigrants… the legislation in its final form falls short of the extreme measure of racial profiling.”

Then it threatened to move its headquarters out of Kentucky if that state adopted similar legislation.

More recently, the PCUSA joined with several other groups in condemning Paul Ryan’s proposed budget resolution in the U.S. House. It called instead for “substantial” increases in funding for social programs and cuts in defense, border patrol, and prisons.

What’s going on here?

Well, first, PCUSA leadership constantly uses the rhetoric of the Left. It doesn’t care to have an honest discussion of important issues, preferring to call opponents “reactionary,” “extremist,” “hate-filled,” and so on. (This habit of calling half the people in the country vile names seems like a peculiar way to “do missions.”)  Then it raises boogeymen charges like “racial profiling” where none exists. In fact, the Arizona law prohibits it. A completely dispassionate analysis from the web site of ImmigrationLaws.com says –

… law enforcement cannot stop a person purely because they suspect the individual is an illegal immigrant. There must be some state or local ordinance or law and there must be reasonable suspicion of the individual breaking the law. More importantly, the Arizona immigration law SB1070 text implies that law enforcement must not consider race, national origin, or color when enforcing these provisions, except in ways that are permitted by the United States Constitution or the Arizona Constitution.

Then the PCUSA conflates issues, so that concern about illegal immigration becomes an attack on all immigration.

But, far more important is the complete absence of biblical legitimacy in its positions. And the Bible has a lot to say about all this.

The special place of “sojourners” is dealt with throughout the Old Testament. After all, Abraham was himself a sojourner who asked the Hittites for a place to bury Sarah. (Gen 23:1-9) God tells Moses to warn the Jews, ““You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 22:21) Sojourners are to be treated with respect and honor.

The PCUSA loves to cite those passages, but it ignores the passages that say sojourners must also obey the laws and customs of their host country:

• And every person who eats what dies of itself or what is torn by beasts, whether he is a native or a sojourner, shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening; then he shall be clean. (Lev 17:15)

• And if a stranger sojourns among you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, according to the statute of the Passover and according to its rule, so shall he do. You shall have one statute, both for the sojourner and for the native. (Num 9:14)

• … but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. (Deut 5:14)

So immigrants are to be treated honorably, but they must also obey the laws of the land. This is entirely consistent with what the authors of the Arizona law had in mind. Indeed, one of the greatest problems with illegal immigration (as opposed to legal), is their status makes it possible for others (like unscrupulous employers) to oppress them. Who can they complain to? If a worker has a green card, he has all the rights of citizen workers. This alone is reason enough to discourage illegal immigration and undocumented workers.

But there is another problem with the PCUSA’s stance – it apparently wants open borders. At least it wants to cut funding for border enforcement, which means de facto open borders.

From my reading of scripture, God did not want open borders. God himself created nations. He scattered the people who were building the tower of Babel — “… the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth…” (Gen 11:8) and gave them different languages so they would not understand one another’s speech. The chapter before that (Genesis 10) describes the nations descended from Noah. Not tribes, not families, but nations.

A nation is a people defined by a border. There is no other meaning. A nation is not defined by a language, a culture, or a religion, it is defined by a border. A nation with an open border is not a nation, and is certainly not what God had in mind from the earliest pages of the Bible to the last – “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations….” (Matthew 28:19)

No nation on earth has a border policy like that suggested by the PCUSA. Mexico itself is very vigorous in enforcing its own borders. On this, as on so many issues, the PCUSA seems to despise both the country and the faith it pretends to support.

Included in my Lenten reading was “For Calvinism,” by Michael Horton.

Horton is an impressive guy. He is a professor of theology at Westminster Seminary in California, the author of 20 books on theology, the editor of “Modern Reformation” magazine, and co-host of the White Horse Inn weekly radio talk show.  The slogan he uses to unify all this is, “know what you believe and why you believe it.” He is trying to restore the principles of the Reformation to the modern church. It’s an uphill climb.

He makes a couple of pertinent points in the introduction to the book. One is that in 2009, “Time magazine named ‘the new Calvinism’ as the third of ten trends shaping the world today.” The other is that, “A recent Pew study reported that atheists and agnostics know the Bible and Christian doctrine better than evangelicals.” In all of Horton’s work he bemoans the idea that so many “Christians” seem to believe that Christianity means that Jesus will help them live a better life – period.

This particular book was written in response to a book by Roger Olson, “Against Calvinism,” which advocated an Arminian theology. Olson writes a preface to Horton’s book and it is clear that these two gentlemen have been having this conversation for a very long time, and have tremendous respect for each other. I make no claim to be able to keep up with their theology, but it is interesting to drop in on the conversation. But it would have been helpful if the book had included a glossary to translate some of the terminology that may be familiar to them but is Greek (literally in some cases) to us amateurs.

Still, I think I have been able to sift out a few essential ideas, and if I understand them correctly I think Calvin has the better part of the argument. Let me share some of this with you, and you can tell me if I am off base.

It seems to me the essential point of dispute is that Calvinists (which includes traditional Presbyterians and the Reformed church) believe that faith is a gift from God. We do nothing to earn it. We don’t even seek it. In fact, it is God who seeks us out, and when He does, He will not be denied. That certainly describes my own experience. If anything, I was trying to avoid getting involved in all this “Jesus stuff.” It wasn’t my choice, but God’s (or the Spirit’s) tapping on my shoulder became more and more insistent.

The Arminians (which includes most Methodists and a lot of Evangelicals) think that God gives us the capacity to believe, but we have to accept it – and we are able to reject it.

This may seem a small distinction, but it is not. It is a profoundly different understanding of the sovereignty of God and that has implications for everything we do.

Many Christians believe we can earn our salvation by doing good works or living righteously. Calvinists believe there is nothing we can do to earn salvation, our good works are a consequence of being saved, not the cause of it. We do it out of the joy and love we feel for our savior. As Phillip Yancey says, “there is nothing we can do to make God love us more and there is nothing we can do to make Him love us less.” We don’t have the power to “make” God do anything.

This distinction makes a difference in our view of missions. One view is that we have to go out and save people’s souls. If we don’t, they will be condemned to eternal damnation. This was the theme of an annoying little book by David Platt, “Radical,” which I need to critique one of these days.

Calvinists believe it isn’t we who save souls, but God and only God. Horton writes –

“The doctrines of grace also motivate a missional outlook in terms of their message. There is no greater good news that we can bring to our loved ones, friends and neighbors than that the triune God has accomplished everything for our salvation from sin and death. We are not inviting people to cooperate with God in their redemption or new birth. We are not telling them that if they clean up their lives sufficiently, display enough zeal, and exhibit a perfect faith, they will be saved. Rather, we are given the privilege of announcing to them, like a herald returning from a battle, that God has achieved victory over Satan, death and hell. And because God has chosen and redeemed and is effectually calling a people for himself, we are assured that our witness will not be in vain.”

Witness, yes. We are called merely to witness to others what God has done for us.  I heard a pastor explain that a witness in a courtroom is only supposed to describe what happened, not extrapolate or interpret the event.

Horton also explains that we are passive in our relationship to God. God gives and we receive. There is nothing we can give to God. But having received these gifts, we can turn to our neighbors and share with them what we received. In that sense, we are ambassadors from the Lord.  Ambassadors deliver the message given to them by their government. They are not supposed to embellish.

Whether someone accepts that message is beyond our control. Maybe they don’t accept it today, but in a week, or a month, or ten years from now, they will. Thirty-five years ago I was working in a big commercial print shop in Maine. One of my coworkers, whose name I don’t remember, was a devout Christian who often said, “There are none righteous, no not one.” I mocked him at the time, but it has stayed with me all these years. He will never know that I heard him. Horton says –

“The Word that is externally proclaimed by the lips of the preacher is made effectual in the hearts of the elect whenever the Spirit chooses. Everyone is called to Christ, but only the sheep hear his voice.”

How do I wrap up this little essay? I’m not sure I can, other to encourage you to find out more about Michael Horton at The White Horse Inn.

I decided to stop flapping my lips for Lent and spend the time in deeper reflection and prayer. The cross and the resurrection is, after all, what this is all about. If Jesus had only died, he might be remembered as a martyr who had some wise things to say and was mercilessly persecuted for it.

But he was not a martyr. He was God himself and the resurrection proved it. He rose, not as a ghost or a spirit, but in the flesh. He had wounds. He wanted to eat. But it wasn’t just a zombie body, either. It was a body worthy of the New Heaven and the New Earth. It could pass through walls. It could vanish.

Do I actually believe this? You’re damned right I do. I am reading N.T. Wright’s “Surprised by Hope” in which he summarizes the historical record which he examines in more detail elsewhere. The record is unimpeachable. It really happened.

God – the same God who created the universe from a thought – walked among us for a few years. He became one of us. Many people knew him and touched him and fed him. He invited us to love him as much as he loves us. He asked us to become his brothers and sisters.

We killed him and still he continued to love us and forgive us because we didn’t know what we were doing. We still don’t know what we are doing. But Jesus knows.

Faced with this truth, I was awestruck. I needed to stop for a while and check in with the Lord. Am I doing what you want me to do? His answer was yes. God didn’t give me a lot of talents but he gave me a few, and he wants me not to bury them, but use them to their fullest so when he comes back I will have something to show for the trust he has given me.

One of those talents is writing this blog, and boy, do I have some things stored up.  Talks with you soon.

I love my church. The members of the congregation are warm and welcoming, the pastor is a fine spiritual leader, the elders are sincere and dedicated. They are all really nice people – and that may be the problem.

Like nice people everywhere they look for the best in others and try to avoid rancor. So they continue to be in the denomination they have always been in — the PCUSA. It is far less stressful to continue than to confront the heresies of the denomination.

Me? I’m not so nice. Not that I’m mean or go out of my way to pick a fight, but neither will I avoid it if I think my integrity is on the line. In this case, every week I come across more information that the PCUSA has abandoned proclaiming the Word of God in favor of advancing a radical leftist political agenda. That is not what called me back to the church.

I came back to learn as much as I can about Jesus and salvation and to serve the Lord as well as I am able.  When I enter the sanctuary I leave my politics outside. This is a blessed time for worship and prayer.

So it is jarring when the leadership of the PCUSA claims to be speaking for me as it lobbies for its agenda. To whit –

A few days ago Commentary Magazine published an article with the headline, “Presbyterians Take Another Step Toward Hate for Israel.”  The first paragraph reads –

“As we wrote last week, the Presbyterian Church USA is faced with a choice about the future of its relations with the Jewish community and, indeed, the vast majority of Americans who ardently support the state of Israel. Unfortunately, rather than listen to voices of reason, church leaders have today taken another step toward approval of measures that place the denomination in favor of economic war against the Jewish state when their General Assembly Mission Council voted to recommend a report that calls for “selective divestment” from Israel.”

The Jewish news service JTA put it  –

“The executive committee of the 2.4 million member church voted Friday to pass a resolution endorsing a recommendation of divestment from Caterpillar, Motorola and Hewlett-Packard. The action followed a report released Sept. 9 by the church’s committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment that recommended divestment of companies it believes supports the Israeli occupation of the West Bank.”

They speak for 2.4 million members, and I am one of those. They will continue to claim to speak for me as long as I continue to be a member.

This is just the latest of a string of calumnies against Israel by the PCUSA. A few weeks ago Commentary published this –

“Institutions connected with the Presbyterians have become a font of anti-Israel invective that has crossed the line into outright anti-Semitism. In the course of promoting their anti-Israel policies, church leaders have engaged in rhetoric that seeks not only to delegitimize the state of Israel but also the Jewish community. The actions and statements of the church’s Israel Palestine Mission Network (IPMN-PCUSA) have been so egregious that the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the umbrella network of Jewish community relations groups, has been forced to go public with their complaints in hopes that ordinary Presbyterians will do something about the epidemic of hate speech springing from church activists.”

“…outright anti-Semitism.” Wow.

In my last post I described how the PCUSA betrayed the Roman Catholic Church by supporting an even more extreme mandate on free contraceptives than the Obama Administration had proposed. Think what you will about the merits of contraceptives, the faith community should be united in support of the freedom of all churches and church-based institutions to follow the dictates of their faith.

This principle transcends any one church or any one issue.  Earlier this year there was an effort in San Francisco to outlaw infant circumcision. This was a rabidly anti-Jewish campaign with literature featuring evil-looking hook-nosed Rabbis with big knives standing over tiny babies. Hatred of Jews (and Catholics, for that matter) is not rare in the United States. We don’t need the PCUSA adding to it.

Add to this the abomination of the PCUSA’s support for abortion. This is not a “pro-choice” position but a pro-abortion position. If it were pro-choice the PCUSA would be putting as many resources into adoption counseling and services as it does into abortion advocacy, but I can find very little if anything the denomination is doing to encourage pregnant women to consider adoption. The Board of Pensions has an “adoption assistance” program, but that is aimed solely at people who are covered by BOP benefits and aimed solely at families that want to adopt, not at prospective mothers who might consider adoption as an alternative to abortion.

Doing a Google search for “Presbyterian Adoption Services” or “Presbyterian Adoption Counseling” turns up a scant number of actual services, and the few that seem to be active, such as the Park Slope Presbyterian Church in Brooklyn, New York, are affiliated with the PCA, not the PCUSA.

But more than that, the PCUSA advocates for taxpayer funding of abortion. That means even Catholic nuns would be forced to pay for abortions through their taxes.

I could add a very long list of other offenses committed by the PCUSA, but hatred of Jews, betrayal of Catholics, and complicity in the murder of tens of millions of God’s most innocent and helpless humans, is enough to convince me I can no longer be associated with this denomination.

Easter is a fine time for new beginnings.

The PCUSA has come down on the wrong side of what is the most important religious liberty test of the new century so far. Through its affiliation with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC)  it is supporting the Obama Administration’s efforts to force the Catholic Church (and others) to pay for services the church is scripturally opposed to. Indeed, the RCRC argues that the decision doesn’t go far enough –

“We recognize this is a victory for many women, but (Secretary Sebelius’) decision not to extend this coverage to all Americans, no matter the religious perspective of their employer, is disappointing.”

So, now in addition to its long-standing disregard for Scripture, the PCUSA adds complete disregard of the Constitution of the United States. It believes the church, as an employer, should be forced to do whatever the government tells it to do.

Just last month the Supreme Court ruled unanimously – unanimously – against this viewpoint in its Hosanna-Tabor v. Smith decision.   It found that churches are not required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it comes to it’s own “ministerial” employees.  Ministerial was defined very broadly to include teachers in religious schools if those teachers have any responsibility for teaching church doctrine.

The Obama administration argued in this case there should be no “ministerial exception” whatsoever, so this contempt for religious freedom is not new for them. But it is pretty alarming that the PCUSA should share in this contempt.

Indeed, this administration avoids any discussion of “freedom of religion” in favor of the much narrower “freedom of worship.” Apparently it believes that churches should confine themselves to communal prayer on Sunday and leave any mission work to the mercies of the government. Christ’s Great Commandment and Great Commission do not carry much weight in the Obama White House.

But the Christian churches, and the Catholic Church especially, believe that serving the poor and the sick is every much a part of their faith as Sunday services. They do not, and must not, leave their Christianity in the pews on Sunday.

The idea that a single bureaucrat can mandate that churches pay for contraception and sterilization services for those employees not involved in Sunday services is beyond reason. The only thing now protecting them from being required to also pay for abortions is the political calculation of the man in the Oval Office.

This political calculation is exactly what is behind this decision. The Los Angeles Times reports that,

“Democratic strategists think voters who oppose President Obama because of the birth-control rule wouldn’t have voted for him anyway. The strategists think most Catholic women — like most other American women — believe that birth control should be affordable and available.”

There is broad support for contraceptives, so people are willing to ignore religious freedom – or so they thought.

It must be pointed out that the Catholic Church brought this on themselves. They largely supported ObamaCare and the Catholic Health Association was one of the most passionate advocates of this law. But now –

“Sister Carol Keehan, head of the Catholic Health Assn. of the United States, argued that the rule potentially establishes a new test for what is and isn’t a religious institution — one separate from the Internal Revenue Service definition and one that could have implications for other policies, on issues such as covering abortion.”

The backlash has been ferocious. Even liberal Catholics who are strong political supporters of the president are appalled at the overreach.

But the overreach continues. Catholic chaplains in the military were forbidden by the Administration from reading a letter from the Archbishop for Military Services at Sunday Mass last week. Have priests ever before been told by the government what they can and cannot say during Mass?

This Administration has declared war on Christianity, and the PCUSA is helping them do it.

If you are interested in weighing in, the Manhattan Declaration is collecting signatures on a petition of protest.

In the past few months, since the PCUSA endorsed the ordination of homosexuals, I have repeatedly been called a homophobe for doubting that this move is true to scripture. In half a century of civic activism I have never been called this. How odd that it should come exclusively from my fellow Presbyterians, and this seems to be how low this denomination has descended.

I find it interesting that the very people who have for years called for tolerance and understanding are so quick to resort to bullying and name calling now that they have won their battle.

But it is nothing new for people to be reviled for following scripture. Jesus warned that the world will hate his followers, just as it has hated Him. Meanwhile, I have yet to hear any explanation of how acceptance of homosexuality is condoned in the Bible. How will homosexual preachers proclaim the Word of God? Will they simply skip over the troublesome passages? Below are a few, just from the New Testament, never mind Leviticus and Sodom and Gomorrah.

Acts 15:19-20

“Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.” (James speaking)

Acts 15:28-29

“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality….” (from the letter of the Council to the Gentiles)

Romans 1:26-27

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations to those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Corinthians 5:1-2

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among the pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.

1 Corinthians 5:11-13

But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler – not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. Purge the evil person from among you.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the spirit of our God.

1 Corinthians 6:19

Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.

2 Corinthians 12:21

I fear that when I come again my God may humble me before you, and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual immorality, and sensuality that they have practiced.

1 Timothy 1:8-10

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine….

Will these passages be purged?

During the debate on homosexual ordination, I asked repeatedly whether the PCUSA still considers homosexuality to be a sin. I never got an answer. No one said yes and no one said no. I can’t fathom why this was such a tough question. Scripture is not ambiguous on this — it clearly is a sin. But so are many other things mankind does. We all sin and we all deserve to be condemned. But faith in Christ means that we can ask Jesus to carry the burden of our sins. But how can He do that if we refuse to even acknowledge that we have sinned? After all, John wrote:

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us of all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. (1 John 1:8-10)

I also repeatedly came across people who seem to think that homosexuality is something new, that ancient people had odd ideas about sex because they didn’t experience much of it – or something like that. I know that adolescents of every generation think that they have invented sex — that they are doing things their mothers and fathers would never have done. But we usually outgrow that notion by the time we’re 30.

In fact, sex is one thing that hasn’t changed a whit in 4,000 years.  It is done today exactly the way it was done back then – including homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, prostitution, you name it. All of these things are discussed (and condemned) in the Bible. I suppose gay rights advocates would argue that homosexuality used to be immoral but no longer is. Really? Why would that be? What, pray tell, is to be considered sexually immoral today?  And who has set the standard?

For me, I think I’ll stick to scripture. Being called names is a small price to pay.