President’s Day - Make America Great Again?

Several possible definitions of greatness allow the speaker or listeners to apply the concept of overarching size or dominance differently. 

• The Ronald Reagan/Donald Trump call to make America great again is generally interpreted to mean economic and military pre-eminence in the world; affluence and unchallengeable military power.
• This aligns well with Jim Collins’ book Good to Great, in which greatness is operationally defined according to a number of metrics, most prominently financial performance that exceeds market averages by several orders of magnitude over a sustained period of time. 
• The Greatest Generation references our forebears who endured the Great Depression and then fought and won World War 2.  In his book, Tom Brokaw wrote, "it is, I believe, the greatest generation any society has ever produced,” because these individuals fought not for fame and recognition, but because it was the ‘right thing to do.’
• The sons of Korah sang of the attributes of God that emanate from His greatness. These include His stronghold being a joy to the earth, because human kings are terrified and defeated; the establishment of His city forever; His righteous judgments; His lovingkindness; His guidance of His people forever. (Psalm 48)
• Jesus, when asked about the great commandment of the Law, replied: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40) 
• The author of the epistle to the Hebrews makes it clear why Jesus is the great high priest over the house of God: “... we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh.” (Hebrews 10:19-21) This living way is the new covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 (Hebrews 10:16-17), and made possible by God through the death and resurrection of Jesus.

The ever-present danger of ambition is that we choose the wrong goal. Jesus did not exhibit greatness in any humanly recognizable form while He was on earth, nor exhort His followers to greatness. He defined greatness by service and self-sacrifice, becoming the least in human terms. (Mark 10:43) 

Getting past the personalities of current political leaders (it’s hard, I know), can we reach a social consensus of what a greatness looks like? Mother Teresa immediately comes to mind as a role model, but as Oliver North pointed out in Congressional testimony, “Mother Teresa doesn’t go to Tehran.” King David is perhaps a more appropriate role model, or perhaps George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. What were the core characteristics that made these people great leaders? 

• Most prominent is their unwavering determination to do the right thing, as Tom Brokaw observed. They had some human failures (Romans 3:23) but defined their public life by moral and ethical choices rooted in God’s character.
• They were committed to stay the course during dark days when ruin knocked on their doorstep. David fled from King Saul for many years. George Washington led his men through Valley Forge’s cold winter, also retreating from Boston and New York City. Abraham Lincoln dealt with an unbroken string of military defeats in the first two years of his Presidency.
• They opposed members of their own government who sought to compromise principle to gain practical advantages. They were going to achieve good ends solely by moral means.
• They focused, perhaps by circumstances of their times, on righting the most important wrongs. It may be that the times make the man - that great crises produce great men - but these leaders were distinguished by rising to the challenge, both moral and social.

Is our perception of great political leadership is forged only in war or national calamity? Despite the goals of President Johnson’s ‘Great Society’, his name is seldom mentioned in a list of great presidents. FDR is more commonly (but not by universal acclaim) noted as great, because he led the nation through both the Great Depression and World War 2. Although King Solomon led ancient Israel to prosperity, built the temple, and epitomized wisdom, few classify  him in the same level of greatness with his father, King David. 

Looking beyond President’s Day and individual heroes, is greatness found in a society that is just, generous, tolerant, compassionate, and so forth, or in a society that challenges each individual to rise in moral character? Mother Teresa exhibited compassion and generosity, and challenged her fellow nuns and her donors to likewise rise to this standard (as per Matthew 25:35-40). I do not know if her ministry encouraged the objects of their charity to rise to moral excellence. When people are borderline starving, should Jesus’ sheep go beyond feeding them to share with them the empowerment of the gospel, to be free from the penalty and power of sin through the blood of Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit? Are such qualities already the norm among the homeless living on the edge of starvation?

It is not the role of Caesar to share the gospel, and any effort by any human government to force Christ-like behavior would be both tyrannical and ludicrous. From this perspective, it is impossible for any governing authority - politician, law, or court - to make a nation great. While we have a concept of in loco parentis, usually applied to schools or foster parents, it would be effectively a dictatorship to extend that role to the government as a whole. Since the greatness of God’s character (holiness and love) only rises in individuals by their voluntary decisions,   the challenge of our time, and of every age, is how to encourage these choices. We share Jesus’ greatness only when we follow in His footsteps.

Redeeming politics

The recent problems facing the governor and lieutenant governor of Virginia call into question the basic fabric of civic discourse. The trigger for this course of events was an interview in which Governor Northam advocated the legalization of infanticide in Virginia, just as the state of New York did. One of his medical school classmates responded by posting the now-infamous yearbook page with a picture, likely taken at a party, of drunk medical students toasting humor in mocking a humorless historical reality. This led to the continuing uproar, condemnation, and calls for resignation. When attention focused on his potential successor, charges of decade-old rapes were raised against Lieutenant Governor Fairfax. 

How can Jesus redeem this? Let’s start with honesty. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23) In the original sin, man and woman chose to make moral judgments just like God, but apart from Him. (Genesis 2:17, 3:6) It appears no one can resist this temptation these days, at least not journalists and political actors. The tributary sins of murder, rape, kidnapping, follow from human choice separated from God.  (Romans 5:12). Fortunately, God knew all about these things and made provision through the propitiatory death of Christ. The condition for His provision is acknowledgement of our sin and asking God in all humility for forgiveness. None of this is news. But how can the gospel be applied to the circumstances of Ralph Northam and Justin Fairfax?

Things that won’t work:

• Denial; maybe the facts are being misrepresented, but to claim nothing happened is simply not credible either before man or God.
• Self-defense; just because it’s human nature (being fallen) is not an excuse. “It wasn’t really all that bad” will be unacceptable to a holy God. Journalists and politicos who have usurped His prerogatives will likely have a similar assessment.
• Return fire; one of the most offensive behaviors of people, Christians or not, is passing judgment on others. It will not solve anything.

Whether Fairfax and Northam have made peace with God is between them and their Maker. Pundits and wannabe political operatives fail the third bullet above. Their self-righteous pontification filling the airwaves offends both man and God. But ... does this mean there are no standards beyond statutory crimes? Shouldn’t the state’s chief executives exhibit a higher standard of behavior than just not breaking laws? In the days of the MeToo revelations, it has become obvious that men’s carnal desires have been allowed to disrespect women and, regrettably, get away with it. The legacy of slavery that persists in racism continues to buttress disrespect for all other ethnicities. 

The power to live without sin is not in humans, unless they are aided by the grace of God. Consider the case of John Newton. What we need is a Holy Spirit revival! The alternative, a world in which humans choose to do whatever they feel like, continuously pass judgment on each other, and disrespect anyone and everyone, will end up a broken society, political anarchy, as we see in many third world countries. It should be obvious that our only choices are national repentance or social breakdown. We need another John Wesley, not an Oliver Cromwell.

Holy Spirit Outcomes

A prayer taken from the Eastern Church, quoted in Moving in the Spirit, by Richard J. Hauser, S. J., 1986, p 24.

Without the Holy Spirit, God is distant,

Christ remains in the past,

The Gospel is a dead letter,

The Church is just an organization,

Authority a domination,

Mission is propaganda,

Worship a ceremonial,

And Christian way of life a servitude.

But in him: the cosmos is uplifted and groans

In giving birth to the kingdom,

The risen Christ is here,

The gospel throbs with life,

The Church is communion in the Trinity,

Authority is a liberating service,

Mission a Pentecost,

The liturgy both memorial and anticipation,

And human life is deified.

Ignatius di Latakia. Discourse given at the Third World Assembly of Churches, 1968.

Book Review: The Lost World of Adam and Eve, by John H. Walton

Professor Walton’s twenty one propositions carefully argue for a few key propositions:

• Genesis does not state that Adam and Eve were materially created de novo.
• New Testament theology focuses as on Adam as an archetype rather than a progenitor
• The primary focus of the Genesis account, and of Paul’s theology, is that God gave Adam and Eve specific functions and assignments as His vice regents in the Garden of Eden; their sin, and their and humankind’s fall, was the appropriation of His prerogatives and His provision as their own.

Along the way numerous insights buttress the logical argument. A basic tenet is that when Moses recorded this account, God was speaking to people immersed in an ancient culture to set straight propositions in their fallen religions (Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Canaanite) in the context of their understanding. The issues of the day did not focus on material origin, but on function and purpose, indeed the very nature of God (or the gods). Recent archeological excavation of numerous ancient texts have filled out the worldview of ancient pagans, in their creation stories (about purpose, functions, and assignments), as they constructed meaning for their lives. Millennia ago, pagans answered the question, “What is the chief end of man” not with the Westminster catechism, but creation myths. So YHWH had Moses set the record straight. But He did so in a language and using concepts that the ancient Israelites would understand. He was not speaking to 21st century scientists. 

As a consequence, interpretation of Scripture as inerrant does not require either a young earth or Adam and Eve to be literal progenitors of the human race. God called and gifted them to be priests in His Holy place (Eden), just as He called Abram, and later the Israelites. In these last days He has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He created the world. Two points: continuing to read the Epistle to the Hebrews, one finds priesthood repeatedly a focus (although Adam is not mentioned); and time seems unimportant to the eternal God.  Genesis 1-3 tell of beginnings, but they are the beginnings of purpose, meaning, and function. God created the heavens and the earth, but that is not what most of this passage is about.

The practical implication: “The order that God brought focused on people in His image to join with Him in the continuing process of bringing order, but more importantly on ordering the cosmos as a sacred space.” (Proposition 16). Both Adam and Jesus have historical and archetypal roles in New Testament theology, and as Paul explains, Jesus, the last Adam, became a vivifying spirit. There is a profound excursus by N. T. Wright on Paul’s use of Adam, embedded as proposition 19. His bottom line is that we are rescued by the blood of the Lamb to be a royal priesthood, not simply to be saved ourselves, but to be liberated from sin and death and anointed by God, in order to bring His wise order into a world that is a terrible mess. 

One other consequence of this hermeneutical view. If we allow the passages in Genesis to speak about purpose, function, and use, and not insist they deal with material origin, then there is space to reconcile evidence for material evolution (such as geologic evidence for an old earth, or phylogenetic continuity) with God’s revelation. This opens the door to a better understanding of evidence discovered, and also allows new generations to not be faced with a take-it-or-leave-it approach to doctrines often promoted as the only true interpretation of Scripture, such as a young earth or de novo creation of Adam. Can we resist the temptation to claim for our interpretation of Scripture the same authority as Scripture itself? 

C.S.Lewis on why we need theology

C. S. Lewis - Mere Christianity (Book IV, section 1)

... and by extension why we need the church and other believers.

I remember once when I had been giving a talk to the R.A.F., an old, hard-bitten officer got up and said, ‘I’ve no use for all that stuff. But, mind you, I’m a religious man too. I know there’s a God. I’ve felt Him: out alone in the desert at night: the tremendous mystery. And that’s just why I don’t believe all your neat little dogmas and formulas about Him. To anyone who’s met the real thing they all seem so petty and pedantic and unreal!’ 

Now in a sense I quite agreed with that man. I think he had probably had a real experience of God in the desert. And when he turned from that experience to the Christian creeds, I think he really was turning from something real to something less real. In the same way, if a man has once looked at the Atlantic from the beach, and then goes and looks at a map of the Atlantic, he also will be turning from something real to something less real: turning from real waves to a bit of coloured paper. But here comes the point. The map is admittedly only coloured paper, but there are two things you have to remember about it. In the first place, it is based on what hundreds and thousands of people have found out by sailing the real Atlantic. In that way it has behind it masses of experience just as real as the one you could have from the beach; only, while yours would be a single glimpse, the map fits all those different experiences together. In the second place, if you want to go anywhere, the map is absolutely necessary. As long as you are content with walks on the beach, your own glimpses are far more fun than looking at a map. But the map is going to be more use than walks on the beach if you want to get to America.

Now, Theology is like the map. Merely learning and thinking about the Christian doctrines, if you stop there, is less real and less exciting than the sort of thing my friend got in the desert. Doctrines are not God: they are only a kind of map. But that map is based on the experience of hundreds of people who really were in touch with God—experiences compared with which any thrills or pious feelings you and I are likely to get on our own are very elementary and very confused. And secondly, if you want to get any further, you must use the map. You see, what happened to that man in the desert may have been real, and was certainly exciting, but nothing comes of it. It leads nowhere. There is nothing to do about it. In fact, that is just why a vague religion—all about feeling God in nature, and so on—is so attractive. It is all thrills and no work: like watching the waves from the beach. But you will not get to Newfoundland by studying the Atlantic that way, and you will not get eternal life by simply feeling the presence of God in flowers or music. Neither will you get anywhere by looking at maps without going to sea. Nor will you be very safe if you go to sea without a map.

Book Review: Out of the East (Eothen) by Alexander Kinglake

Book Review - Eothen - by Alexander Kinglake

Eothen (Out of the East), by Alexander Kinglake, recounts his travels through the Near East in approximately 1834, when he was about 25. It would be a dramatic understatement to say that the culture of that era and location are unlike our own. In his encounters with various regions and peoples of the Ottoman Empire (Turkey, Palestine, Egypt, Syria), what stands out most starkly is the clash between British cultural chauvinism (in Kinglake’s commentary) and the local cultures and traditions of impoverished peoples living on the ruins of ancient civilizations. 

A passage near the end of the book serves to illustrate both the richness of language, and the author’s view of the contrast between the Near East and Western Europe. He recorded this when he saw the Mediterranean while transiting a pass in Lebanon on his transit from Syria to the sea, where he would take a ship on the journey home.

I had grown well used of late to the people and the scenes of forlorn Asia—well used to tombs and ruins, to silent cities and deserted lains, to tranquil men, and women sadly veiled; and now that I saw the even plain of the sea, I leapt with an easy leap to its yonder shores, and saw all the kingdoms of the West in that fair path that could lead me from out of this silent land straight on into shrill Marseilles, or round by the pillars of Hercules, to the crash and roar of London. My place upon this dividing barrier was as a man’s puzzling station in eternity, between the birthless Past, and the Future that has no end. Behind me I left an old and decrepit World—Religions dead and dying—calm tyrannies expiring in silence—women hushed, and swathed, and turned into waxen dolls —Love flown, and in its stead mere Royal, and ‘Paradise’, pleasures.—Before me there waited glad bustle and strife—Love itself, an emulous game—Religion a Cause and a Controversy, well smitten and well defended—men governed by reasons and suasion of speech—wheels going—steam buzzing—a mortal race, and a slashing pace, and the Devil taking the hindmost—taking me, by Jove (for that was my inner care), if I lingered too long, upon the difficult Pass that leads from Thought to Action. I descended, and went towards the West.

The clash of religions seems muted in Kinglake’s accounts of how his Western Christianity dealt with, and was treated by various Islamic (Musselman in this context) practitioners. In our day and in Western civilization, the comparative merits or truth of competing faiths is implicitly scored by cultural and individual freedom, prosperity, etc., i.e., the world’s standards, just as Kinglake does. We should not expect a 19th century aristocrat to judge with 21st century values or perspective, but Jesus did say “ What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?“ (Matthew 16:26) well before Alexander Kinglake toured the mideast.

A 21st century travelogue through the third world would likely encounter similar clashes, but hopefully with different context. Despite grinding poverty, or perhaps largely because of it, faith in the third world is strong, although those who live there seek material improvement. But the clash of religions is also much sharper than two centuries ago. Militant Islam seeks to overturn the verdict of history. The Holy Spirit is being poured out in unprecedented measure on Christians around the world. Let us pray that we do not look down on those whose history and current circumstances are so different from our own — in short, that we not judge by the world’s standards.

Book Review: The Lost World of Genesis One

Book Review - The Lost World of Genesis One

In The Lost World of Genesis One, John Walton presents a way to understand the Genesis 1 creation account based on Aristotelian epistemology without once citing Aristotle. Aristotle defined four types of causation: material, formal, efficient, and final. Walton proposes that while most believers view (and have been taught) that Genesis 1 is an account of material causes of existence, the ancient Hebrews, and other ancient civilizations, would have received it as describing efficient and final causation. Restated in different words, the author of Genesis described the creation of the functions and purpose of the universe and its contents. It describes the nature of completion; God rested on the seventh day by taking His place in the cosmic temple that He had set in order. 

The difficulties that arise from trying to interpret this passage as a scientific description of material origins are numerous. Equally difficult, in a different venue,  is trying to use scientific theories to prove metaphysical truth. These problems do not arise when we receive Genesis 1 as a description of spiritual realities. God’s purposes in His kingdom are described as bringing light, life, provision, and order out of chaos. Walton points to God’s words to Job (38:1-40:2) as a warning against  trying to link our scientific understanding to proof for or against His existence or His actions.

“The book [of Job] is full of Job’s demand for an explanation. When God finally appears, he does not offer an explanation, but offers a new insight to Job. By confronting Job with the vast complexity of the world, God shows that simplistic models are an inadequate basis for understanding what He is doing in the world.” (p 132)

In eighteen propositions, after explaining his epistemological approach to Genesis 1, Walton proposes an approach to deal with teaching science as it relates to matters of faith. The relation of evolution, intelligent design to empiricism and teleology must be addressed in order to properly teach science and the humanities.  He proposes that a clear divide does exist between the empiricism that defines science, and the humanities that address purpose and meaning. There may be evidence pointing to purpose in a scientific theory, but it cannot be proven because it is the wrong sort of stuff. They operate on different layers. 

The bottom line on the first chapter of Genesis is, for believers, that God is the immovable mover, the first cause, at all levels of existence, but this account does not provide scientific details. Rather, the chapter is written to describe that God, the YHWH of the Jews, assigned functions in order to accomplish His purposes, and then entered into the role He had prepared for Himself, as the God of the universe.