Is Christianity Irrational?

“…Christianity is irrational by its very nature. Jesus both God and man? No; rationally, just man…”

An anonymous passers-by left the above comment (along with a short defense of Kierkegaard) a while ago, and I’ve been meaning to address it for some time. The reason is because of how common this idea is – how prevalent it is, even among those who call themselves Christians. The comment is both completely wrong, and an indictment of the irrationality of the poster. This is not surprising, given the rest of the comment on Kierkegaard, but it is worthy of examination.

Is Christianity irrational by its very nature? Is it irrational to understand that Jesus is both man and God? Hardly! But let’s take this a little slower. First – what is the nature of Christianity? (Another interesting aside – what is meant by ‘nature’?). Is not Christianity determined by the statements found in Scripture? I would argue that the entirety of Christianity is solely and completely based upon the propositions found in Scripture, and any implications or arguments based upon those propositions…sola scriptura. If so, then by its very nature, it is completely rational.

Why do I say this? Because BY DEFINITION, to think rationally is to think logically. And to think logically means to think propositionally. There is no other way to be logical than to think in propositional terms; to state a premise or set of premises, and reach a conclusion based upon those premises. So – if Scripture offers the propostitions, the conclusion of which is that Jesus is both man and God, this has occurred by a logical progression.

In fact, it is impossible to understand ANYTHING about Christianity without adhering strictly and without exception to the Scripture. Anything else is based upon opinion, conjecture, and intuition (The argument that interpretation of Scripture is entirely subjective has been set aside for the moment.)

But lets look at something else: How about the objection that Christianity is irrational! Is this not an irrational statement itself? From what set of premises does this conclusion arise?

My guess is that the author of the comment simply intuits that it is not possible for Jesus to be both God and man. This intuition tells this person that “this can’t possibly be, and therefore Christianity must be irrational.”  But intuition is not logic, it is opinion. My intuition tells me that this person is wrong, that instead, it is  quite possible that Jesus could be both man and God. In order to prove that this is *irrational* the author of this comment would need to produce the argument which provides the necessary conclusion that this is true.

And I would challenge any premise that forms this argument. Until we can assert and prove that the premises are themselves true (truth is a function of logic, not intuition, nor empirical notions!) then I must conclude that the author of this comment is both irrational and incapable of producing anything other than random fly-by statements.

2 Corinthians 10:5:

“We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”

Published in: on January 20, 2012 at 12:18 pm  Leave a Comment  

Sola Scripture…Really?

It seems very clear to me that Christians should be very careful about adhering to any principle that is not Biblical. A principle is “…A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning…” If then we act based upon any principle, we are using a fundamental truth or proposition as a guide for our behavior. Paul points out to Timothy that the Scripture is sufficient for every aspect of our lives. In fact, as is pointed out in the Bible, to add to or take anything away from the Scripture is a sin. Given that the Scripture is sufficient for all of our lives (it is the entire set of propositions or truths that serve as the foundation for our system of belief, or behavior – or for any chain of reasoning – for our entire life) then we must also note that if we use any principle that does not appear either directly or deduced from other principles in Scripture, we are guilty of the sin of adding to Scripture. The Reformation idea of Sola Scriptura is the declaration that the measure by which we determine the morality of any suggested idea is found only in God’s written word. If it isn’t Scriptural, we then honor God by rejecting it. God’s voice always takes precedence over man’s dictates.

Would any Christian deny or debate this? Upon what grounds? It has certainly been attacked at times. One common idea is that Scripture is not complete enough to cover everything that happens. For example, things happen now that the authors of Scripture could not have possibly had in mind. We have to be ‘adaptable’ to the circumstances of our own time, and may have to come up with new rules for behavior based upon these new circumstances. Think Situational Ethics.

If the fallacy in this argument does not strike you, then you are not thinking! Who is the author of Scripture? Is it not God Himself? Is any part of Scripture not God’s? Are not the words written in this book given to us by God himself? How unprepared is God for any situation that may come up? Surely from a truly Biblical point of view there can be no such situation, for God is the sole source of all that happens. There are those who place chance in a higher position than God, claiming that God takes chances, or gambles on things. But a true Christian rejects this notion!

What does Scripture say?

Paul writes:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work…”

Note the words in bold: ‘all’, ‘complete’, ‘thoroughly’, ‘every’. The text very clearly shows the extent of the use of Scripture.

The very first statement is that ALL of Scripture comes from God. It is not from the mind of any man – what is written is a statement from the supreme, sovereign creator of all that has been created. Not some Scripture – all Scripture. Some of it is not from man, it is not man’s invention. ALL of it is from God. Not one part of Scripture is less important or less inspired. All of it is direct issue from God to us. All of it is equally important.

Next, notice that the reason for Scripture: it is so that we may be ‘completed’ through information (doctrine), analysis of beliefs and actions (reproof), correction (that is, errors fixed, misunderstandings clarified, and damage undone), and ‘instruction in righteousness’ – that is, how to think and act morally. It does this so that we may be ‘thoroughly’ (not partially!) equipped for ‘every’ (not some) good work. And a good work is the opposite of a ‘bad’ work. If you wish to learn the right way to do something, the correct way to do something, then you need Scripture. It is that simple and that clear.

There is no other place to look for what works are good or evil than through the Scripture. If you wish to do good works (that is, things that please God), then the Bible is the only place you can learn them. Why do I say that? Because Paul points out that Scripture is the place where you learn EVERY good work – not SOME good works (with others being learned elsewhere) – no – EVERY good is found in this one place only.

If you have an issue with this, then you do not hold the Word of God to be as important as it truly is. You do not take the word of God as the source of truth. You place it instead on a equalized playing field along with other sources of moral instruction and ethical examination. In other words, you hold that human philosophical works have an equal share in the instruction of a righteous man. You may argue that these other works are not quite as useful – but you are obliged to argue that they supplement the Scriptures, filling in the places God must have missed. In other words, you have negated the idea of Sola Scriptura. At least have the courage to admit this!

Published in: on October 19, 2011 at 3:08 pm  Leave a Comment  

Guest Spot: The Criminality Of War

By Howard Malcom, D. D.
President of Georgetown College, KY
1845

That man is a fallen and depraved creature, is every where apparent in the ferocious dispositions of his nature. Hence, to speak of him as in “a state of nature,” has been to speak of him as “a savage.” A savage finds in war and bloodshed his only means of honor and fame, and he becomes, both in the chase and the camp, a beast of prey.

In proportion as war prevails among civilized nations, it banishes whatever tends to refine and elevate, suspends the pursuits of industry, destroys the works of art, and sets them back towards barbarism. Wherever it comes, cities smoke in ruins, and fields are trodden under foot. The husband is torn from his wife, the father from his children, the aged lose their prop, and woman is consigned to unwonted toils and perpetual alarms. As it passes, the halls of science grow lonely, improvements pause, benevolence is fettered, violence supersedes law, and even the sanctuary of God is deserted, or becomes a manger, a hospital, or a fortress. In its actual encounters, every movement is immeasurably horrid, with wounds, anguish, and death; while amid the din of wrath and strife, a stream of immortal souls is hurried, unprepared, to their final audit.

That tyrants should lead men into wars of pride and conquest, is not strange. But that the people, in governments comparatively free, should so readily lend themselves to a business in which they bear all the sufferings, can gain nothing, and may lose all, is matter of astonishment indeed.

But the chief wonder is that CHRISTIANS, followers of the Prince of Peace, should have concurred in this mad idolatry of strife, and thus been inconsistent not only with themselves, but with the very genius of their system. Behold a man going from the Lord’s Supper, fantastically robed and plumed, drilling himself into skilful modes of butchery, and studying the tactics of death! Behold him murdering his fellow Christians, and praying to his Divine Master for success in the endeavor! Behold processions marching to the house of God to celebrate bloody victories, and give thanks for having been able to send thousands and tens of thousands to their last account with all their sins upon their heads! Stupendous inconsistency!

Surely this matter should remain no longer unexamined. It cannot. In this age of light, when every form of vice and error is discussed and resisted, this great evil, the prolific parent of unnumbered abominations, must be attacked also. Christians are waking up to see and do their duty to one another, to their neighbors, and to the distant heathen. They cannot continue to overlook war. I persuade myself that there are few, even now, who object to its being discussed.

I propose not to discuss the whole subject of war; – a vast theme. I shall abstain from presenting it in the light of philosophy, politics, or patriotism; in each of which points of light I have studied it, and feel that it demands most serious attention. In the following observations, war will be discussed only as it concerns a Christian.

Happily, there are few who would oppose the prevalence and perpetuity of peace. The need of discussion lies not in the bloodthirsty character of our countrymen, nor in the existence of active efforts to propagate and prolong the miseries of war; but in the apathy that prevails on this subject, and the almost total want of reflection in regard to it. A military spirit is so wrought into the habits of national thinking, and into all our patriotic pomps and festivals, that the occasional occurrence of war is deemed a matter of course. Even the fervent friends of man’s highest welfare seem to regard a general pacification of the world, and the disuse of fleets and armies, as a mere Utopian scheme, and chose to give their money and prayers to objects which seem of more probable attainment. This apathy and incredulity are to be overcome only by discussion.

The following observations will be confined to two points.

I. War is criminal because inconsistent with Christianity.

II. This criminality is enormous.

I. ITS INCONSISTENCY WITH CHRISTIANITY.

1. It contradicts the entire genius and intention of Christianity.

Christianity requires us to seek to amend the condition of man. War always deteriorates and destroys. The world is at this moment not one whit better, in any respect, for all the wars of five thousand years. If here and there some good may be traced to war, the amount of evil, on the whole, is immeasurably greater. Christianity, if it prevailed, would make earth once more a paradise. War makes it a slaughter house, a desert, a den of thieves and murderers, a hell. Christianity cancels and condemns the law of retaliation. War is based upon that very principle. Christianity remedies all human woes. War makes them.

The causes of war are as inconsistent with Christianity as its effects. It originates in the worst passions, and the worst crimes, James iv., 1, 2. We may always trace it to the thirst of revenge, the acquisition of territory, the monopoly of commerce, the quarrels of kings, the coercion of religious opinions, or some such unholy source. There never was a war, devised by man, founded on holy tempers, and Christian principles.

All the features, all the concomitants, all the results of war, are opposed to the features, the concomitants, the results of Christianity. The two systems conflict in every point, irreconcilably and forever.

2. War sets at naught the entire example of Jesus.

“Learn of me,” says the Divine Examplar. And can we learn fighting from him? His conduct was always pacific. He became invisible when the Nazarites sought to cast him from their precipice. The troops that came to arrest him in the garden, he struck down, but not dead. His constant declaration was, that he “came not to destroy men’s lives, but to save.”

True, he once instructed his disciples to buy swords, telling them that they were going forth as sheep among wolves. But the whole passage shows he was speaking by parable, as he generally did. The disciples answered, “here are two swords.” He instantly replies, “it is enough.” If he had spoken literally, how could two swords suffice for twelve Apostles? Nay, when Peter used one of these, it was too much. Christ reproved him, and healed the wound. He rneant to teach them their danger, not their refuge. His metaphor was misunderstood, just as it was when he said, “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees,” and they thought he meant bread.

Once he drove men from the temple. But it was with “a whip of small cords.” Moral influence drove them. A crowd of such fellows was not to be overcome by one man with a whip. He expressly declared that his servants should not fight, for his kingdom was not of this world. His whole life was the sublime personification of benevolence. He was the PRINCE OF PEACE.

Do we forget that Christ is our example? Whatever is right for us to do, would in general have been right for him to do. Imagine the Savior robed in the trappings of a man of blood, leading columns to slaughter, setting fire to cities, laying waste the country, storming fortresses, and consigning thousands to wounds, anguish and death, just to define a boundary, settle a point of policy, or decide some kingly quarrel. Could “meekness and lowliness of heart” be learned from him thus engaged?

There is no rank or station in an army that would become the character of Christ. Nor can any man who makes arms a profession find a pattern in Christ our Lord. But he ought to be every man’s pattern.

I need not enlarge on this point. It is conceded; for no warrior thinks of making Christ his pattern. How then can a genuine imitator of Christ, consistently be a warrior?

3. War is inconsistent not only with the NATURE of Christianity, and the EXAMPLE OF JESUS, but it violates all the EXPRESS PRECEPTS of Scripture.

Even the Old Testament does not sanction war as a Custom. In each case, there mentioned, of lawful war, it was entered upon by the express command of God. If such authority were now given, we might worthily resort to arms. But without such authority, how dare we violate the genius of Christianity, and set at naught the example of Christ? The wars mentioned in olden times were not appointed to decide doubtful questions, or to settle quarrels. They were to inflict national punishment, and were intended, as are pestilence and famine, to chastise guilty nations.

As to the New Testament, a multitude of its precepts might be quoted, expressly against all fighting. “Ye have heard, &c., an eye for an eye, but I say unto you resist not evil.” “Follow peace with all men.” “Love one another.” “Do justice, love mercy.” “Love your enemies.” “Follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace.” “Return good for evil.” “Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamor, and evil speaking, be put away from you, and ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.” “If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight,” etc. “If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither,” &c. “Be ye not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” “If thine enemy hunger, feed him, if he thirst, give him drink.” “Render not evil for evil, but contrariwise blessing.” Such passages might be indefinitely multiplied. They abound in the New Testament. How shall they be disposed of? No interpretation can nullify their force, or change their application. Take any sense the words will bear, and they forbid war. They especially forbid retaliation, which is always advanced as the best pretext for war.

Such texts as have been just quoted, relate to the single matter of retaliation and fighting. But belligerent nations violate every precept of the gospel. It enjoins every man to be meek, lowly, peaceable, easy to be entreated, gentle, thinking no evil, merciful, slow to anger, quiet, studious, patient, temperate, &c. Let a man rehearse, one by one, the whole catalogue of Christian graces, and he will see that war repudiates them all.

Examine that superlative epitome of Christianity, our Lord’s sermon on the mount. Its nine benedictions are upon so many classes of persons; the poor in spirit, mourners, the meek, the merciful, the peace-makers, the persecuted, the reviled, those who hunger after righteousness, and the pure in heart. In which of these classes can the professed warrior place himself? Alas, he shuts himself out from all the benedictions of heaven.

The discourse proceeds to teach, not only killing, but anger is murder. It expressly rebukes the law of retaliation; and exploding the traditionary rule of loving our neighbor, and hating our enemy, it requires us to love our enemies, and do good to those that despitefully use us. Afterward, in presenting a form of prayer, it not only teaches us to say, “Forgive our trespasses as we forgive those that trespass against us,” but adds, “If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Heavenly Father forgive you.” What a peace sermon is here! What modern peace society goes further, or could be more explicit?

But let us take a few of the Christian graces more in detail. The Christian is required to cherish a sense of direct and supreme responsibility to God. The irresponsible feelings of a soldier are a necessary part of his profession, as Lord Wellington said recently, ‘A man who has a nice sense of religion, should not be a soldier.’ The soldier makes war a profession, and must be ready to fight any nation, or any part of his own nation, as he is ordered. He must have no mind of his own. He must march, wheel, load, fire, charge, or retreat, as he is bidden, and because he is bidden. In the language of THOMAS JEFFERSON, “The breaking of men to military discipline, is breaking their spirits to principles of passive obedience.” The nearer a soldier comes to a mere machine, the better soldier he makes. Is this right for a Christian? Is it compatible with his duty to “examine all things, and hold fast that which is good?”

The contempt of life which is so necessary in a soldier, is a sin. He must walk up to the deadly breach, and maintain ground before the cannon’s mouth. But life is inestimable, and belongs to God. He who masters the fear of death, does it either by religious influence, or quenching the fear of God, and all concern about a future state. There is not a gospel precept, which he who makes arms a profession, is not at times compelled to violate.

Nor is there a Christian grace which does not tend to diminish the value of a professed soldier. Some graces are, it is true, useful in camp; where a man may be called to act as a servant, or laborer. It is then desirable that he be honest, meek, faithful, that he may properly attend to a horse, or a wardrobe. But such qualities spoil him for the field. He must there cast away meekness, and fight; he must cast away honesty, and forage; he must cast away forgiveness, and revenge his country; he must not return good for evil, but two blows for one.

Survey an army prepared for battle; see a throng, busy with cannons, muskets, mortars, swords, drums, trumpets, and banners. Do these men look like Christians? Do they talk like followers of the meek and lowly Jesus? Do they act like friends and benefactors of the whole human race? Are the lessons they learn in daily drill, such as will help them in a life of faith?

Mark this army in the hour of battle. See attacks and retreats, battalions annihilated, commanders falling, shouts of onset, groans of death, horses trampling the fallen, limbs flying in the air, suffocating smoke, and thousands smarting in the agony of death, without a cup of water to quench their intolerable thirst! Do the principles of Christianity authorize such a scene? Are such horrors its fruits? Inspect the field when all is over. The fair harvest trampled and destroyed, houses and batteries smoking in ruin, the mangled and suffering strewed among dead comrades, and dead horses, and broken gun-carriages. Prowlers strip the booty even from the warm bodies of the dying, jackals howl around, and disgusting birds are wheeling in the air; while the miserable wife seeks her loved one among the general carnage. Does all this look as if Christians had been there, serving the God of mercy? Could such works grow out of the system, heralded as bringing “Peace on earth”?

Turn your eyes to the ocean. A huge ship, bristling with implements of death, glides quietly along. Presently “a sail!” is called from sentinel to sentinel. All on board catch the sound, and gaze on the dim and distant outline. At length she is discovered to be a ship of war, and all strain their eyes to see her flag. On that little token hangs the important issue; for no feud, no jealousy exists between the crews. They do not even know each other. At length the signal is discerned to be that of a foe. Immediately what a scene ensues! Decks cleared and sanded, ports opened, guns run out, matches lighted, and every preparation made for bloody work. While waiting for the moment to engage, the worst passions of the men are appealed to to make them fight with fury; and they are inspired with all possible pride, hatred, revenge or ambition.

The fight begins! Death flies with every shot. Blood and carnage cover the decks. The rigging is cut to pieces; the hull bored with hot shot. The smoke, the confusion, the orders of officers, the yells of the wounded, the crash of timbers, the horrors of the cockpit, make a scene at which infernal fiends feel their malignity sated. At length one party strikes, and the strife is stayed. The conquered ship, ere her wounded can be removed, sinks into the deep. The victor, herself almost a wreck, throws overboard the slain, washes her decks, and turns toward her port, carrying the crippled, the agonized, and the dying of both ships! What anguish is there in that ship! What empty berths, late filled with the gay-hearted and the profane! What tidings does she carry, to spread lamentation and misery over hundreds of families!

Yet in all this, there was no personal feud or malice, no private wrong or offence. All was the mere result of some cabinet council, some kingly caprice. Could any enormity be more cold blooded and diabolical?

But no where does war wear such horrors as in a siege. The inhabitants are shut up; business, pleasure, education, intercourse are all checked; sorrow, terror, and distress prevail. Bombs fall and explode in the streets; citizens are killed in their houses, and soldiers on the ramparts. Women and children retreat to the cellars, and live there cold, dark, comfortless, terrified. Day after day, and month after month, roll tediously on, while the gloom constantly thickens, and the only news is of houses crushed, acquaintances killed, prices raised, and scarcity increased. Gladly would the citizens surrender, but the governor is inexorable. At 1ength, to all the horrors famine is added. The poor man, out of employ, cannot purchase customary comforts at the increased prices. His poverty becomes deeper, his sacrifices greater. But the siege continues. The middle classes sink to beggary, the poorer class to starvation. Anon, breaches are made in the wall; and all must work amid galling fire to repair them. Mines are sprung, blowing houses and occupants into the air. Still no relief comes. Dead animals, offal, skins, the very carcass of the slain, are eaten. The lone widow, the bereft mother, the disappointed bride, the despairing father, and the tender babe, mourn continually. Then comes pestilence, the necessary consequence of unburied dead, and unwonted hardships, and intolerable wo. At length, the city yields; or is taken by storm, and scenes even more horrid ensue. A brutal soldiery give loose to lust, and rapine, and destruction; and the indescribable scene closes with deserted streets, general ruin, and lasting lamentation.

This picture is far from being overwrought. The history of sieges furnish realities of deeper horror. Take for instance the second siege of Saragossa in 1814, or almost any other.

Now is this Christianity? Is it like it? Christianity cannot alter. If it will necessarily abolish all war, when the millennium shall give it universal influence, then it will abolish war now, so far as it has influence; and every man who receives it fully will be a man of peace. If religious persons may make fighting a trade on earth, they may fight in heaven. If we may lawfully cherish a war spirit here, we may cherish it there!

I close by quoting the words of the great Jeremy Taylor. “As contrary as cruelty is to mercy, and tyranny to charity, so contrary is war to the meekness and gentleness of the Christian religion.”

II. WAR IS ONE OF THE MOST AWFUL AND COMPREHENSIVE FORMS OF WICKEDNESS.

What has been said, has gone to show how inconsistent, in principle, are war and Christianity. A few considerations will now be offered, illustrative of the practices of war. We shall be thus led to see, not only that it contradicts the genius, and violates the precepts of Christianity, but that it does so in the most gross and gigantic manner.

1. It is the worst form of robbery.

Common robberies are induced by want: but war commits them by choice, and often robs only to ravage. A man who rushes to the highway to rob, maddened by the sight of a famished family, may plead powerful temptation. But armies rob, burn, and destroy, in the coolest malice. See a file of men, well fed and well clothed by a great and powerful nation, proceed on a foraging party. They enter a retired vale, where a peaceful old man by hard handed toil supports his humble family. The officer points with his sword to the few stacks of hay and grain, laid up for winter. Remonstrances are vain – tears are vain. They bear off his only supply, take his cow, his pet lamb; add insult to oppression, and leave the ruined family to an almshouse or starvation. Aye, but the poor old man was an enemy, as the war phrase is, and the haughty soldiery claim merit for forbearance, because they did not conclude with burning down his house.

The seizure or destruction of public stores, is not less robbery. A nation has no more right to steal from a nation, than an individual has to steal from an individual. In principle, the act is the same; in magnitude, the sin is greater. All the private robberies in a thousand years, are not a tithe of the robberies of one war. Next to killing, it is the very object of each party to burn and destroy by sea, and ravage and lay waste on land. It is a malign and inexcusable barbarity, and constitutes a stupendous mass of theft.

In one of the Punic wars, Carthage, with 100,000 houses, was burnt and destroyed, so that not a house remained. The plunder carried away by the Romans, in precious metals and jewels alone, is reported to have been equal to five millions of pounds of silver. Who can compute the number of similar events, from the destruction of Jerusalem to that of Moscow? Arson, that is, the setting fire to an inhabited dwelling, is, in most countries, punishable by death. But more of this has been done in some single wars, than has been committed privately, since the world began. When some villain sets fire to a house and consumes it, what public indignation! What zeal to bring to justice! If, for a succession of nights, buildings are fired, what general panic! Yet how small the distress, compared to that which follows the burning of an entire city. In one case, the houseless still find shelter, the laborer obtains work, the children have food. But oh, the horrors of a general ruin! Earthquake is no worse.

It should not be overlooked, that a great part of the private robberies in Christendom, may be traced to the deterioration of morals, caused by war. Thousands of pirates, received their infamous education in national ships. Thousands of thieves, were disbanded soldiers. War taught these men to disregard the rights of property, to trample upon justice, and refuse mercy. Even if disposed to honest labor, which a militarv life always tends to render unpalatable, the disbanded soldier often finds himself unable to obtain employment. The industry of his country has been paralysed by the war; and the demand for labor slowly recurs. The discharged veteran therefore is often compelled to steal or starve. Thus war, by its own operations, involves continual and stupendous thefts, and by its unavoidable tendencies, multiplies offenders, who in time of peace prey upon community.

2. It involves the most enormous Sabbath breaking.

The Sabbath cannot be observed by armies. Common camp duty forbids it. Extra duties are assigned to Sunday – such as parades, drill, inspections, and reviews. Seldom is any effort made to avoid marches, or even battles, on Sunday. I have been able to find, in all history, but one battle postponed on account of the Sabbath. In thousands of instances, as in the case of Waterloo, it has been the chosen day for conflict.

War tends to abolish the Sabbath, even when the army is not present. The heavy trains of the commissary must move on. The arsenal and the ship yard must maintain their activity. Innumerable mechanics, watermen, and laborers, must be kept busy. During our late war with England, who did not witness on all our frontiers, even in the States of New England, the general desecration of the holy day? Men swarmed like ants on a mole hill, to throw up entrenchments; the wharves resounded with din of business; and idlers forsook the house of God to gaze upon the scenes of preparation.

Do Christians consider these unavoidable results, when they give their voice for war? No. The calm consideration of such concomitants, would make it impossible for them to advise or sanction the profane and abominable thing.

3. War produces a wicked waste of national wealth.

The disbursements of a belligerent government, drawn of course by taxation from the laboring community, form an incalculable amount. Our last war with England cost us more than a hundred millions of dollars per annum. During the last 175 years, ENGLAND has had twenty-four wars with France, twelve with Scotland, eight with Spain, and two with America, besides all her other wars in India and elsewhere. These have cost her government, according to official returns, three thousand millions of pounds sterling, or FIFTEEN THOUSAND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS! The war which ended at Waterloo, cost France £700,000,000, and Austria £300,000,000, or five thousand millions of dollars! How much it cost Spain, Sweden, Holland, Germany, Prussia and Russia, I have no means of knowing, but at least an equal sum. Thus one long war cost Europe at least forty thousand millions! The annual interest of this sum, at five per cent., is two thousand millions of dol1ars, – enough almost to banish suffering poverty from Europe! For all this, NOTHING has been gained. Nay, the spending of it thus has produced an aggregate of vice and poverty, pain and bereavement, more than, without war, would have come upon the whole human family since the flood! Who then can begin to compute the cost of all the wars even in Europe alone?

We often hear much railing against useless expenditure, and proposals for economy in dress, furniture, &c., and it is well. But those who insist on these modes of frugality should be consistent. Let them remember that all the retrenchments they recommend are but as the dust of the balance compared to the expenditures of a war. But vast as are the expenses of belligerent governments, they do not constitute a tenth of the true expenses of war! We must reckon the destruction of property, private and public – the ruin of trade and commerce – the suspension of manufactories – the loss of the productive labor of soldiers and camp followers. But who can reckon such amounts?

Further, let it be considered that all these items must be doubled and trebled in cases of civil wars, and that such form a large part of the catalogue.

Further still, war causes the great bulk of taxation even in time of peace! Witness the annual appropriations for fleets and standing armies, forts, arsenal, weapons, pensions, &c. Even since our last war with England, we have been paying annually, for the above objects, about ten times us much as for the support of our civil government!! “The war spirit” is taxing our people to the amount of unnumbered millions, now in time of profound peace. A single 74 gun ship, beside all her cost of construction and equipment, costs in time of peace, while afloat, $200,000 per annum – eight times the salary of the President of the United States. Nearly all the taxes paid by civilized nations, go in some form or other to the support of war! All the British debt which is grinding her people into the dust, was created by war. The cost of the wars of Europe alone, in only the last century, would have built all the canals, railroads, and churches, and established all the schools, colleges, and hospitals, wanted on the whole globe!

4. War is the grossest form of murder.

Private murders are atrocious – those of war far more so. But the contrary opinion prevails; and we adduce proofs. War enhances the crime of murder on the following accounts:

(1.) It is more cold-blooded and cruel.

Malice prompts private murder, and the proof of it is necessary to conviction by a jury; and the more cool and calculating, the more guilt. But murder in war is more cool and calculating, than even in a duel. The question of war or peace is calmly debated, deliberately resolved upon, and proclaimed in form. Armies are raised, and drilled, and marched, and engaged, with all coolness and calculation. The contending hosts know not each other, cherish no personal hate, and seldom know the true grounds of the contest. All is done with whatever of aggravation attends deliberate homicide.

(2.) It is more vast in amount.

Computation falters when we estimate the numbers slain in war or by reason of it. Three hundred thousand men fell in one battle, when Attila, king of the Huns, was defeated at Chalons. Nearly the entire army of Xerxes, consisting of four millions of persons, perished. Julius Caesar, in one campaign in Germany, destroyed half a million. More than half a million perished in one campaign of Napoleon, averaging 3000 men a day. Paying no attention to the innumerable wars among Pagans before and since the birth of Christ, nor to all the wasting wars of the past seventeen centuries, it is matter of distinct calculation that about five millions of nominal Christians have been butchered by nominal Christians, within the last half century! What then has been the total of war-murders since creation?

Nor is the number of the slain the real total. Multitudes of “the wounded and missing” die; multitudes perish out of armies and fleets without battle, by hardships, exposure, vice, contagion, and climate. We ought, therefore, at least to double the number slain in engagements, to arrive at true sum; and make ten millions of men destroyed within half a century by Christian nations’ quarrels!

(3.) Deaths caused by war, arc accompanied by horrid aggravations of suffering.

The wretches die, not on beds of down, surrounded by all that can relieve or palliate suffering. No soft hand smooths the couch, or wipes the brow. No skilful physician stands watching every symptom. The silence, the quiet, the cleanliness, the sympathy, the love, the skill, that divest the chamber of death of all its horror, and half its anguish, are not for the poor soldier. Private murder is always done in haste, and the sufferer is often dismissed from life in a moment. Not so in war. Few are killed outright. The victim dies slowly of unmedicated wounds. Prostrate amid the trampling of columns and of horses which have lost their riders, or in a trench, amid heaps of killed and wounded, he dies a hundred deaths. If, mangled and miserable, he finds himself still alive, when the tide of battle has passed, how forlorn his condition! Unable to drag himself from the ghastly scene, his gory limbs chilled with the damps of night, tortured with thirst, and quivering with pain, his heart siekened with the remembrance of home, and his soul dismayed at the approach of eternal retributions, he meets death with all that can make it terrific.

(4.) The multitudes murdered in war, are generally sent to hell.

The thought is too horrible for steady contemplation; but we are bound to consider it. “No murderer hath eternal life.” Soldiers are murderers in intent and profession, and die in the act of killing others, and with imp1ements of murder in their hands. Without space for repentance, they are hurried to the bar of God. On what grounds may we affirm their sa1vation? O that those that know the worth of souls, would dwell on this feature of the dreadful custom!

(5.) War first corrupts those whom it destroys, and thus aggravates damnation itself.

Bad as are most men who enlist in standing armies, war makes them worse. They might at any rate be lost, but their vocation sends them to a more dreadful doom. The recruit begins his degradation, even in the rendezvous, ere he has lodged a week within its walls. He grows still worse in camp.

In the army, vice becomes his occupation. His worst passions are fostered. His Sabbaths are necessarily profaned. He becomes ashamed of tender feelings, and conscientious scrup1es. Thus an old soldier is generally a hardened offender; and the shot that terminates his life, consigns him to a death rendered more terrible by his profession. Had the money and time, which has been lavished to equip and drill and support him as a soldier, been spent for his intellectual and moral improvement, he might have been an ornament to society, and a pillar in the church.

Mark his grim corpse as men bear it to the gaping pit into which whole cart-loads of bodies are thrown. The property, nay the liberty of a whole nation is not a price for his soul! How then can Christians with one hand give to the support of missions, and with the other uphold a custom which counteracts every good enterprise?

CONCLUDING REMARKS.

How strange, how awful, that to such a trade as war, mankind has, in all ages, lifted up its admiration! Poetry lends its fascinations, and philosophy its inventions. Eloquence, in forum and field, has wrought up the war spirit to fanaticism and frenzy. Even the pulpit, whose legitimate and glorious theme is “PEACE ON EARTH,” has not withheld its solemn sanctions. The tender sex, with strange infatuation, have admired the tinselled trappings of him whose trade is to make widows and orphans. Their hands have been withdrawn from the distaff, to embroider warrior’s ensigns. T’he young mother has arrayed her proud boy with cap and feather, toyed him with drum and sword, and trained him, unconsciously, to love and admire the profession of a man-killer.

The universal maxim has been, “in peace prepare for war;” and men are all their days contributing and taxing themselves to defray the expenses of killing each other. Scarcely has a voice been lifted up to spread the principles of peace. Every other principle of Christianity has had its apostles. Howard reformed prisons; Sharp, and Clarkson, and Wilberforce arrested the s1ave-trade. Carey carried the gospel to India. Every form of vice has its antagonists, and every class of sufferers find philanthropists. But who stands forth to urge the law of love? Who attacks this monster WAR? We have not waited for the millennium to abolish intemperance, or Sabbath breaking; but we wait for it to abolish war. It is certain that the millennium cannot come, till war expires.

Shall it so remain? Shall this gorgon of pride, corruption, destructiveness, misery and murder, be still admired and fed, while it is turning men’s hearts to stone, and the garden of the Lord into the desolation of death? Let every heart say no. Let Christians shine before men as sons of peace, not less than as sons of justice and truth. If wars and rumors of wars continue, let the church stand aloof. It is time she was purged of this stain. Her brotherhood embraces all nations. Earth1y rulers may tell us we have enemies; but our heavenly King commands us to return them good for evil; if they hunger, to feed them; if they thirst, to give them drink.

Rise then, Christians, to noble resolution and vigorous endeavors! Retire from military trainings, and spurn the thought of being hired by the month to rob and kill. Refuse to study the tactics, or practice the handicraft of death; and with “a hope that maketh not ashamed,” proclaim the principles of universal peace, as part and parcel of eternal truth.

A portion of our missionary spirit should be expended in this department. Shall we pour out our money and our prayers, when we hear of a widow burnt on her husband’s funeral pile, or deluded wretches crushed beneath the wheels of Juggernaut, but do nothing to dethrone this Moloch to whom hundreds of millions of Christians have been sacrificed? Among the fifty millions of the Presidency of Bengal, the average number of suttees (widows burned, &c.) has for twenty years been less than 500, or in the proportion of one death in a year for such a population as Philadelphia. What is this to war? Every day of some campaigns has cost more lives!

We must not abstain from effort, because of apparent obstacles. What great reform does not meet obstructions? The overthrow of Papal supremacy by Luther, the temperance movement, and a host of similar historic facts, show that truth is mighty, and when fairly and perseveringly exhibited, will prevail. It can be shown, that in attempting to abolish all war, we encounter fewer impediments than have attended various other great changes. Even if it were not so, we have a duty to discharge whether we prevail or not. Moral obligation does not rest on the chance of success.

Our obstacle are neither numerous nor formidable. No classes of men love war for its own sake. If it were abolished, those who now make it a profession, could all find profitable and pleasanter employment in peaceful pursuits. Men’s interests are not against us; but the contrary. The people are not blood-thirsty. What serious impediment is there to obstruct the diffusion of peace principles? None more than beset even the most popular enterprise of literature or benevolence. Our only obstruction is apathy, and the unfortunate sentiment that the millennium is to do it away, we know not how. But we might as well do nothing against intemperance, or Sabbath-breaking, or heresy; and wait for the millennium to do them away. Nothing will be done in this world without means, even when the millennium shall have come.

Do you ask what you can do? Much, very much, whoever you are. Cherish in yourself the true peace-spirit. Try to diffuse it. Assist in enlightening your neighbors. Talk of the horrors of war, its impolicy, its cost, its depravity, its utter uselessness in adjusting national disputes. Teach children correctly on this point, and show them the true character of war, stripped of its music and mock splendor. Banish drums and swords from among their toys. Proclaim aloud the Divine government, and teach men how vain it is, even in a righteous cause, to trust an arm of flesh. Insist that patriotism, in its common acceptation, is not a virtue; for it limits us to love our country, and allows us to hate and injure other nations. Thus if Canada were annexed to our Union, we must, on that account, love Canadians. But if South Carolina should secede, we must withdraw part of our love, or perhaps go to war and kill as many as possible. O how absurd to act thus, as though God’s immutable law of love was to be obeyed or not as our boundaries may be.

“Lands intersected by a narrow sea,
Abhor each other. Mountains interposed,
Make enemies of nations who had else,
Like kindred drops, been mingled into one.”

Let us feel and disseminate the sentiment that true patriotism is shown only by the good. A man may claim to be a patriot, and love “his country,” whose feelings are so vague and worthless that he loves no one in it! He loves a mere name! or rather, his patriotism is a mere name. Whole classes of his fellow-citizens may remain in vice, ignorance, slavery, poverty, and yet he feels no sympathy, offers no aid. Sodom would have been saved, had there been in it ten righteous. These then would have been patriots. These would have saved their country. We have in our land many righteous. These are our security. These save the land from a curse. These therefore are the only true patriots.

Let us unite in “showing up” military glory. What is it? Grant that it is all that it has ever passed for, and it still seems superlatively worthless. The wreaths of conquerors fade daily. We give their names to dogs and slaves. The smallest useful volume guides its author a better and more lasting name. And how absurd, too, is it to talk to common soldiers and under officers about military glory! Among the many millions who have toiled and died for love of glory, scarce1y a score are remembered among men! Who of our revolutionary heroes but Washington and Lafayette are known in the opposite hemisphere? Who of our own citizens can tell over a half dozen distinguished soldiers in our struggle for independence? Yet that war is of late date. Of the men of former wars we know almost nothing. Essential1y stupid then is the love of military renown in petty officers and the common private. They stake their lives in a lottery where there is hardly a prize in five hundred years!

Let us print and propagate peace principles. Public opinion has been changed on many points by a few resolute men. Let us keep the subject before the people till every man forms a deliberate opinion, whether Christianity allows or forbids war. Let us at least do so much that if ever our country engages in another war, we shall feel no share of the guilt. Let us each do so much that if we should ever walk over a battle-field, stunned with the groans and curses of the wounded, and horror-struck at the infernal spectacle, we can feel that we aid all we could to avert such an evil. Let us clear ourselves of blame. No one of us can put a stop to war. But we can help stop it – and combined and persevering effort will stop it.

Published in: on October 6, 2011 at 12:51 pm  Leave a Comment  

Guest spot: Christianity and War

Laurence M. Vance

This talk was given on August 20 at the Florida Liberty Summit 2011 in Orlando, Florida.

Thank you Campaign for Liberty for the opportunity to speak about a subject I feel so passionate about. I would like to speak to you today about Christianity and War. Although I am a Bible-believing Christian and a theological and cultural conservative, I write extensively about the biblical, economic, and political fallacies of religious people, and especially on the topic of Christianity and war. This is a subject where ignorance abounds in both pulpit and pew, and most of it willful ignorance. This is a subject that exposes Bible scholars as Bible illiterates. This is a subject that turns Christians into disgraceful apologists of the state, its leaders, its military, and its wars. This is a subject that reveals pro-life Christians to be two-faced supporters of wholesale murder.

If there is any group of people that should be opposed to war, torture, militarism, the warfare state, state worship, suppression of civil liberties, an imperial presidency, blind nationalism, government propaganda, and an aggressive foreign policy it is Christians, and especially conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist Christians who claim to strictly follow the dictates of Scripture and worship the Prince of Peace. It is indeed strange that Christian people should be so accepting of war. War is the greatest suppressor of civil liberties. War is the greatest destroyer of religion, morality, and decency. War is the greatest creator of fertile ground for genocides and atrocities. War is the greatest destroyer of families and young lives. War is the greatest creator of famine, disease, and homelessness. War is the health of the state.

But modern-day Christianity is in a sad state. There is an unholy desire on the part of a great many Christians to legitimize killing in war. There persists the idea among too many Christians that mass killing in war is acceptable, but the killing of one’s neighbor violates the sixth commandment’s prohibition against killing. Christians who wouldn’t think of using the Lord’s name in vain blaspheme God when they make ridiculous statements like “God is pro-war.” Christians who try never to lie do so with boldness when they claim they are pro-life, but refuse to extend their pro-life sentiments to foreigners already out of the womb. Christians who abhor idols are guilty of idolatry when they say that we should follow the latest dictates of the state because we should always “obey the powers that be.” Christians who venerate the Bible handle the word of God deceitfully when they quote Scripture to defend the latest U.S. military action. Christians who claim to be dispensationalists wrongly divide the word of truth when they appeal to the Old Testament to justify U.S. government wars. Christians who claim to have the mind of Christ show that they have lost their mind when they want the full force of government to protect a stem cell, but have no conscience about U.S. soldiers killing for the government.

Many Christians have a warped view of what it means to be pro-life. Why is it that foreigners don’t have the same right to life as unborn American babies? There should be no difference between being for abortion and for war. Both result in the death of innocents. Both are unnecessary. Both cause psychological harm to the one who signs a consent form or fires a weapon. Why is it that to many Christians an American doctor in a white coat is considered a murderer if he kills an unborn baby, but an American soldier in a uniform is considered a hero if he kills an adult? In January of every year, many churches observe Sanctity of Human Life Sunday. Fine, but we need ministers who are as concerned about killing on the battlefield as they are about killing in the womb.

Much of the blame for Christian support for war must be laid at the feet of the pastors and church leaders who have failed to discern the truth themselves so they can educate their congregations. They are blind leaders of the blind. It is tragic that many so-called Christian leaders moonlight as apologists for the Republican Party. Many pastors are cheerleaders for current U.S. wars. We hear more from pulpits today justifying American military intervention throughout the world than we do about the need for missionaries to go into all the world. Our churches have supplied more soldiers to the Middle East than missionaries. It is appalling that instead of the next U.S. military adventure being denounced from every pulpit in the land, it will be conservative preachers who can be counted on to defend it.

If there is any group within Christianity that should be the most consistent, the most vocal, the most persistent, and the most scriptural in its opposition to war and the warfare state, it is conservative Christians who look to the Bible as their sole authority. Yet, never at any time in history have so many of these Christians held such unholy opinions. The association they have with the Republican Party is unholy. The admiration they have for the military is unholy. The indifference they have toward war is unholy. The callous attitude they have toward the deaths of foreigners is unholy. The idolatry they manifest toward the state is unholy.

The result of Christian support for war reminds me of a story in the Old Testament about two sons of the patriarch Jacob. In order to avenge the rape of their sister by some foreigners, the sons of Jacob told their leader that if his people consented to be circumcised, then both groups of people could intermarry and the rapist could have their sister to wife. However, after all the foreigners were circumcised, when they were sore, two sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, came and slew all the men who were incapacitated and spoiled their city. When their father Jacob heard about this, he told his sons: “Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land.”

Christian armchair warriors, Christian Coalition moralists, Religious Right warvangelicals, reich-wing Christian nationalists, theocon Values Voters, imperial Christians, Red-State Christian fascists, God and country Christian bumpkins, and other Christian warmongers have made Christians to stink among the non-Christian inhabitants of the United States. After almost ten years of the senseless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, some of the greatest defenders of these wars continue to be Christians. The morality of going to war in the first place, as well as the number of dead and wounded Iraqis and Afghans, is of absolutely no concern to most American Christians. Every dead American solider is, of course, a hero, no matter where he fought, what his motive was, or how he died.

Support for the war on terror among Christians remains so pervasive that I’m inclined to agree with Mark Twain in saying that “if Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be – a Christian.” I’m sorry to say that blind acceptance of government propaganda, willful ignorance of U.S. foreign policy, persistent support of the Republican Party, and childish devotion to the military are the norm among the majority of conservative Christians instead of the exception.

Non-Christian Americans should know that Christian enthusiasm for war and the warfare state is a perversion of Christianity, an affront to the Saviour whom Christians worship as the Prince of Peace, a violation of Scripture, contrary to the whole tenor of the New Testament, and an unfortunate demonstration of the profound ignorance many Christians have of history and their own Bible.

The early Christians were not warmongers like so many Christians today. They did not idolize the Caesars like some Christians do Republican presidents. They did not make apologies for the Roman Empire like many Christians do for the U.S. Empire. They did not venerate the institution of the military like most Christians do today. They did not participate in the state’s wars like too many Christians do today. If there was anything at all advocated by the early Christians it was peace and nonviolence.

Aggression, violence, and bloodshed are contrary to the very nature of Christianity. There is nothing in the New Testament from which to draw the conclusion that killing is somehow sanctified if it is done in the name of the state. As explained by the famed nineteenth-century British Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon: “The Church of Christ is continually represented under the figure of an army; yet its Captain is the Prince of Peace; its object is the establishment of peace, and its soldiers are men of a peaceful disposition. The spirit of war is at the extremely opposite point to the spirit of the gospel.”

There has, unfortunately, persisted throughout history the theologically schizophrenic idea among some Christians that mass killing in war is acceptable, but the killing of one’s neighbor violates the sixth commandment. I have termed this the Humpty Dumpty approach. But as the aforementioned Spurgeon said: “If there be anything which this book denounces and counts the hugest of all crimes, it is the crime of war. Put up thy sword into thy sheath, for hath not he said, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ and he meant not that it was a sin to kill one but a glory to kill a million, but he meant that bloodshed on the smallest or largest scale was sinful.”

Back before the so-called Civil War in the United States, a Baptist minister writing in the Christian Review demonstrated that Christian war fever was contrary to the New Testament: “Christianity requires us to seek to amend the condition of man. But war cannot do this. The world is no better for all the wars of five thousand years. Christianity, if it prevailed, would make the earth a paradise. War, where it prevails, makes it a slaughter-house, a den of thieves, a brothel, a hell. Christianity cancels the laws of retaliation. War is based upon that very principle. Christianity is the remedy for all human woes. War produces every woe known to man.” There is nothing “liberal” about opposition to war. There is nothing “anti-American” about opposition to militarism. And what could be more Christian than standing firmly against aggression, violence, and bloodshed?

So when did the early church go astray? Undoubtedly, it was the accession to power of the emperor Constantine. When the empire allied itself with the church, it was the church that changed more than the empire. Instead of spreading Christianity by persuasion and being persecuted for it, some Christians began persecuting those who could not be persuaded. This Constantinian mindset is alive and well today. When Jerry Falwell said that America should chase down terrorists all over the world and “blow them all away in the name of the Lord,” he was expressing a sentiment widely held by conservative Christians.

After Constantine came just war theory.

War is mentioned over two hundred times in the Bible. The overwhelming majority of these instances concern in some way the nation of Israel. This fact is extremely important, because the president of the United States is not God, America is not the nation of Israel, the U.S. military is not the Lord’s army, the Christian’s sword is the word of God, and the only warfare the New Testament encourages the Christian to wage is against the world, the flesh, and the devil.

But just war theory has nothing to do with war in the Bible. Christian just war theory began as the attempt by Augustine to reconcile Christian participation in warfare with the morality of New Testament Christianity. In its essence, just war theory concerns the use of force: when force should be used and what kind of force is acceptable. The timing of force relates to a country’s justification for the initiation of war or military action; the nature of force relates to how military activity is conducted once a country commits to use force. The principle of the just war is actually many principles, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. A just war must have a just cause, be in proportion to the gravity of the situation, have obtainable objectives, be preceded by a public declaration, be declared only by legitimate authority, and only be undertaken as a last resort. A war that is not justifiable is nothing short of mass murder.

Yet, just war theory is untenable because it is difficult to know with sufficient confidence whether all of its conditions have been met, because some of its tenets are impossible to realize, because the criteria of just war theory are too flexible, because it contradicts itself in that it sanctions the killing of innocents, which it at the same time prohibits, and because it is used to justify rather than to prevent war. Indeed, just war theory can be used effectively by all sides to justify all wars. Every government, every ruler, every soldier, every citizen – they all think their country’s wars are just.

Just war theory says that a war is just if certain conditions and rules are observed. But how can you make rules for slaughter and mayhem? By sanctifying war while attempting to curtail its manner and frequency, just war theory merely allowed Christians to make peace with war. That just war theory is used to defend the war in Iraq shows just how useless it is. Waging the war in Iraq is against every Christian just war principle that has ever been formulated.

But not only is just war theory not based on Scripture, it is rooted in blind obedience to the state, which, the last time I read my Bible, is not a tenet of New Testament Christianity. War is nothing but a form of state-sponsored violence. It is the state that decides to go to war, not the people, most of whom want nothing to do with war. The state always claims that it is acting defensively, has the right intention, has the proper authority, is undertaking war as a last resort, has a high probability of success, and that a war will achieve good that is proportionally greater than the damage to life, limb, and property that it will cause. What good is just war theory if it can be used by both sides in a conflict?

After just war theory came the Crusades, where conquest was conflated with conversion, followed by the continual wars of religion among European Christians. The ultimate picture of the folly of war is the bloodbath perpetrated by the Christian nations in World War I. From 1914 to 1918, in battle after senseless battle, Christian soldiers in World War I shot, bombed, torpedoed, burned, gassed, bayoneted, and starved each other and civilians until twenty million of them were wounded and another twenty million lay dead. The conduct of Christians in the United States before and during the Great War was shameful.

But even without the massive government propaganda campaign that was undertaken during World War I, we see the same shameful conduct among Christians regarding the war in Iraq. When Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 with the announcement that our cause was just, Christians lined up in droves to support their president. They enlisted in the military. They put “W” stickers and yellow ribbons on their cars. They implored us in church to pray for the troops. They began reciting their patriotic sloganeering, their God-and-country rhetoric, and their “obey the powers that be” mantra. They dusted off their books on just war theory. They denounced Christian opponents of the war as unpatriotic, anti-American, liberals, pacifists, traitors, or Quakers.

Why? Why have so many religious people gotten it so wrong? As I have explained in many of my articles on Christianity and war over the years, there are many reasons: thinking that the war in Iraq was in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks, believing that Saddam Hussein was another Hitler, supposing that Iraq was a threat to the United States, seeing the war in Iraq as a modern-day crusade against Islam, assuming that the United States needed to protect Israel from Iraq, viewing Bush as a messiah figure, equating the Republican Party with the party of God, blindly following the conservative movement, deeming the American state to be a divine institution, failing to separate the divine sanction of war against the enemies of God in the Old Testament from the New Testament ethic that taught otherwise, having a profound ignorance of history and primitive Christianity, reading too much into the mention of soldiers in the New Testament, possessing a warped “God and Country” complex, holding a “my country right or wrong” attitude, and adopting the mindset that brute force is barbarism when individuals use it, but honorable when nations are guilty of it.

I believe the two greatest reasons religious people have gotten things so wrong are American exceptionalism and American militarism.

Many Christians are guilty of nationalistic and political idolatry. They have bought into a variety of American nationalism that has been called the myth of American exceptionalism. This is the idea that the government of the United States is morally and politically superior to all other governments, that American leaders are exempt from the bad characteristics of the leaders of other countries, that the U.S. government should be trusted even as the governments of other countries should be distrusted, that the United States is the indispensable nation responsible for the peace and prosperity of the world, that the motives of the United States are always benevolent and paternalistic, that foreign governments should conform to the policies of the U.S. government, that most other nations are potential enemies that threaten U.S. safety and security, and that the United States is morally justified in imposing sanctions or launching military attacks against any country that refuses to conform to our dictates. These are the tenets of American exceptionalism.

The result of this American exceptionalism is a foreign policy that is aggressive, reckless, belligerent, and meddling. This is why U.S. foreign policy results in discord, strife, hatred, and terrorism toward the United States. We would never tolerate another country engaging in an American-style foreign policy. How many countries are allowed to build military bases and station troops in the United States? It is the height of arrogance to insist that the United States alone has the right to garrison the planet with bases, station troops wherever it wants, intervene in the affairs of other countries, and be the world’s policeman, fireman, social worker, security guard, mediator, and babysitter.

The other reason religious people have gotten things so wrong is American militarism. Americans love the military, and American Christians are no exception. There is an unseemly alliance that exists between certain sectors of Christianity and the military. Even Christians who are otherwise sound in the faith, who treasure the Constitution, who don’t support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who oppose an aggressive U.S. foreign policy get indignant when you question the institution of the military. It doesn’t seem to matter the reason for each war or intrusion into the affairs of another country. It doesn’t seem to matter how long U.S. troops remain after the initial intervention. It doesn’t seem to matter how many foreign civilians are killed or injured. It doesn’t seem to matter how many billions of dollars are spent by the military. It doesn’t even seem to matter what the troops are actually doing – Americans in general, and American Christians in particular, believe in supporting the troops no matter what. Americans are repulsed by the serial killer who, to satisfy the most basest of desires, dismembers his victims; but revere the bomber pilot in the stratosphere who, flying above the clouds, never hears the screams of his victims or sees the flesh torn from their bones. Killing women and children from five feet is viewed as an atrocity, but from five thousand feet it is a heroic act. It is sometimes suspicious when a soldier kills up close, but never when he launches a missile from afar.

Christians of all branches and denominations have a love affair with the military. To question the military in any way – its size, its budget, its efficiency, its bureaucracy, its contractors, its weaponry, its mission, its effectiveness, its foreign interventions – is to question America itself. One can condemn the size of government, but never the size of the military. One can criticize federal spending, but never military spending. One can denounce government bureaucrats, but never military brass. One can depreciate the welfare state, but never the warfare state. One can expose government abuses, but never military abuses. One can label domestic policy as socialistic, but never foreign policy as imperialistic.

It is the U.S. government that is the greatest threat to American life, liberty, property, and peace – not the leaders or the military or the people of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, or Yemen. And as James Madison said: “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” Christians should vigorously dissent the next time some warmongering politician says there is some great evil in the world that must be stamped out by the U.S. military. As John Quincy Adams said: “America . . . goes not abroad seeking monsters to destroy.” Christians should stop regarding the state’s acts of aggression as benevolent. Christians should stop presuming divine support for U.S. military interventions. And because just war theory merely allows Christians to make peace with war, they should reject it just as they would any theory of just piracy or just terrorism or just murder. It is Christians that should be leading the way toward peace and a foreign policy of nonintervention. It is Christians that should be leading the way toward the ideas of Ron Paul.

Published in: on August 23, 2011 at 9:18 am  Leave a Comment  

How Far Have We Fallen (Part Four)

The sermon continues – with another strange point:

“…A doctrine is good, it is necessary, its worth dying for, it tells us who Christ is, it tells us what he has done, but simply believing that the doctrine is true does not save anyone. For example, you could memorize the Heidelberg cathechism, and you could believe that everything it says is true. and yet not be saved, because we are not saved by trusting the catechism, we’re saved by trusting Christ himself, which is what the Catechism itself would tell you…”

Playing with words to make a bad argument sound valid is a weak form of apologetic. In the above quote, the pastor imagines a ‘doctrine’ without content, as if it is some sort of object lying on a shelf – much as people try to avoid sola scriptura by declaring anyone who would appeal to such a concept as worshiping a ‘paper pope’ – as if it is the physical object (the Bible) which we hold in such absolute regard, rather than the actual intellectual content. If I were to hold up a copy of the Heidelberg Catechism and say “if you trust in this 5 inch by 8 inch, quarter-inch thick yellow object, you will be saved,” the comments made in the sermon we are examining would be valid.

But if instead, I were to say “A person who believes that the ideas expressed in this document are true is saved,” the issue becomes something entirely different. If I were to say, “Those who believe that every statement in the Bible is true is a believer, and thus saved” I would be correct, for only the saved believe every statement in the Bible. Others can pay lip service to the statements, and even believe their own twisted versions of the statements, but this does not detract from the point that a believer is one who believes.

Again: the statement is made: “…but simply believing that the doctrine is true does not save anyone…” This is quite true. I can also say that “…believing in Christ does not save anyone…” and be absolutely correct. This should not be shocking for anyone, even the most rampant Arminian. If Jesus had not died for sins, there would be no salvation. And from a Biblical standpoint, it is that DYING, the PAYING FOR SIN that saves, not the belief…in anything!

But it is a far cry from “simply believing in a document” to “…you can believe everything in a document is true and not be saved…” And the only way to avoid this simple fact is to hinge salvation, not on what Jesus did and is doing, but instead on what WE did and are doing. If salvation is dependent upon our belief, then we are saving ourselves, by availing of the means Christ has provided. We are redeeming ourselves from slavery by taking various proper steps. Our salvation is not dependent upon the work of Christ, but upon OUR work. Or, to put it in another fashion: Jesus did all He can, now it is up to us.

Why do I point this out? Because this statement: “…you could memorize the Heidelberg catechism, and you could believe that everything it says is true. and yet not be saved, because we are not saved by trusting the catechism, we’re saved by trusting Christ himself, which is what the Catechism itself would tell you…” is false. It is a denial of the work of Christ, it is a system of self righteousness and works. And it is irrational.

At least most Arminians would be smart enough to say that you have to believe that Christ died for your sins in order to be saved! This statement denies even that! Such a statement would be the bothersome *doctrine* (which is useful…..for something or other…but not essential to salvation!). Instead, we are told to believe “in Christ.”

At the most, the catechism would agree with this statement (“…which is what the Catechism itself would tell you…”) – *to the extent* that it would claim (if it were a person) that it (the Catechism) is NOT the substitutionary sacrifice for you! But the Catechism (and many other creeds and confessions) are lists of things that Christians believe. Many of the things listed in the Catechism are things that *only* Christians believe. Hence, if you believe ALL of the things in the Catechism, you can be called a Christian. Not because you believe in the object itself, but because you accept the statements it contains as true, and ONLY a Christian can do  such a thing. Belief is INDICATIVE, not IMPERATIVE.

But – what is the point of doctrine? The sermon makes a strange claim: “…”…A doctrine is good, it is necessary, its worth dying for, it tells us who Christ is, it tells us what he has done…”

Necessary…for WHAT? If salvation is based, not on any idea, not on any content, but only ‘in Him’ – of what purpose can doctrine serve? To make this life more comfortable? We are saved *regardless of doctrine* according to this sermon. If so, then what we believe is irrelevant. We go to heaven regardless! Of course this would be denied emphatically by the pastor who gave this strange talk – but he has no ground to stand upon. Salvation involves our future existence (possibly, although that is an ‘idea’ – and part of a ‘system of thought’ which has been negated by the idea that salvation has nothing to do with these things.

Perhaps the problem is a misunderstanding of the word ‘doctrine!’

The definition of ‘doctrine’ is: “that which is taught.” Or, more specifically:

  1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated (For example, Jesus was a real Jewish teacher who lived 2000 years ago).
  2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine. (For example, the answer to “what must I do to be saved?”)
  3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject. (For example, every statement found in the Scriptures. Sola Scriptura).

Let’s consider this for a moment.

Teaching is commonly considered to be, or at least contain an element of, passing information from one person to another. Information consists of thoughts, ideas. In order to be more understandable, information is usually passed on systematically (the opposite is to simply say random things).

If, as the pastor giving this sermon said: “You trusted in a Person, not an idea, not a system of thought…a Person!” – this means that there is no doctrine, no teaching, in the mix. No teachings, no positions, no principles, no policies! Nothing but Christ! But…what does this mean?  Even the word Christ has a meaning. So does the word Jesus. And this is TAUGHT – it is not something that you intuit by contemplating your navel. You heard it from someone:

“How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?” (Romans 10:14).

Note the process above: You CANNOT call upon Jesus unless you believe in Him. You CANNOT believe in Him unless you hear about him. You cannot hear about him unless someone preaches to you. Or – you cannot be saved unless someone actually passes in the information to you.

That information is doctrine!  it is ‘teaching,’ it is a position, it is an explanation of principles. It is doctrine. You cannot believe IN Jesus unless you have some doctrine, some teaching, some understanding of both WHO He is, and WHAT He has done.

The ridiculous position of this sermon can only be stated this way: I walk up to you and say ‘Jesus!’ You respond by believing (somehow) and you are then saved. Of course, if I try to tell you that Jesus is a person, I would then be falling into ‘doctrine’ – passing along information that is somehow irrelevant, since we only need to believe ‘in Him.’ I can only wonder how you can even come up with the male gender term ‘Him’ without some sort of doctrine being passed on!

Without content to your belief, the only thing you are believing in is faith itself, and faith is not the savior. Jesus is. Jesus is the one who lived a perfect life, in full accordance with all of God’s requirements for righteousness, in order that he could not be found guilty of His own sins (meaning that His death would have atoned for those sins instead of ours.) In order to know WHICH Jesus ‘IN WHOM’ to believe, you must have doctrine!

Published in: on July 27, 2011 at 3:21 pm  Leave a Comment  

How Far Have We Fallen (Part Three)

The next step in this sermon was to further remove the idea that there must be intellectual content to your Christian life. Of course, this is not said out loud, but it is the gist of this section of the sermon. The pastor states:

“…Faith needs to be in Him, not in some good ideas about him…”

Again, this is either accidentally or purposefully vague so that there is some room to wiggle. The problem is that the wiggling has one of two directions: either further away from the solas of the Reformation and further away from God, or else it aims into absolute meaninglessness, a collection of syllables aimed a filling some time on a bright, sunny Sunday morning. Both directions are the wrong ones.

While it is true that our faith must be in Christ, that we must trust Him, and also that it is true there are good ideas about Christ that cannot save us, it is also very true that there are some good ideas about Christ that MUST accompany this anomalous belief “in Him.” For example, that Christ is God incarnate. Or, for that matter, that Jesus is a real being. You *cannot* have faith in an imaginary Christ and expect to be saved, no matter how earnest your belief (shades of Kierkegaard). The term ‘in Him,’ as pointed out earlier, is absolutely meaningless (a collection of syllables) unless there is something ABOUT Christ that you believe. In colloquial terms, at the very least, you trust Christ to come through, to honor His promises.

“… In Him. Vs 13 says “in Him you trusted.” You trusted in a Person, not an idea, not a system of thought, a person. Later in the verse it says “…in whom, also having believed…” He doesn’t say ‘you believed the Gospel’, although they did. He says, ‘you heard the gospel,’ and you believed in Christ…”

Which person do you trust? Can you tell me who you believe without saying what you believe ABOUT him? If you cannot, then what can you say about your faith?

Faith is an intellectual activity. It is not a physical reaction, it is not a skin condition, it is not an enzyme released by gland. It is a phenomenon of the mind. In fact, it is assent to a statement. If I say to you Jesus is Lord, you have two choices:

  1. You can agree with this statement.
  2. You can agree with the opposite of this statement (Jesus is NOT Lord).

There are no other choices. Even if you want to argue that you are looking further into the situation, *at this moment*, you assent to one or the other of these two statements. You always will, all human beings always have, do and will assent to one or the other of those two statements. The agreement is faith, or belief, or trust. While you can argue that there are shades of variation within those three terms (perhaps trust is built upon a more systematized grouping of statements) – the end result is the same: it is agreement to statements that you have heard, and understand. Faith is entirely an intellectual process.

Hence, to make statements like: “You trusted in a Person, not an idea, not a system of thought, a person,” are essentially meaningless. They are a string of syllables that consist of words we can identify. They have as much meaning as the sentence “Cheese go biscuit my foot now.” And yet the pastor is trying to say something: he is intending something with his sentence. And what is intended is not conveyed in the sentence. As a pastor, a teacher, who is standing up in front of a congregation intending to lead, the responsibility is to say what you mean, and mean what you say. To whom much is given, much is required.

What he is saying is this: “You trusted in a Person – not anything you know about Him.” The implication is that all of the things you understand about Christ are irrelevant. It doesn’t matter that you think he is a banker who lives down the street. It doesn’t matter if you think Jesus was female, nor even actually physically walked the earth. What matter is that you trust in a Person…whatever that means!

Why am I saying this? Because when you know a person, you must of necessity know things *about* them. And the more you know about this person, the more you have a ‘system of thought’ which constitutes EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of your relationship to this person. What we know of Jesus is found in the entirety of the Scriptures. It is built on, solely on, the information we have there. Sola Scriptura.

This sermon declares “…He doesn’t say ‘you believed the Gospel’, although they did. He says, ‘you heard the gospel,’ and you believed in Christ…” The inference is that the information presented in the gospel is somehow not the same information that you believe “about” Christ. It is OK to believe that Christ is God, that Christ died for your sins, and so on (fill in the blanks with the rest of the Gospel proclamation) – but this is not relevant to your salvation. What is relevant to your salvation is that you believe ‘in Christ’. Since the pastor makes an enormous distinction between the facts of the gospel – you are a sinner, justly condemned and bound for hell, Jesus substituted Himself for you and so on (fill in the blanks with the rest of the Gospel proclamation) – and the idea of believing ‘in the Person.’ Since the entire gist of the sermon has been about how ‘ideas’ do not save you, and that instead, you must believe ‘in Him’ – the necessary conclusion (that which rationally, of necessity follows from the presented propositions) is that you must believe in something with no content. In fact, if you even try to define what a person is (so that you can understand the sentence ‘in a Person’) – you are guilty of believing in ideas.

The irrationality is staggering. We have fallen so far!

The paragraph concludes with this gem:

“…You see there’s a subtle temptation that we think that if I believe all of the doctrine in here, then I am saved. No! You need to believe in Christ, the person of Christ. You say, “have you come to Christ Himself?” “Have you received Christ, Himself?…”

Hence, the statement “if I believe all of the doctrine in here, then I am saved. No!” is an absolute denial of biblical Christianity. Why? Because if you believe all the doctrines of Scripture, then you are by definition…(wait for it)….a believer! That should be so apparent that to make a statement to the contrary should be embarrassing.  If you believe, you can be certain that the Holy Spirit has been active in your life, changing your denial of the statements of Scripture into an acceptance.

And yet – you do not believe this doctrine *in order to be saved!* Nor do you believe in Christ *in order to be saved.* Again it needs to be pointed out that our salvation is NOT dependent upon our belief! We believe BECAUSE we have been saved. Belief is the result of being given new life, of being brought out of spiritual death (that is, the inability to believe) and into life (the ability to believe).

But even with this absolutely necessary point aside: How can you believe without the doctrine? If you remove the doctrine from the situation, there IS nothing to believe. Even the very name ‘Jesus’ is doctrine (something taught and believed!) The definition of a Person is doctrine! The concept of believing in Christ is doctrine. This will be covered in more depth in the next article.

Published in: on July 27, 2011 at 11:40 am  Leave a Comment  

How Far Have We Fallen? (Part Two)

The sermon I listened to was very pious. It was flowery, affectatious and garrulous, emitting kindness, joy, and piety. I can understand this, even if I don’t like the style: Ephesians is a joyful, exciting book, one that should produce the kind of glad outbursts Paul presents. But I have a real problem with a Pastor having to ‘act’ out the gladness in order to stir up emotional response in the audience, in order to ‘bring them along’ with his own excitement. That’s a personal preference – I am more interested in what is said rather than in how it is said. The information in the book itself – regardless of who presents it – should be all that suffices to bring about gladness.

What was disturbing, though was that it was also almost completely without content. Or, to put it better – it was almost completely without Christian content. And this was from a Reformed pastor – someone who claims to adhere to all of the creeds and confessions, the solas, of the Reformation. In reality, it was closer to neo-orthodox, rather than Reformed.

I looked forward to this sermon – it was one in a new series on the book of Ephesians. What a wonderful chance for deep exegesis and thought producing conversation! Well, maybe, at least, that last part is true! I wish to discuss it here; at least there will be that much conversation. His sermon did nothing to elicit deep thought in the hearer. It’s purpose was to elicit emotional response instead. A good comedy or horror film also suffices for such a response.

There were some reasonably good points, for example, a reasonable accounting of the Gospel:

“…And the good news is news rooted in historical facts. Something happened. The Son of God became a man, and He took the sin of God’s people on Himself, and Jesus died for their sin, and He paid for it. And then He rose from the dead, and now Jesus reigns in heaven, and Jesus will return again in glory, and He will bring the kingdom of God in all its power, in all its beauty…”

I could go a lot farther into specifics about the problems with the sermon; for example the reference to ‘historical facts’ – which tends to reveal a reliance on empiricism rather than revelation, but I wanted instead to point out another set of errors that, at least to me, was much more disturbing. After all, he may have just wanted to point out that the life of Christ was a real event, rather than a myth. Even then, the fact that it is revealed in Scripture is far more important than any ‘historical facts’ – unless those facts are limited to what the Bible reveals.

He continues and falls into what I consider a very serious set of errors:

“…And when you trust in Jesus you are joined to Him and all His work is yours. It’s like you are married to Him, you are one with Him. Your sin is washed away in Christ. You are righteous in God’s sight, in Christ.  You are given new life, in Christ. And you also can look forward to the day when you will rise from the dead, in Christ. That is good news! And so the first part of being saved is you hear this amazing good news. The second part, in vs 13 is, you believe!…”

The idea here is still good, if not starting to fade into mysticism and Neo-Orthodox unutterances. He quotes Ephesians 1:13:

“…In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,…”

I don’t know what version of the Bible he was using – I find the NIV to be very good on this verse:

“…And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, …”

Perhaps if he had read that version, he would not have mislead himself so…

But, he falls into the mire of post-reformation swampland:

“…Now notice: it doesn’t say, ‘in WHAT you trusted,’ it says, in WHOM you trusted. They didn’t trust the news about Christ. They trusted Christ himself, and there’s a difference. There are people who believe the Bible is true, and they believe the gospel is true, and that’s good, you should, but they don’t believe Christ. They believe its all true, but they don’t trust Him, and so they are not saved….”

This paragraph is so strange that I am going to parse it with some intensity so that you can see why this is SO WRONG. The very first error should be so clear that any Reformed pastor would feel ashamed that he could even bring it up. Clarity of speech and precision in communication should be noticeably, especially in one who spent years at university level studying logic and public speaking!

No one is save by trusting – either in someone, nor by trusting what they know about that person. That is false, and verges on Arminianism. A person is saved by the work of Christ on their behalf. Christ took the punishment that person deserved! Because of what Christ did, that person is saved. They do not receive salvation because they decide to believe this. They believe because they have been given new life by the Holy Spirit. That belief is the result of, not the cause – not even a partial cause of – their salvation!  So any inferences that we are saved because we trust….ANYTHING (or ANYONE) is a falsehood.

The rest of the errors stem from both a misunderstanding of faith, and either a lack of ability to use logic or a deliberate decision not to. My guess is that it is a mixture of the two.

For example:

“…Now notice: it doesn’t say, ‘in WHAT you trusted,’ it says, in WHOM you trusted…”

Tell me whom you are without telling me something ABOUT you! It simply cannot be done. Unless there is  some sort of information, you have no means of believing. There is simply nothing to believe. Unless you hear things ABOUT Christ, you cannot trust Him!

Tell me WHAT about Christ you trust? If you cannot tell me what about Him you trust, then how can you, in any fashion, tell me you trust him?

“…They didn’t trust the news about Christ. They trusted Christ himself, and there’s a difference….”

This is a very weak statement, vague enough to defend with some effort. It is also irrelevant to what Paul is saying. If I were to say to you, “Christ took the punishment you deserved for your sins” – could it be said that this is a trustworthy statement? For the elect, it is. It is absolutely true. It is a statement about what Christ actually did.

The problem here is that this pastor has a very wrong understanding of faith (or, trust, or belief – all synonyms.) Faith must have content. It cannot exist without it. In fact unless you can say WHAT you trust someone to do, the sentence “I trust ‘so and so’” *has no meaning*. Unless you are implying “I trust ‘so and so’ to do X” your sentence is simply a collection of syllables.

The news about Christ IS the content of their faith – it is WHAT they trust Christ to do, or have done. It is also what they know about him that distinguishes him from all the other Jesuses in history.

As I said, the sentence is so vague that it can be somewhat defended, but even the defense would be nearly meaningless: You can hear news on the television describing some event. You could argue that you trust that news item without believing that the event is a real – but then you are left with an empty belief: “I trust the news!” The implied question is “…to do WHAT?”

This sentence is followed by another with the same lack of clarity and substance, and, in this instance, a theological error:

“…There are people who believe the Bible is true, and they believe the gospel is true, and that’s good, you should, but they don’t believe Christ. They believe its all true, but they don’t trust Him, and so they are not saved…”

This indicates that there are *believers* who are not saved. And yet, a person believes because they are saved – ONLY a believer “believe(s) that it is all true.” Some people believe that parts of the Bible are true, but there is not a single person who can believe that Jesus died for their sins, that they are redeemed – who is not redeemed. Or, to use the words of Paul:

“…So I want you to know that no one speaking by the Spirit of God will curse Jesus, and no one can say Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit…” (2 Corinthians 12:3)

Since the Holy Spirit is present ONLY in the lives of believers:

You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ (Romans 8:9)

It is impossible that a person can believe ALL that Scripture says is true, except a believer. There are those who pay lip service to things the Bible says, and can even appear to be, and act like Christians, but in reality, their thinking does NOT include every single proposition (that is “…it’s all true”) presented by Scripture. And over time, this becomes apparent. It is possible to call one’s self a Christian, it is an entirely other thing to actually be one.

He goes on to say:

“…They believe its all true, but they don’t trust Him, and so they are not saved……”

They cannot trust Christ without having content for the faith: for example, “Christ died for my sins” – the fact that they do not trust THIS STATEMENT, is indicative that they are not saved. Empty trust in a person, as pointed out before, is meaningless. You trust Christ: to DO things, or to HAVE DONE things. Or even, IS DOING things – and you can make those statements with some level of clarity. How well you can state it is irelevant: what is important is that you have something you actually believe about Jesus.

Or, look at it this way: I know Jesus. He’s a great waiter at a restaurant we frequent. Very kind, funny and prompt. I trust him to be right there when I need to order my food. I trust Jesus! AM I saved? Not by THIS Jesus! (except perhaps from a little longer wait while hungry…) It is absolutely wrong to simply say “Faith needs to be in Him, not in some good ideas about him…” (a sentence coming up later)

Here is the rest of his paragraph, perhaps you can pick up on what I am talking about from reading this part:

“…You see, it’s the difference between believing that a man would make a good husband, and actually marrying Him! Don’t just believe that Christ sounds like a wonderful savior, but be joined to Him, like a bride commits herself to her bridegroom, so you commit yourself to Christ. You say to Christ ‘I will trust you’…”

Published in: on July 26, 2011 at 12:31 pm  Leave a Comment  

How Far Have We Fallen? (Part One)

Listened to a sermon the other day that I found particularly disheartening. It reinforced my notion that the Christian Church is on a downward spiral and a disastrous course. I know that there are (and can be) no pure, faithful churches that display the perfection that we will one day know. And I also know that God is in control of where His Church is at all times; that it is where it is, because He knows that this is what it needs. But that does not mean it isn’t frustrating!  And it means that we have a lot of work to do!

We have fallen so far in the past 200 years! I do not think it is any coincidence that the advent of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, Darbyism, Dispensationalism, Neo-Orthodoxy, and Liberal theology all arose at about the same time – or, at least, within a very short historical time frame. Blame it all on Keirkegaard, or Schliermacher, it doesn’t really matter. The responsibility still remains for those who choose to abandon their path and chased after phantoms and ideas that tickled their ears. Isaiah wrote:

“…this is a rebellious people, lying children, children who will not hear the law of the LORD; who say to the seers, “Do not see,” and to the prophets, “Do not prophesy to us right things; speak to us smooth things, prophesy deceits. Get out of the way, turn aside from the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.”  (Isaiah 30:9-10)

Or, as Paul summarized:

“…Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons…” (1 Timothy 4:1)

and elsewhere:

“…For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables…” (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

But we are told:

“…Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching…” (2 Timothy 4:2)

James wrote that “…he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind…”

It is the result of doubt: The irrationalism of Schliermacher and Kierkegaard, along with a turning to science as the means of attaining truth, opened the door for all kinds of perversions of Christianity. If science seems to contradict what Scripture tells us – the response is to doubt Scripture! If our philosophical basis tends to lead us to think that religion is a thing of emotions and things we can’t ‘prove’ – we delegate our Christianity to the realm of mysticism and ecstasies.

Doubt is the opposite of faith.

It is a result of doubt: without the necessity of a firm grip on the rules of correct thought, the tools of logic, only unclear thinking can result. Because of the rejection of the use of logic – or, at least, a delegation of it to a secondary status, subservient to ‘faith’, Christians are unable to defy the onslaught of the world’s attacks, other than to fall back into ‘mysteries’ and pietistic rambling designed only to obfuscate and yet sound deep and reverential.

Doubt is the negation of faith.

The problem is that most Christians, even if they can identify the errors of Kierkegaard and Schliermacher, do not have the tools to counteract the results of this influence. On top of this, while admitting that science may not give us all the truth, they still maintain that it can give us some! And yet:

I am the way, the truth and the life”

It is this marriage of alien (or worldy) philosophies and Christian thought (in direct contradiction to 2 Cor. 6:15) that have produced the current decrepit, perverted and diseased body of Christ’s Bride. She has become unfaithful, consorting with foreigners, and spotted, all the while proclaiming her love for Christ:

“…these people draw near with their mouths and honor Me with their lips, but have removed their hearts far from Me…” (Isaiah 29:13)

Instead of following God, we add as many other gods as we can:

Cross over to the coasts of Cyprus and look,
send to Kedar and observe closely;
see if there has ever been anything like this:
Has a nation ever changed its gods?
(Yet they are not gods at all.)
But my people have exchanged their glorious God
for worthless idols.
Be appalled at this, you heavens,
and shudder with great horror,”
declares the LORD.
“My people have committed two sins:
They have forsaken me,
the spring of living water,
and have dug their own cisterns,
broken cisterns that cannot hold water.    (Jeremiah 2:10-13)

I am always reading someone complain that we need a revival, we need to become strong as Christians. But no one is teaching what needs to be known! For the most part we have instead decided that knowledge is an impediment to spirituality (you CAN thank Kierkegaard for that one!) We have accepted the word of an unbeliever,  who told us to ignore Scripture, to turn our backs on God, and to “listen to our hearts instead” – all the while trusting that WE, fallen, sinful beings, have the discretionary power to determine if what we are thinking is God worthy or not. And if you cannot see the foolishness in that belief (we cannot, in any way, make a determination between what is ‘of the devil’ and what is ‘of the Lord’ – unless we check with God for the facts) then let me point out that while you are rejecting ‘intellectualism’ as ‘unspiritual’ – you are, at the same time, using your MIND do make this determination. You cannot decide with your earlobes. In other words, you hear something, you THINK about it, and then come to a DECISION (all intellectual actions) about it – all the while declaring that this sort of action is UNSPIRITUAL.

Shame on you.

Instead:

Do not conform to the pattern of this world, [for example, following Keirkegaard] but be transformed by the renewing of your mind [note the word MIND]. Then [and only then] you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. (Romans 12:2)

Published in: on July 25, 2011 at 3:51 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: , ,

4 – Propositionally thinking…

We cannot escape the presence and use of logic. Even if you try to speak illogically, you are still relying upon logic to defy it. It rules our conversation, our understanding, and to the extent that we use it incorrectly, to that extent we err in our assessment of reality, and in what we say to others. Because it is so pervasive, it is of utmost importance to have an accurate understanding of it. In fact – no debate, no discussion, no understanding of anything that really matters in life is possible without adherence to logic. The better the use of it – the better of both the communication and the understanding of the topic under discussion.

Logic is at work when statements are studied, and when statements are placed together to come to conclusions. You cannot start without a statement (logic doesn’t work without content! Thus, the most fundamental unit of logic is the statement. In local terms this is called a proposition. It has three elements: some sort of subject being discussed, something being said about the subject (called the predicate), and some sort of word that connects the subject and the predicate (called the copula). The copula has to be some form of the verb ‘to be’ (such as ‘is’), which, if you think about it, makes sense even without the application of formal logic.

For example, if the subject is ‘hat’ and the predicate takes the form of ‘brown’ (and, the copula is a form of ‘to be’) – for example:

The Hat IS brown
The Hat IS NOT brown

…and so on.

On top of this – this is the only thing that can be true! Only propositions can be true or false. For example, if I were to say, “TRUE or FALSE: ‘HAT’” – what could you answer? “Cat” is neither true or false, “Hat” is neither true of false, ‘God’ is neither true or false. The only way these can be used with the term ‘true’ or ‘false’ is when a predicate is attached to the word:

CAT (true or false?)
HAT (true or false?)

as opposed to :

The cat is sleeping (True or false?)
The Hat is on her head (True or False?)

There are ways of saying things that are not propositions – for example, commands (“Go to your room!”) and questions (“Did you see that?”) are not propositions. However – our understanding is based entirely upon propositions. We can’t understand the word ‘hat’ without any description (even if we are not actively thinking about the description). This means that both opinion and knowledge are built entirely of propositions.

Given the command “Go to your room!” we combine several sets of propositions (The definition of ‘go’, the definition of ‘to’, ‘your’, and ‘room’ as well as a set of propositions that identify the relative authority of the person speaking – and even a set of definitions defining WHO is speaking). The human mind is extremely complex – and thought is never very simple!

Truth is a function of logic, and found as a condition of propositions only. This may seem to contradict the Biblical idea that Jesus is the Truth, but that is only because people forget that Jesus is the ‘REASON’ or “STATEMENT” (‘Logos’). This idea will be examined later, when we look at the fact that ALL knowledge is in Jesus’ mind (hence, all that is true is from God’s mind).

Because logic is the prerequisite for thought, and must be used correctly in order to present clear thought (which leads to correct conclusions), it is necessary to have definite propositions upon which to work. This all seems fairly redundant and and most likely could be considered self evident. The issue is, though, that since a collection of statements is necessary to understand anything, then any collection of statements may be examined for logical consistency. This is important, because something that is not logically consistent means that at least some, if not all, of it’s premises (propositions offered) are false. And the fact that something is false infers that something else must be true.

We use the Scriptures as our “collection of propositions” – from that collection, we can make further exploration into our world, our existence, and how we interact. The Scriptures are logically consistent within themselves, and as such offers an entire world view that is easily understood (understanding is a function of the use of logic). As to whether the propositions within Scripture are true is another subject: at this point, the argument is that the Scriptures are entirely sufficient to create an understanding of all that happens in our lives – and an explanation of things that are ultimately important.

Published in: on May 15, 2011 at 1:50 pm  Leave a Comment  

3 – What’s The Use Of An Inductive Argument?

Stretch your imagination for a moment and think: suppose you flip a coin, and it comes up ‘heads’. You flip it again, and it comes up ‘heads’ again. You do it again, same result. You continue flipping the coin and it continues to come up ‘heads.’ After a while, you lose count of how many times you have flipped the coin – but you do notice this: every time it comes up heads. Now of course this is not likely to happen, unless the coin has the same face on both sides – or there is some other unusual situation – but that isn’t the point of the illustration. Imagine, instead that you have an idea about flipping this coin. You say to yourself, “Self, this coin has always come up ‘heads’ – which means that it will come up heads next time I flip it…”

And you flip it – sure enough, it’s heads again! You may well come to the conclusion that no matter how many times you flip this coin it will come up heads. After all, it has every single time you’ve flipped it in the past.

A question arises: what makes you certain that this coin will come up heads every time? How can you know this for sure? If you think about it, the only way you can ever know this with complete certainty is if you keep flipping this coin until it erodes away into dust. That takes a very, very long time – more time than you have. And if it continues to come up ‘heads’ until it finally is so worn away that it can no longer be flipped, then you will know with certainty (provided you live that long) that it really did come up ‘heads’ every time. But short of that, there really is no way for you to say with certainty that this will always happen.

In other words, you cannot say that it is true that this coin will always come up heads. You cannot know that to be the truth. You can only ‘assume’ it to be true. No matter how regularly that coin seems to come up ‘heads’ you cannot know for certain that it will. It may well be that 250 years from now, after a few millions flips, that it comes up ‘tails’. Who knows for sure?

That was an illustration of the form of logic called Induction. An inductive argument is based upon probability – it is probable that something will happen, and decisions and actions are based upon that probability – the stronger the probability seems, the more decisions and actions can be made concerning it. But as you can see, an inductive argument, unless it is ‘closed’ cannot give you the truth. An inductive argument is ‘closed’ if you verify every single instance of whatever it is determining – in the above case, that would mean that you would have flipped the coin until it faded into nothing, until it could no longer be flipped, and observed that the results were always the same.

An inductive argument can be useful: for example, it may be a good idea not to jump off the cliff, because, for as much as we can tell, you will fall down if you jump off! But it cannot claim to be true!

Inductive arguments are the basis of all science – based upon observations and tests, conclusions are reached. This is quite useful – as pointed out in the preceding paragraph – but it also shows you that science can never give you the truth, except by coincidence and accident.

You might object – “…But we know that gravity exists, and if you jump off a cliff, you will fall, because gravity is a constant, permanent, unchangeable phenomenon that science has measured, and that can be predicted…”

Flipping that strange coin can be predicted with a degree of certainty. But, without actually observing every single occurrence of that coin flip, you would not be able to claim that your statement, “This coin will ALWAYS come up heads” is true. The same situation occurs with gravity. Just because it seems to occur all the time in the same way, does not of necessity mean that it always will.

That it always will is an assumption made that helps us get along, to move from place to place, and even avoid injury and death. But you do not know for certain that gravity will always be the same, do you? Not if you are honest! All you can say with some certainty is that this is the way that it has always been in the past – and therefore it probably will always be so in the future.

But…this assumes things that haven’t been proven anyway! For example, how can you show that you did not suddenly pop into existence two minutes ago, with all of your memories appearing with you? Perhaps the certainty that gravity has always been the same as it is now is simply an idea that popped into being with you?

Of course you may argue that this is ridiculous…but then…how can it be refuted? I am not trying to burst your empirical bubbles yet. All I am pointing out right now is that an inductive argument cannot give you truth. And since science is inductive by nature – it also cannot give you truth.  Truth is a function of deductive, not inductive logic, and it is important to learn that distinction.

Published in: on April 17, 2011 at 10:55 pm  Leave a Comment  
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.