Dinner Table Conversation of a Military Family

My 11 year old daughter: "Dad are we still at war?"
Me: "Yes."
Daughter: "Feels like we've been at war for a long time."
Me: "Your entire life."
Daughter: "When will we stop?"
Me: "A good question that I wish more Americans asked."

A bold and inquisitive young lady. 

I went on to tell her that we are not likely to stop any time soon, at least not for the next four years; that Americans keep voting for leaders that keep us in wars; that once one country is taken down, we move on to the next; that maybe her generation will make better choices and elect leaders that will use the military appropriately.

War of 1812: An Example of the Value in a Congressional Declaration of War

A few years back, I got into a disagreement with a Canadian friend over who won the War of 1812; America or Canada/Britain?  I had been taught through the American public school system that we had won.  My friend had been taught in his native land that Canada had won.  Who was right?  Turns out, we both were. 

Two hundred years ago, and as recently as World War II, wars were declared in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, specifically, through a formal declaration from Congress.  This was done for several important reasons.  The first was that an approval from Congress signified that a war had the nation’s approval, namely the people and states they represented.  Second, wars are to be formally declared by Congress so that clear objectives could be established.  Once those objectives were met, the war would end.  Let me repeat that.  Once objectives set by Congress were met, the war would end. 

There were several but two main objectives the United States sought to accomplish by starting war with the British Empire in 1812.  The first was to stop the British Royal Navy from pressing American seamen into their service.  Basically, the British were kidnapping our citizens.  Second, the United States wanted to put a stop to the British and Canadian practice of inciting Native American attacks against American pioneers on our nation’s western borders.  Today, we would likely call this “terrorism,” but the British and French use of Native Americans in this manner was a common practice by 1812.

 

The Canadians had their own objective, too, as my friend pointed out; prevent the Americans from taking over their country!  By 1814 the British had stopped kidnapping U.S. sailors and coaxing Native American attacks against Americans.  The Canadians had also successfully prevented the United States from taking over Canada.  With objectives met by both belligerents, the war ended.  The war lasted only two years!  Imagine that, if you can.

The U.S. started the War of 1812 two hundred years ago this month.  At least President Madison went to war legally through a declaration of war from Congress, a forgotten practice for our now Constitutionally ignorant and indifferent nation.  

The Good Shepherd: Fencing the Table an Act of Grace

The administration of a Church sacrament has recently made national news.  Why would the secular media concern itself with a Church sacrament, specifically the Lord’s Supper?  Like all things concerning national news, it involves controversy and controversy sells.  In this particular case, a Roman Catholic priest refused to allow a professing lesbian to participate in the Lord’s Supper.  The woman protested and the priest has since been disciplined by his leadership.

First, I am not a Catholic, so I will not defend their position.  I am, however, an Orthodox Presbyterian and will speak from that position on religious matters.  Second, I am a libertarian and speak from that position as an individual on secular matters.  This point is applicable because in the secular sphere I support an individual’s right to do what they want free from government interference, as long as they do not cause harm to another person.  I believe an individual should be free to succeed or fail; to experience the positive or negative consequences of their actions.  This includes a person’s right to engage in heterosexual or homosexual relations. 

The religious sphere is a completely different matter.  The action of the priest denying Communion to this woman is commonly referred to as “Fencing the Table,” at least in Reformed Christian circles.  Ministers, God’s ambassadors, declare who may come to, and who are excluded from, the Lord's Table according to the Word of God.  Ministers exclude those from the Table who have not approached in a worthy manner, which includes consciously discerning the body of Christ given for the sins of His people.  This discernment includes repenting of sin, which likewise includes homosexuality.  To participate in the Lord’s Supper without having repented of one’s sins is to make oneself guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment on their self. (1 Cor. 11:27-29, ESV) 

I believe this Roman Catholic priest was being a good shepherd.  Rather than protesting, the woman should be grateful she was kept from making the worst of choices with damning eternal consequences.  Unlike the secular sphere, ministers are in the religious sphere and are charged with the care of people’s souls.  Far from being a bully, this priest was displaying a remarkable act of grace.  He was willing to take on persecution from within the Roman Catholic Church and outside all for the sake of protecting the eternal soul of this ungrateful sinner.  Sound familiar?  Our Lord Jesus also took on the ultimate persecution for the sake of his people’s sins even while they were still sinners. 

What Went Wrong: The Roots of Today's Social Gospel

A primary cause of the Church’s decline today is its promotion of a social gospel in place of the Gospel; free justification in Christ Jesus.  The social gospel became more popular throughout Europe and the United States after the Second World War, largely due to extreme economic hardships and the social injustices of the time.  The Church’s widespread abandonment of the Gospel, however, did not occur in a vacuum.  So what went wrong?  The social gospel, as it is embraced by the Church today, is the direct descendent of 19^th and early 20^th century Biblical criticism, which led to the denial of miracles, a resurgence of Marcionism, and eventually the denial of the substitutionary atonement, the very heart of the Gospel itself.

Biblical Criticism

While Biblical criticism has been around for centuries, 19^th century Europe, specifically in Germany, became a hot spot for this form of study.  The German theologian, Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), became well known for his development of Higher Criticism, the study of the origin of ancient texts.  As he did so, Schleiermacher began to superimpose his own philosophies with a Christian twist onto the Scriptures. 

The philosophy of Schleiermacher was eventually made evident when he said that he believed the Bible “…is the original translation of the Christian feeling, and, for this very reason

[it is] so firmly established that it permits us only to understand it and unfold it more.”   Eventually, Schleiermacher even went so far as to reject the New Testament wonders as being miraculous.  This early 19^th century criticism of the Bible and the “unfolding it more” according to the reader’s conscience made an impact on the next generation of German theologians.

Resurgence of Marcionism

Part of the next generation after Schleiermacher was German theologian Albrecht Ritschl (1822-1889) who sought to make Christianity more practical to the Christian’s life.  In order to promote his view, Ritschl focused on what he believed to be the concrete historical aspects of Jesus.  What mattered in a practical sense was action based on love, a theme that would carry over into the generation to follow Ritschl. 

As Ritschl scoured the New Testament in search of the historical Jesus, Ritschl eventually became increasingly critical of the Scriptures, especially those that had a high view of the Old Testament.  This began a 19^th century resurgence of Marcionism, where texts like the Gospel of Luke came under attack and the apocryphal Gospel of Marcion was upheld as cannon.  Regarding this, Ritschl stated that, “Marcion’s Gospel is not a mutilation of the Gospel of Luke, but rather its basic root.”  He went on to say that “one should conclude that Luke has added that which was missing from Marcion’s Gospel rather than conclude that Marcion excised anything from Luke.”

While studying at the University of Tuebingen, Ritschl began to influence Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792-1860), who in turn founded what became known as the Tuebingen School at the University, a center for New Testament criticism.  While 20^th century historical research shows the Tuebingen School’s research of the 1840s to be false, it would not prove soon enough for those theologians of the late 19^th and early 20^th century.  The damage had been done.

Denial of Substitutionary Atonement

What started as mere literary criticism eventually became an attack on the Gospel itself.  It was in a world confused by Higher Criticism and angered by the social injustices of slavery and the Industrial Revolution that American Baptist theologian Walter Rauschenbusch (1861-1918) came on the scene.  While born in the United States, Rauschenbusch was the son of German immigrants and was fluent in their language.  When he went to Rochester Theological Seminary, Rauschenbusch was immersed in the literature of the Tuebingen School of Higher Criticism.  It was not long before he rejected his prior belief in the inerrancy of the Bible.

Reminiscent of Schleiermacher and Ritschl before him, Rauschenbusch began to seek a practical Christianity based on experience and feeling, permitting him to unfold what he believed to be the truth of the Christ’s death.  This lead to his denial of orthodox Christianity, specifically the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, that Christ conducted an atoning sacrifice – His death on the cross – as payment to the Father for the sins of His people.  Christ was the substitute on the cross for His people.  On the substitutionary atonement, Rauschenbusch believed, however, “…it was not taught by Jesus; it makes salvation dependent upon a trinitarian transaction that is remote from human experience; and it implies a concept of divine justice that is repugnant to human sensitivity.”  Instead of the Gospel, Rauschenbusch had something new in mind.

Rise of the Social Gospel

With the sins of society and institutions in mind rather than each individual’s sins, Rauschenbusch stated that Christ died “…to substitute love for selfishness as the basis for human society.”  Rauschenbusch’s compliant about the Gospel was that “…it has not evoked faith in the will and power of God to redeem the permanent institutions of human society from their inherited guilt of oppression and extortion.”  Rauschenbusch found the Gospel’s focus on the individual to be the problem.  He went on to say that the Kingdom of God "is not a matter of getting individuals to heaven, but of transforming the life on earth into the harmony of heaven." Schleiermacher and Ritschl’s goal for a practical Christianity had finally reached its fulfillment in Rauschenbusch’s social gospel.

Rauschenbusch eventually published his magnum opus regarding his social gospel in his 1917 book, Theology for the Social Gospel.  In this work, Rauschenbusch stated that "Jesus did not in any real sense bear the sin of some ancient Briton who beat up his wife in B. C. 56, or of some mountaineer in Tennessee who got drunk in A. D. 1917. But he did in a very real sense bear the weight of the public sins of organized society, and they in turn are causally connected with all private sins."  Later he added that “Jesus bore these sins in no legal or artificial sense, but in their impact on his own body and soul. He had not contributed to them, as we have, and yet they were laid on him. They were not only the sins of Caiaphas, Pilate, or Judas, but the social sin of all mankind, to which all who ever lived have contributed, and under which all who ever lived have suffered."

While not all churches and Christians today agree with these late theologians, their inherited errors are still present in contemporary ecumenical documents, e.g. the Manhattan Declaration of 2009, where Christian churches have confused the social gospel with the Gospel.

Decline of Christianity in Europe: Blame the Church

Contemporary Europe is referred to as being in a post-Christian era.  While gorgeous cathedrals still mark the continent’s landscape and their bells continue to ring, the number of occupants inside their walls is a mere echo from what they were centuries before.  The decline of the Christian religion in Europe has been occurring for centuries, which is why the cause has often been attributed to the philosophies of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.  While such philosophies during the Enlightenment did have an impact on the minds of Europeans, they can hardly bear sole responsibility for the state of the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches as they exist today.  Ultimately, the blame for the decline of Christianity in Europe falls on the Church itself, as it has placed a premium on enforcing a social gospel and hypocritical morality on unbelievers, while neglecting the sanctification of their own members.

Taking Responsibility

The Enlightenment opened the minds of Europeans to new ways of thinking about and interpreting the world around them.  They even began to reassess the way they saw themselves in relation to their government and, yes, even the Church.  While the Enlightenment did mark the beginning of a decline of Christendom in Europe, this event happened long before the great decline of Christianity in Western Europe began to occur. This is why it is best to take a more recent look at the causes of the decline witnessed during the twentieth century.

Social Gospel through Legislation

World War II left the European continent in a dismal state.  Everywhere it seemed that physical and economic suffering was the norm.  Both churches and governments struggled and worked together to rebuild the pieces.  In the process, Roman Catholic and Protestant churches began to develop a new gospel separate from the one of spiritual salvation found in the Scriptures; the social gospel was born.  Due to a relaxed opposition between Christians and Marxists in post-war Italy, the Roman Catholic Church saw a large growth of cooperation on social issues.  According to the German Catholic bioethicist, Corinna Delkeskamp-Hayes, the purpose of the Roman Catholic Church is no longer “merely to convert individual non-Catholics to the Roman faith, but to politically influence legislation through voting majorities.”  Since World War II, unbelieving Europeans have watched as Protestants and Catholics spread their social gospel through the arm of government and rightly wonder why the Church should have a monopoly over the social welfare of society.  Many unbelieving Europeans have since participated in this social gospel without ever having heard the true Gospel.  In their minds, the Church has nothing to offer.

Morality through Legislation

Rather than spread the true Gospel to unbelievers in their midst, European churches have instead sought to enforce biblical morality on those outside the church through the legislation.  In the words of a Stephan Bauzon, a Catholic European bioethicist, “Since 1987, Europe has changed (e.g., the introduction of the Euro, the Treaty of Nice, the end of the USSR, etc.), but the rampant hedonistic European philosophy — one that refuses any limitation on individual freedom — has not changed at all. The hedonistic approach to life (a characteristic of our post-Christian Europe) has stabilized its dominance over people’s minds.”  A hedonistic, self-gratifying lifestyle is to be expected by an unbeliever.  Christians, who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and under the disciplining hand of the Church, are held to God's moral standard.  Rather than enforcing God's standard on unbelievers through government legislation, the Church is to preach the Gospel of salvation.  Waiving the moral finger in the face of unbelievers without preaching the Gospel has been and will continue to lead the European Church into a further decline.

The enforcement of moral standards on those outside the Church in Europe is not unique to the twentieth century alone.  The centuries leading up to the Enlightenment were rank with this confusion by the Church of enforcing the Law before preaching the Gospel.  History Professor Hugh McLeod from Cambridge University states that “by the late eighteenth century [Anglican] churchmen were forced to conclude that persuasion offered better returns than coercion and that the future lay more in clerical example, religious education and internal reform of the church than in the legal enforcement of its moral prescriptions.”

In a typical overreaction, the Church not only began to lax its moral expectations on unbelievers – for a time – but also eased the standards on church members, as well.  This fault, found both in Catholic and Protestant churches, would prove to be a mistake.  Professor McLeod went on to add that “attendance at [Anglican] church services, participation in catechising and the practice of communion all became more dependent on the inclination of parishioners than on the insistence of the clergy.”  While the church does not bear responsibility for the moral behavior of those outside the church, it is still very much accountable for the sanctification of its own members.  Today, the moral expectation of those outside the Church has been on the rise, while the sanctification process of believers has been all but abandoned once their names are added to the members list.

We Are Being Watched

In the Pope's 2006 book titled Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam, he attributes what he refers to as the "universality" of Western universities to Christianity, through which he justifies the West’s “export democracy” by force doctrine into Islamic countries. The connections that the Catholic and Protestant churches have made with Western governments engaged in warfare to spread Christian influenced, universal values have further tarnished the image of Christianity, contributing to an even further decline of that religion in Europe.

In this book, the Pope goes on to say that “the thinking that prevails in the West regarding the universal feature of the West is that none of them has universal value. According to the proponents of these ideas,…export[ing] these same [Western] institutions to culture or traditions that are different from our own would be an act of imperialism.”  The Pope accuses those that oppose the export democracy doctrine of “timidity, prudence, convenience, reluctance, and fear.”  The European Catholic and Protestant church’s promotion of the exportation of Western culture by force into other cultures has been observed by unbelievers.  

In order to move forward, the Church needs to first stop laying the blame of the decline of Christianity on philosophies from centuries ago.  Instead, the Church should start taking responsibility for its actions and in-actions since World War II.  While individual Christians should be involved with providing their time and efforts to help the sick and poor, they should be reminded that this is not the Gospel.  Feeding the poor and healing the sick is showing love to one’s neighbor, also known as the Great Commandment.  The Great Commandment, however, is not the same thing as the Great Commission, which is to preach the Gospel to all nations.  Rather than spreading a Western culture -- admittedly blessed by its association with Christianity -- through warfare, the Church should focus its evangelistic methods on peaceful means.

Hello, Theologians!

Last Spring my wife and I were made the proud parents of our fifth child.  The location of this momentous event was not at the local hospital but the local courthouse.  We became the adoptive parents of a precious two year old boy.  I remember feeling the gravity of the occasion as the Judge officially pronounced the legal standing of our new relationship.  This little boy was now entitled to all the rights and privileges of our other children.  As I signed the legal paperwork, I mentally made the connection between this worldly adoption and the spiritual adoption of those that are in Christ Jesus.  As the adopted children of God, we are “heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ.” (Romans 8:17)  In that courtroom I was learning about the character of God.  This could also be called theology.

Theology is not only for stiff old men over a cup of coffee.  Theology is the study of God’s character and we participate in this activity often without even realizing it.  Far from being a remote field of study reserved only for churches and the halls of universities, theologians are found in hospitals and homes.  A mother struggling to keep patient with her rebellious child is amazed at the patience God has shown herself in comparison.  An artist that spends painstaking weeks perfecting a work finally stands back and holds a greater appreciation and understanding of God’s creative nature.  This hardly scratches the surface and I could go on, but you get the idea; theology is a very practical field of study. 

While we are all learning about God’s character every day – yes, even the atheist, though they are in denial – we rarely acknowledge that we are doing so.  Does it matter?  It does if you care about your spiritual growth.  If you are a disciple of Christ it most definitely matters since disciple means “learner.”  Some Christians consider it pious to be content with simply loving Jesus or staying with a “childlike faith” and avoid the rigorous study of God’s Word.  This, however, only denies them the opportunity to learn more about God, which runs contrary to the very character of a disciple of Christ.  Outside of God’s Word, self-help books often seek to guide individuals on a path of understanding oneself better, yet they often miss what should be the most obvious element in accomplishing their goal; studying the one that made them.

Studying God’s character is a great joy for me.  Theology took an already amazing experience like adopting a child and highlighted its greater meaning for me.  While the practical benefits are obvious, we should not forget that studying God’s character is also a duty.  Rather than hear this word “duty” as an arduous concept, consider God’s command here as an act of grace because our understanding of who we are in relation to God is a matter of eternal life and eternal death.  

"Why" A Great Leader

A few years ago there was an email that posed the situation of two people fighting in a boxing ring.  You were supposed to take your closest friends, supposedly viewing the match from the audience, and make up comments that each of them would have said or thought at that moment.  My friends unanimously agreed that I would have thought, “Why are they fighting?”  Perhaps it was the philosopher in me but I do often find myself asking why things are the way they are.  I pick apart problems, continually asking “why” until I believe I have come as close to discovering the root cause as I am going to get.

This is why when I came across a recent book titled Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action by Simon Sinek I thought, “Asking why is just common sense.”  However, as I noticed the reference to the word “leader” in the title, I considered that the trait of asking “why” might be more than just a philosophical itch.  I am the oldest of six siblings; father of five children; going on 13 years of military service -- a profession that prides itself on grooming leaders.  Asking “why” is most definitely a trait of a leader.

As we begin another election year, the concept of asking “why” as being a leadership trait has been at the forefront of my mind.  Many of my friends on social media admit that there is something different that they like about the GOP candidate Congressman Ron Paul.  Some specifically mention the honesty they sense from him.  While I am convinced that Paul is honest and tells the American people what they need to hear, I believe it is something more.  The other candidates, including our President, point to our nation’s problems and have many ideas on “what” we need to do and “how” we should do it.  What we do not hear from the likes of Gingrich, Romney, or Obama is an examination of why we are in this dire economic and foreign political situation.

What is different about Congressman Ron Paul is that he asks the “why” questions even if it means uncovering some very difficult truths.  Asking why a problem exists is imperative to discovering real solutions.  Without this, politicians will only come up with more misguided “what” and “how” answers.  A great example of this is our response to the 9/11 attacks.  Our leaders immediately burped the shallow, but very patriotic sounding answer of “they attacked us because they hate our freedoms.”  Ten years later they croak the same tired response, but we Americans are intelligent enough, if a bit slow in response, to know that there must be something deeper.

 

Congressman Ron Paul, who mind you has been saying the same thing for decades, asks the “why” question and came up with a very different answer.  Suddenly, our place on the foreign political stage makes much more sense, even if it was hard for Americans to swallow; we were attacked here because we were over there.  Painful to hear, but healing can also be painful.

 

Since 2008, Ron Paul’s message of economic, social, and foreign political liberty has seen a surge in popularity.  While receiving single digit numbers in 2008 GOP primaries, his message now receives over 20% of the vote.  We find his honesty refreshing, at times comical, but most importantly we find it intriguing.  Even the other candidates have admitted to being inspired by the questions Paul asks, especially regarding economic issues and the Federal Reserve.  Ron Paul inspires all of us to ask “why” and to do our own research.  What America needs now is a leader that is courageous enough to ask the hard questions and inspire the nation into action.