Indulgences and Election

When Martin Luther wrote the 95 Theses, one of his arguments basically went like this: If the pope has the power to release souls from purgatory, why doesn’t he–out of holy love–empty purgatory? The idea is simple enough. If the pope can sell indulgences (money given to ensure one’s soul a spot in Paradise), then, by his own power, give grace to a person’s soul to get into Heaven, then he should simply declare that all souls should immediately be released into Heaven. Luther was saying (one of the theses in the 80s) that the pope’s holy love for humanity, as the vicar of Christ, should be more than enough–needing money is evil.

The first time I heard this argument in studying Luther, I know that myself and basically ever other Protestant shouted, “AMEN!!!” But, as I thought about some things yesterday (I’ll spare the thought process, but it included Jonathan Edwards, the Great Awakening, and Jesus’ discussion about Tyre and Sidon). The question about Tyre and Sidon led to a bigger question.

If the doctrines of Calvinism are true (and I don’t mean some 3 or 4 point stuff; I mean real, actual Calvinism), then I have a question. I once was a Calvinist. It seemed to find some biblical support, but for me, I really like it because the jokes were better. I mean, seriously, jokes about determinism abound, but how many jokes have you heard about free will? None that I know of. And I can’t imagine them being very funny. Back to the point–here is the question:

If God–and only God–is absolutely, 100% in control of every step and aspect of salvation, then why doesn’t he–out of holy love–save everyone? I know this question has been asked before of the doctrines of Calvinism. I don’t think I’m knocking on new territory here. But what I don’t see is how a belief system that claims God–and only God, with absolutely no human interaction–is the sole party involved in salvation, can get excited about Luther’s denouncing of the pope’s selling of indulgences. If the pope–as the one person holding the keys to Heaven–should have simply decreed that all men be saved, then certainly God–whom we Protestants claim is the one person holding the keys–should simply decree that all men be saved.

Again, this is a question. I don’t see a difference in the two arguments, save the insertion of some type of human action (i.e., humans simply refuse to be saved–but this goes against Calvinistic doctrine). So, I know I have at least a couple of Calvinist friends who read me here….please, help me out. I’m no longer a Calvinist (and haven’t been for some time now), but I’ve always found a kindred spirit in me towards Calvinism. I want to better understand something that I apparently do not get.

More Problems of the Professional Church

I really enjoyed my recent post, The Professional Church. It has generated some good questions and discussion. One person in particular, whom I have just met, raised several good points. Chaz is a fellow believer who is recovering from alcoholism (among other things). Chaz has found great help through AA, and found no help in a local church organization that tried to conquer his problem. Chaz also found no help in the pat answers given by others in his life, remarking that having people lay hands on him (in prayer) multiple times just didn’t do the trick.

And here lies one of the problems with the Professional Church. Because we are Professionals, we can’t help with something such as alcoholism. But we should be able to help. Does helping someone kick a habit/addiction such as alcohol abuse not count as making disciples? Of course it does! But, it’s too messy, too difficult and most churches and pastors are simply untrained in dealing with such problems. In comes AA. That’s what Chaz had to do. He naturally felt that the Church should have the answers. He was right. However, the Church couldn’t give him the answers, so he went to AA. The point is that this is a travesty of the worst kind.

Let’s consider a few things. Did alcohol exist before the 1930s (when AA was established)? Silly question, I know. Of course it existed then. Did addictive behaviors exist before this period of time? Of course they did. So were people ever addicted to alcohol before the AA existed? Yes. So what did an alcoholic do before AA? Believe it or not, at one point the Church was the place to go for help. I don’t have the time to get into all the reasons for this shift, but let’s just call it laziness on the part of many in the Church that we’ve simply passed the buck to someone else. Courtney said, I think just yesterday, that our society’s motto could be “pass the buck.” We don’t like doing things that aren’t easy, fun, etc., and when disciple-making gets dirty, we pass the buck.

Should we kick things like AA? No. Should we get rid of things like crisis pregnancy centers? No. We shouldn’t get rid of anything that helps people deal with the mess of life. If we did, the world would be a worse place. My contention is that someone like Chaz shouldn’t have needed to go to AA. But if AA hadn’t existed, Chaz would likely still be in his sin, because he may never have found one of the few churches who are willing and able to help. What needs to happen is for the Church to stop her specialization and professionalization, stop passing the buck, and start getting to a place that we can make disciples when the situation is difficult. But that might be hard. It might be messy. It might not be fun.

And this ties in with another post from last week, “Called” to the Ministry. We expect a pastor to do everything–I mean, that IS what we pay them for, right? But when we let all of our people exercise their spiritual gifts, bringing all of the Church into the ministry of the gospel, we may find ourselves able to help deal with more stuff. If our teachers and shepherds weren’t spending the majority of their time appeasing the deacon board, sitting in on every committee meeting, swamped with administrative work, and all the other things that he may or may not be gifted to do, they could start allowing themselves to get development in dealing with the down and dirty issues of disciple making. If all of our “lay” members (don’t like the term, but using it for the sake of expediency right now) started exercising their gifts, certainly there are people sitting in pews week after week who could be of great service to the Kingdom and the Church, and more disciple making could go on. But this would take all members of the Church all working together, exercising their gifts.

The other problem with the Professional Church is this. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said for us to let our light shine before men, so they would see our good deeds and praise our Father in Heaven. The glory is to go to God. Period. So what happens when someone comes to the church, addicted to alcohol, and we can’t help them because that doesn’t fall within our speciality? We send them to AA. When AA can help them, who gets the praise and glory? Not the pastor for telling this person where the AA meeting is. No, AA gets the praise and glory.

In one of Chaz’ posts, Discouragement with AA, he makes a couple of interesting statements. Towards the end, he refers to people evangelizing and preaching AA. He also refers to people in AA thinking that AA is “the only way,” and AA was a “life-changing process” for Chaz. Now, I’ve tried to make clear to Chaz, and I want to make clear to anyone reading, that I’m grateful for Chaz’ recovery–period. No qualifications. I’ve seen alcoholism and all its ensuing problems first hand, and I’m very thankful to hear that this brother in Christ is healed.

But notice these statements. AA is “life-changing,” its supporters think of it as “the only way” (in idea Chaz is not fond of), and people actually preach and “evangelize” for AA. Need I connect the dots? What does this sound like? Who is being praised? Who is being glorified? Not God. And why should these people praise God? We’ve given them no reason to do so. They have a serious problem, they see their need, and we turn them to someone else. The Church is to be about making disciples, about showing people Life–and we give that to someone else. So, whose good works are seen before men? AA’s good works, not the Church’s.

So Chaz, God bless you, and I rejoice in your recovery. I know there are several other people who read my blog and will be happy for your healing as well. It’s not an easy road, and a lot of people can’t do it, or don’t even try. And Chaz, I’m sorry. I’m sorry the Church wasn’t there for you. I’m sorry the Church had to send you to another organization. I believe you can still be a light where you are, and I think you are probably trying to be just that. I’m glad for AA, since the Church has lost sight of that aspect of her job. May we kick our specialization and professionalization in the Church, and begin to regain our calling to make disciples and do good works so our Father may be glorified.

Conservatives and the Kingdom of God

I’m taking a class on evangelism with Alvin Reid, who is quite an interesting person. Some of you may remember my experience with a little bad evangelism almost a year ago. Because of experiences such as that, and a preconceived notion of what an evangelism class might be like, I’ve put off taking the class until my last semester here at seminary. Fortunately, I’ve been pleasantly surprised.

One of the surprises has been in reading the main textbook for the class. It’s Dr. Reid’s own Introduction to Evangelism, which basically consists of his lectures for the class condensed into an organized, book form. In reading through, there is a lot of theology, and numerous stories to help illuminate the subject. But there is one quote I found that has stuck with me for several days now.

In relation to Jesus’ statement in Mark 1:14-15, “Repent and believe the good news of the Kingdom of God.”

The kingdom of God, the rule of God over all creation, has received little attention by evangelicals. This is due in large part to the emphasis earlier in this century [20th] by more liberal theologians who minimized the future hope of heaven. One example was the realized eschatology of C.H. Dodd. On a practical level, the preaching of the “victorious Christian life” in recent decades among evangelicals has received great attention. There is victory in Jesus, but the focus on believers living victoriously rather than focusing on God–as Jesus did in his preaching of the gospel of the kingdom–should be balanced. The focus of our Lord’s preaching was less on the benefit of the hearer than the honor of the One on whom the message was centered. P. 31-2

No doubt this is true. I grew up as a conservative Southern Baptist, and I don’t recall ever hearing a message about the Kingdom of God. As an adult, being more keenly aware of these types of issues, I don’t recall hearing a message on the Kingdom of God. The few rare times I’ve ever heard about the Kingdom of God from the pulpit have been as it was skimmed over in the reading of Scripture, or as it was glossed over as a passing statement in a sermon.

And, I fear that we conservatives are going to miss the boat again. There is a renewed emphasis on the Kingdom of God today. However, this is coming from the Emerging Church, for the most part. Anyone with vague familiarity of the issues knows that the Emerging movement is not greatly liked by many conservatives. In fact, we love to call them liberals. Granted, some of them are simply rehashing theological liberalism, and many of them would be difficult to fit into the “conservative” category (I know, I know….why must we put people in categories and pigeon hole them….yada, yada yada). But that’s not the case with all. Even if it was, I have to ask, “So what?”

I agree with Dr. Reid about the importance of the Kingdom of God/Heaven in the preaching of Jesus. I agree that this needs to be part of our evangelism–since it was part of Jesus’. The last sermon I preached in my congregation was about the Kingdom of God. I hope to preach on it again at some point. I hope we conservatives can relish in talking about the Kingdom. Why would we not want to talk about God’s rule over all creation? What is liberal about that?

Rudolph: Jesus’ Homeboy

It’s that time of year again: the time when everybody enjoys Christmas vacation, parties and celebrations, yet we have to fight over whether we can refer to them as such. I wrote about this last year, and haven’t forgotten about it. I still think it’s sad that people want a “holiday season,” but hate the idea of calling it what it is: Christmas. What would we be celebrating if it weren’t for Christmas? New Year’s? What would all get for that celebration, a day off work? No, we’d rather keep all the enjoyments of Christmas, while trying to act as if Christmas has nothing to do with anything this time of year. It’s quite silly.

And so, it continues. This year, there is an interesting fight just down the road from us. Apparently, a lady (who refuses to have her name published) in Wilmington, NC thinks Rudolph is a Christian song. She cited it as having “religious overtones.” Yeah, this song is so religious that I refuse to sing it at church. I forgot that Rudolph, the mythical wingless flying reindeer with a light on the end of his nose, was at the manger on that fateful night in Bethlehem. Fortunately, the school board and their cronies were smart enough with just a little bit of backbone, that they considered the song to be about what it’s really about–a non-existent animal that has nothing to do with the Christian story of the birth of Jesus. (Yes, I know reindeer exist, but they do not fly, and their noses don’t light up, and Rudolph is always a heck of a lot cuter than real reindeer.)

I’m all for fairness and equality. I agree that we probably shouldn’t be singing “O Holy Night” at a secular, public high school. If we did sing songs like that and have a Christmas play with a manger scene, it would only be fair to allow every religious group represented in the school to have songs and plays representative of their religion at an assembly. That would get ridiculous, and most Christians would object to their child having to sit through the Mohammed story. But for crying out loud, can we stop being so ridiculous over this stuff? If you don’t like a “Christmas tree,” then don’t buy one. Why on earth would you want something with all the trappings of a traditional Christian celebration with a different name? Don’t like the idea of “Christmas holidays?” Then don’t celebrate them. Why would you want time off for a Christian celebration? People might just mistake you for being one. So refuse that time off and go to work or school, otherwise you are tacitly approving of Christmas. I just don’t understand why anyone would want all the trappings of Christmas, but refuse to at least acknowledge the reason for all the stuff that goes on this time of year.

BTW, I’ve designed a new hoody for the Christmas season. Hope you enjoy it!

The Saddest Thing in Seminary

This is my third year at Southeastern. It’s been and interesting time, to put it lightly. I’ve seen a lot and heard a lot. Some of it has been good and some of it has been bad. Some things exceed your expectations, and some things are serious letdowns. In the past few weeks, I’ve really begun to see what has, so far, been the biggest letdown of all.

I wrote just a few days ago about someone complaining that I wore sandals to church. I just had the meeting tonight, and it was less than enjoyable. I’ll spare the gory details, but it simply illustrates what has become the biggest letdown in all of seminary.

You see, if you’ve never been to seminary, this wonderful thing happens. You study the Bible and you study what great men and women have said about the Bible. You develop a sense for what certain things should be like–particularly the Church. You see the high calling the Church has been given, and the great price that was paid for Her. You get a sense of vision for what the Church can do both in Her meetings and in Her mission. You learn how to teach and preach and how to study the Scriptures. You learn that these things can be passed on to other believers. After a while, you begin to really believe Jesus’ words in Matthew 16, that the gates of Hell will not prevail against Jesus’ Church.

But then the inevitable happens. You actually go to church. You see how far the vision is from the reality. You trade in study of the Scriptures for administration. You trade the meat of those Scriptures for milk. You trade in your biblically based idea of discipleship for our notion of discipleship as people sitting and paying half attention (at best) to the sermon that you didn’t have time to really work on in the first place. You trade in caring for orphans and widows for trying to keep the elite at bay. You trade in notions of church leadership for a deacon board that functions like a board of directors. You trade in the Bible for the by-laws. But most importantly, you trade in contending for the faith, and receive back petty infighting.

I constantly ask myself, “How?” How did we ever manage to fall from such great expectations and exhortations to such pitiful and pathetic practices? How have we managed to let ourselves go? I’m not the least bit surprised that 75% of churches in America have either plateaued or are declining. I’m not sure I want to be part of the church sometimes. Here I am, trying to organize a food drive to help restock the local food pantry, and instead, I’m having to have a meeting over sandals. I wake up on Sunday morning to teach and/or preach, but my mind can’t focus on these things because I’m so concerned that my choice of clothing might offend people.

My heart is absolutely broken at this point. The kids in this group have been incredibly frustrating at times. They literally and intentionally acted like jerks for the first few months we were there, just to be cute (they told us this recently). All but one or two are so enamored with the things of this world that there is no discernible difference, save that they actually attend church.. Yet, these situations bring me more compassion for them. My heart is broken for them because I know why they are so spiritually apathetic–they have great role models in this regard. In fact, I think the church and their parents are fortunate the kids are no worse than they are. My heart breaks to think that this church, who just heard a sermon on how our gathering is in decline in almost every area, will continue to go downhill if these are our most important concerns. In fact, the bad news sermon about the decline of our church will look like good news in a few years.

So that’s it. The saddest thing in seminary is actually going to church. To quote one of my favorite artists: “The questions rise, the expectations fall in light of it all.”