The Logic of Faith

In what sense of the word is Christianity not a Religion? or Christ against Religions

2012-03-08T07:24:00.001-08:00

For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,

1 Corinthians 1:22-23

The phrase "Christianity is not a religion but a relationship" has been in vogue amongst Evangelicals for some time already and has been repeated ad nauseum into complete meaninglessness. But like most Evangelical slogans droned mindlessly (e.g. "universal priesthood of the believers", "being a community"), these slogans did have an entirely respectable and proper theological meaning, which have since been lost once the Evangelicals co-opted the phrase, eviscerated it, and subverted it for their own purposes.

I have raged before against this idiotic slogan. But ever the contrarian, I am now going to explain in what sense it is correct to speak of Christianity as "not being a religion" by tracing its origins to the "dialectical theology" of the early 20th century, especially as it is found in the thought of Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Unfortunately, when we learn what the original proclaimers that "Christianity is not a religion" meant by that phrase, I doubt very much the Evangelicals would be as pleased to invoke the slogan.

What is a Religion?

The question of whether Christianity is a "religion" depends on what we mean by "religion". Why is Christianity considered by most to be a religion anyway? Maybe it has something to do with "gods or spiritual beings", although this feature might be a little hard to justify in the face of "religions" like Buddhism and Confucianism, etc.

However, even if we consider it from a "gods and supernatural being" point of view, such a conception would be unusual even from a Christian point of view. That is because Christianity has, to use a Bultmannian term, a "demythologised" conception of "gods". As Christ himself would put it,

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, `I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken), do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, `You are blaspheming,' because I said, `I am the Son of God'?

John 10:34-36

If indeed we are all "gods", then there isn't in fact anything "supernaturally" special about gods. Luther probably provided the most "secular" definition of a god when he wrote in his large catechism,

What does it mean to have a god? or, what is God? Answer: A god means that from which we are to expect all good and to which we are to take refuge in all distress, so that to have a God is nothing else than to trust and believe Him from the [whole] heart; as I have often said that the confidence and faith of the heart alone make both God and an idol.

If a "god" is simply "that from which we are to expect all good", etc, then in fact, "god" is simply the entity upon whom we rely upon and look for our good. In that sense, governments could be "gods" because they provide law and order and worldly justice, our parents are "gods" because they provide for our nurture and education, etc.

But, it can still be objected, isn't to have the LORD as God to rely and put one's trust in an essentially supernatural being, i.e. the LORD? I guess the question now then turns on what do we expect from the LORD? What is this "good" which we expect from the LORD which makes him our god?

The Goods of a Religion

In sociological terms, the "goods" which a religion is suppose to provide is often the explanatory power to make sense of the world, a "worldview" to use an Evangelical term. Or maybe it is to provide a "foundation for morality", or to justify certain worldly enterprises or causes. Or at a more individual level, it could be to give comfort, peace, or "a sense of the sacred", etc.

Therefore is Christianity like any other religion, a mere competing "service provider" in the market of "spiritual goods"? It is here where we realise why exactly Christianity isn't a religion, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer puts it,

...the Church has based its preaching of the Gospel on the appeal to religious experience, to the fact that deep down every man feels the need for religion in some form, the need for a God to whom to give himself, a God in terms of whom to explain the world. But suppose men come to feel that they can get along perfectly well without 'religion', without any desire for personal salvation, without any sense of sin, without any need of 'that hypothesis'? Is Christianity to be confined to those who still have this sense of insufficiency, this 'God-shaped blank', or who can be induced to have it?"

It is here where we can understand Bonhoeffer's "religionless Christianity". The "value" of the Christian God is not derived from its ability to "satisfy" some "religious need", to explain the world, to give mankind the tools by which they can understand, make sense, and ultimately control the world. To state this in more general terms, Christianity is not a religion for the very simply reason that the justification, the reason and the value of the Gospel is absolutely independent of the world.

There cannot possibly be any worldly reason which can justify the Christian faith. The Christian faith is not here to "provide a worldview", be the foundation of morality or human rights, to contribute to democratic discourse, to expand our philosophical wisdom, to order the world, to advance peace or social justice, make us moral and give us "fulfilled" lives (urgh how I hate this!), or satisfy our hunger for the sacred. The meaning and the value of the Christian faith is not founded or grounded upon any needs or requirements of the world, which has traditionally been the functions of religions.

The Sole Justification for the Christian Faith: Jesus Christ

The sole justification for the Christian faith is Jesus Christ. The value of our proclamation is derived solely and purely from its contents, from what it is about. The truth that Jesus Christ was incarnate, crucified, risen and ascended, reigning from the right hand of the Father, is the reason and justification for the Christian faith. It is in this sense that "Christianity is not a religion", because the Christian faith does not participate in the competing market of "religious goods", each seeking to out sell the others according to worldly terms and measurements, e.g. in its capacity to make moral people, in its ability to generate philosophical wisdom and insights, in its ability to explain life, to make people "happy", to give them fulfilled lives, etc.

The Christian faith's justification is derived purely from its contents. It lives solely by being preached, proclaimed and administered in Word and Sacrament. In nowhere else does the Christian faith derive its justification and life, other than in Jesus Christ, "the true life", as administered in Word and Sacrament. The Christian faith does not justify itself by its ability to inculcate good morals, by its ability to cooperate in the advancement of worldly projects, or even by its ability to provide profound philosophical insights into the world. In short, the Christian faith is not grounded in human desires, needs or projects, especially not in that "God-shaped hole" in one's heart! The Christian faith is justified purely by its ability to give eternal life in Christ, which are infallibly administered through Word and Sacrament. The reason to believe in the Christian faith is because it is about Jesus Christ who has died for you, not because of any desire, need or anything in yourself. Christ is the Alpha and the Omega, the sole and foundational reason. There can be no appeal beyond him and outside of him.

To put it in more graphic terms, Daniel Dennett has once described religious belief as a virus. A virus provides no "functional benefit" to its host, except maybe by accident. It exists for itself and it lives to propagate itself. Whilst other religions may loudly declaim that their beliefs are merely "viral" in nature and that they do provide health benefits to its host, but for the Christian faith, at its core, it is a virus. Christian belief is a "Holy Spirit induced" virus in the mind, it first appeared on Earth with the Jews, then it exploded like a plague over all the world when the "Hive" of the virus, Jesus Christ, appeared on earth. It exists for itself, it is its own justification. Sure it may under certain circumstance contribute to the worldly health and well being of its host, but it is just as likely to drive it to martyrdom and to "sickness unto death".

Conclusion: Christ against the Religions

Since the value and justification for Christianity is derived purely from its internal contents, rather than its outward forms or benefits or worldly functions, it is in this sense, that "Christianity is not a religion", because it does not, or at least it isn't intended to, perform the functions or provide the goods of a religion.

This understanding is naturally a very Protestant understanding of the Christian faith whereby the divine Word as preached and provide alone creates faith and gives eternal life in Christ. It is the invasion of grace into the natural world, it is judgement and overthrowing of all worldly schemes, desires and hopes. Unlike the Catholic scheme whereby their theology requires a "sacramentality" of the world as being "naturally open" and "leading" towards the Christian faith, their "grace completing nature" theology, for Protestant theology, it is a true sola gratia, a pure work of invasive grace into the world which crushes and reorders the world according to its source and master, the Lord Jesus Christ.

But when most Evangelical use the phrase "Christianity is not a religion", they more often than not merely mean a superficial "anti-ritual" and or churchy mediator of Christ sort of critique. I wonder though, would they be as willing to use the phrase had they known it is meant to say that the Christian faith is not here to fulfil your desire or need to "fill that blank in your heart", give you a happy and fulfilled life, or to make you moral or to give you a worldview, etc?

I suspect not.

Why I am Not an Atheist

2012-03-05T07:31:00.001-08:00

I love mankind - it's people I can't stand!

Linus, in "Peanuts"

But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.

Romans 5:8

Heh, there was an atheist who commented on my previous note on "Why I am not an Evangelical", so to show how inclusive I am, I decided to write this. Yes, I am an asshole that way.

Proving the Existence of which God?

Discussions on the "existence of God" always begins with a definition of God, as if everyone of course knew what the word "God" means, and as if there is a unified concept of "God" to which we refer to when we use the word "God". But then when we give this further thought, we do seem to run into the problem which Bertrand Russell did when on informing a lady that he was an atheist, got this reply, "but are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?"

Let me spell this out in detail. Suppose we go along with the traditional definition of the "God of philosophy", the God who is roughly defined as being omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Suppose we ignore the problematic questions which might arise as to the first two properties (i.e. Is omnipotence to be understood as infinite power/ability or simply infinite resources?). I want to focus instead simply on the last property, God's goodness, benevolence and love.

It is evident at once that the question as to "does God love", is in fact, a meaningless abstraction. God cannot love in a generic abstract sense. He would simply become guilty of Linus's "I love mankind- it's people I can't stand!" A God who "loves mankind" in some atemporal and ahistorical way, loving in general, but no one in particular, would be a nonsense God, a God hardly worth paying attention to, even less bother to prove the existence of.

When we speak of the existence of God, it cannot be the existence of a God who loves in some meaningless generic sense. It has to be the existence of God who loves me, or loves you, or loves him, or loves her. To raise the question of the existence of God, is to raise the question of whether there is a God who loves concrete, particular, real people, a God who actually relates and enters into our spatial-temporal historic particularity.

How can I find a gracious God?

This is the question which Luther posed in the course of his intense engagement with God. Of course there is a lot of nonsense contemporary chatter (mostly amongst academics!) about how people don't ask after a gracious God, but ask a supposedly more fundamental and existential question of "where are you God?". Such contemporary chatter has been rightly condemned by Karl Barth as "one of the most superficial phases of our time". As the Protestant theologian, Ernst Wolf, rightly notes,

Man is at all times fated to inquire after God, but the question about a gracious God to me is the only legitimate form of this question. If one inquires after God apart from the question of grace, then the question comes to naught. For if the word "God" is to be meaningful and not merely a cipher for a world view it must disclose my relationship to God; it must at the same time be able to declare to me how the human being as human being is established by God.

(italics mine)

Thus, the only legitimate form which the question of the existence of God is the question of the existence of a God who is gracious to me. This has some vital and important implications as to the shape which the question has to take.

(1) The question of the existence of God is an individual question addressed particularly to one. Thus, the question is how is God gracious to this person in all his or her particular life history. It is in this sense that the question of the existence of God is "subjective", i.e. a question posed to particular subjects by very nature of the God to whom the question raises, the God who is gracious to me and to particular subjects. The question raised is not whether God is loving, the question raised is whether God is loving to me, to you, to him, to her.

(2) As a consequence of (1), therefore the question of the existence of God is the question of the presence of a gracious God in our lives in all it's historic particularity. The question of the existence of a gracious God to me is therefore the question of where in my life is the presence or action of this gracious God? Can the presence of such a gracious God be found in my life at all? Where has God, if he has, invaded into our space-time world and acted for me and on me in love?

Jesus Christ is the Proof of God's Existence

If the question of existence of God is simply nothing more than the question of the existence of a God who is gracious to me and has acted for me in love, then for the Christian, only Jesus Christ is the proof of the existence of God. For in life of Jesus Christ alone do we recognise the loving action of God for us and for our salvation. As the quote from Romans 5:8 at the start puts it, God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Christ dying for us and for our salvation is the "showing", the "demonstration" (NIV), of God's love for us. In him is the proof that God does love us and has acted for our salvation and eternal life.

We know of no other God, we know of nowhere else where God has acted for us in love. We cannot look outside of Christ for the proof of God's existence, for outside of Christ, God is "hidden", he works all things neutrally and without regard for any of our interests. The sun rises upon the righteous and the unrighteous and the rain falls on the good and the evil. The laws of nature are neutral and indifferent to us. Outside of the crucified Christ, God works all things, life, death, good, evil, weal and woe, disaster and prosperity, etc, by the relentless and impartial laws of nature. The God who is gracious to us cannot be seen outside of Christ, for outside of Christ, God is no respecter of persons.

It may seem that I have merely committed a theological sleight of hand. Haven't I merely collapsed the question of the proof of God into the question as to the proof of Jesus Christ being God? But here is the thing: The person and life of Jesus Christ is not the consequence of a deduction from more fundamental premises, it is the content of proclamation. He is the foundation, and he cannot be justified by any more fundamental premises. If the Jesus Christ as proclaimed by the Church is not the foundation of belief, but something else, e.g. historical proofs, some supposedly neutral standard of "reason" or some other secular standard such as morality, happiness, etc, then Jesus Christ is no longer God, the Alpha and the Omega, but instead a creature of system.

Thus, the Christ in whom God has acted for us and for our salvation in is the content of the Church's proclamation and confession. To be confronted with this Christ as proclaimed would provoke a "crisis of decision", which can only be resolved not by proofs or arguments, but only by a decision, and from the decision there either follows personal confession, in which the Church calls "conversion", or denial, in which then you can always interpret Jesus according to disbelief, i.e. the Pharisees interpreted his works of miracles as works of the devil, contemporary sceptics will interpret it as something else.

A Barthian theologians explains this approach this way,

This is the approach which I labelled an “apologetics of imagination,” and which John Milbank rather playfully describes as the endeavour to “persuade people – for reasons of ‘literary taste’ – that Christianity offers a much better story.” To proclaim the gospel is to tell this “better story” – a story which is, empirically, one narrative alongside others, but which functions as a kind of metanarrative, since its truth reaches out and comprehends all things within itself.
To grasp this story (with its own internal coherence and rationality), one must be grasped by it in a moment of decision. This decision is what the gospel calls conversion. To clarify the nature of this decision is the task of apologetics.

The Redemption of Sorrows

If in Jesus Christ, God has graciously acted for us and for our salvation, naturally we would want to ask what does this salvation consist in. The traditional answer has always been, remission of sins, reconciliation with God, and being established as God's children. And this salvation is always concretely enacted in our lives via baptism, absolution and the Eucharist where God feeds us with his very own body and blood.

But yet we can still legitimately raise the question of God's gracious action for those who go through suffering and experience evil, and we can legitimately ask how in Jesus Christ does God love those who suffer and go through evils. This is a legitimate question, but we have to recapitulation some of our previous points.

First, we must retain the "subjectivity" to which the question of how God is gracious for these particular persons in their particular life history.

I remember reading Rowan Williams's paper "Redeeming Sorrows" where he brought up a quote from Shakespeare's King Lear, where after King Lear goes through much suffering and horrors, madness, the lost of his Kingdom, and finally the death of his loyal and faithful daughter, Cordelia. As he carries his beloved Cordelia in his arms dead he imagines for a moment she is alive and cries out,

This feather stirs. She lives. If it be so,
It is a chance which does redeem all sorrows
That ever I have felt.

Williams would go on to say that for King Lear, the survival of his daughter would be an event which would "redeem all sorrows/ That ever I have felt", an event which can heal the memories of tragedy of his life, to give hope to move forward and live. Each and everyone of us experiences suffering and evil differently, its has a particular meaning and significance in each of our lives. The same tragic event which might crush some will cause others to rise to the occasion. How that person can move forward and be reconciled to the tragedy in his life would depend on that person's life story, what would count as a "redemption of sorrows" will be particular to each of us.

The question which Christians need to ask themselves is, is there a redemption of sorrows for all? Remember, for King Lear, his daughter remains dead, and he himself died tragically at the end. Of all the horrors, sufferings, torments, and evils in the world which all mankind partakes in to some degree, is there a redemption of sorrows for all of them? A hope for all mankind?

If we are to take the words that in Christ's wounds we are healed, seriously, then the answer has to be yes. The Gospel tells us that at the world's most darkest hour, at the gravest crime of all history, when mankind itself revolted against God, and put His only Son to death, God in Christ continue to plead to the Father to forgive us for we know not what we do. In God's death, even when the source of all life, goodness, beauty and truth has been put to death, God stills remains, God is still there, a continued presence promising a future hope, and who continues to promise forgiveness and love, even at our most sinful, and even at the world's most darkest moment, the death of God himself.

Thus, by his wounds, we are healed, God deep in the flesh, deep in tragedy and suffering, but in the midst of it, still promising love, still promising forgiveness, and still promising a future hope of healing and forgiveness. We who are baptised into Christ's death, who share in his wounds, also share in his resurrection, and share in his promised healing. In our darkest hour, whether of sin or tragedy or loss, when all meaning or sense are out of reach, Christ is still there, with us, in the darkness of the Cross, at the eclipse of the Sun... wounded, in pain and at the point of death, He continues, to promise forgiveness, a resurrection, and a future healing.

We do not know how and in what form Christ enters into the life of each and every particular person. We cannot theoreticise in abstraction how God acts graciously in Christ for all in all their particularity. The Christian does not know how every tear shall be wiped, and every sorrowed redeemed, but we place our trust in He who triumph over every suffering, that there is a hope that it will be so, and this ought to give us impetus and courage, to work out patiently with the victims of suffering, how indeed can there be such a redemption of sorrows, a healing of the memory of the tragedy which has befallen them. Often we can only be silent, many times we shall stumble and grope in the darkness of sin and evil, in search for the Christ who was made sin in the darkness of an eclipsed sun, but in the words of a Barthian,

Ultimately we can only gaze at the iconic image of the crucified and, like a rabbit caught in a car’s headlights, freeze at the mystery of iniquity – and then, in faith, be drawn into the more unfathomable mystery of a love that is stronger than death.

Conclusion

Thus in Jesus Christ is the supreme proof of the existence of God, the existence of a God who is gracious to us and in whom God has proven and demonstrated his love for us and to us. Not the abstract God of philosophy who twiddles his thumbs in the heavens or mechanically runs the laws of nature, but the God deep in flesh and pierced for our transgressions and risen in triumph. There is no other God which we seek to prove, then the God who is incarnate in history and in the real world, in love.

Why I am Not an Evangelical

2012-03-04T06:44:00.001-08:00

I realise that I've ranted about Evangelicalism here and there and scattered throughout my notes, but I've never really formally set down to spell out exactly what I think is wrong with Evangelicalism. Well, since I've written a note explaining why I am not Roman Catholic, guess I should do the same for Evangelicalism so that they won't be left out. Yar, I'm a bastard that way.

Peripheral and Essence

I rant about a lot of things in Evangelicalism, e.g. music, worship, theology, the language of the Evangelicals, behaviour, etc. But contrary to the impressions which this might give, I actually do have a very high tolerance of Evangelical worship and music, which comes from years of worshipping in an ultra low-church Anglican diocese. I even occasionally, I am ashamed to admit, enjoy some of the more tacky Evangelical songs (although you'll never get me to admit it while it's happening!).

Then there is also the question of Evangelical "communities", or lack thereof. Again contrary to popular impression, I do and have as a matter of fact, joined Evangelical small groups and stuff, even sang in a choir, etc. I can tolerate the contradiction between their boast of being a "universal priesthood of the believers" and their almost total theological ignorance and lack of willingness to think theologically. I can tolerate their contradiction between their chatter about being a "community in Christ", and their tribalism and "fellowship" based on historical friendships and ties.

But of course if these were my chief complaints against Evangelicalism, then that merely proves that I am an aesthetic snob and an ecclesiastical utopian. Whilst these are I think real problems, but they are not fundamental problems. They are rather the symptoms of a much deeper theological malaise. A proper objection to Evangelicalism cannot simply be based upon one's worship aesthetic sensibilities or expectation of churchy fellowship. These are merely peripheral to the Church and do not constitute its essence. If there is to be a proper criticism, and ultimately, rejection of Evangelicalism, it has to ne firmly based upon something which constitutes the core of Evangelicalism. To this I now turn.

Propositions for the Rejection of Evangelicalism

Proposition 1: The Denial of Baptismal Regeneration

Evangelicals have unequivocally, everywhere and always, denied that we are born again and saved by baptism. They have denied that baptism is the efficacious means of grace whereby God grants to us remission of sins, eternal life and new birth. When baptism is denied as the efficacious means of grace whereby we are reconciled to God and united to Christ's death and resurrection, then a chaos of other "means" would rush in to fill up the gap. Ambigious and cloudy and ultimately, subjective "conversion experiences" or undefined "true saving faith", would rush in to fill the gap.

But these, as I've noted, is ultimately subjectively, it is based on our state or something we do in our minds or think. Our new birth and reception of salvation is ultimately based on what we do in our minds or what we think. It isn't based on the external, objective and sure action of God in the sacrament of baptism. This, as I've noted before, is a denial of grace. Grace, as an act of God independent of us and external to us, coming down to us and into us. When grace is dependent on what we do in our minds or what we think, then it is no longer of grace but of works, and the Gospel has been completely eviscerated.

Corollary A: Faith is not Psychologically or Consciously Discernible

But neither do I accept the Roman error that baptism is efficacious ex opere operato, (by virtue of being performed) but only through faith. But since faith is one of the gifts which baptism grants and is the means through which the benefits of baptism is appropriated for us, and if it follows that this is not to be identified with conversion experiences or mental acts, then necessarily faith is not a phenomenon of our consciousness.

Rather as Hermann Sasse puts it,

...justifying faith is not the matter of a single moment, but the substance of our whole lives. Such faith is not some act of our commitment to God that is particularly perceived and experienced in some isolated moments of our life. Rather it is the constant though always clouded reliance on the Gospel's promise of grace.

Faith is not "particularly perceived and experienced", but "it is the constant though always clouded reliance on the Gospel's promise of grace". Faith is simply trust or reliance, and this is not some special consciousness but a temporally extended reliance on God. The closest analogy would be a child who relies on his parents. To say that a child relies on his parents is not to say that the child has some special conscious experience of his or her parents. It is to say that the child looks to his parents for his good and for his life. When the child is hungry, he turns to his parents for food, when he needs money to buy stuff, he turns to his parents for cash, when he wants to know what to do, he turns to his parents for instructions, when he has hurt himself, he cries and runs to his parents for help. Thus, we say that the child relies, trusts and expects his good from his parents. That is what faith means, the looking, turning and expecting from God all our good, especially forgiveness of sins, salvation and eternal life. It isn't some special conscious experience, but the "clouded reliance on the Gospel's promise of grace".

This is incidentally why the Lutherans insist that infants are to be baptised and that infants have faith when they are. Because in so far as the infant relies and expects his good from his Christian parents, including the goods of care and well being, then that is a reliance and faith in Christ, as mediated through the institution of parenthood, ordained in the fifth commandment. This reliance is once more, not some special consciousness or cognition, but simply the "clouded reliance" upon the faith of his parents.

Thus, when the Evangelical turned faith, as a reliance and trust, into some special consciousness or cognition, then our salvation as a reliance and expectation of our good from God, becomes into a sort of mental work or special consciousness or "conversion experience" which we must strive towards in order to be saved and reconciled to God. The Gospel as the promise of grace has been effectively destroyed under such a scheme.

Proposition 2: The Denial or Utter Neglect of the Ministry of Absolution

Despite all their loud claims of being the "universal priesthood of the believers", Evangelicals have a deathly fear of actually exercising the priestly power of absolution. The ministry of absolution, as the pronouncement which truly remits the sins of believers has all but vanished from Evangelicalism. But then, this is simply a part of their belief that new birth and salvation is based upon a subjective conversion experience or consciousness. When the Gospel as an external objective Word, as enacted in Word and Sacrament, is lost, then it logically follows that the sins which we commit as Christians can also be only remitted by some mental work or concocted experience. The word of absolution as the location of God's forgiving action, which comes from outside of us, objectively, pronouncing the remission of our sins, has no place within Evangelicalism. For it's very externality and objectivity offends the Evangelical's conviction of the subjective as the location of God's action.

This conclusion by a Lutheran sums up the Evangelical's attitude superbly,

The forgiveness of sins has no real presence within the theology of Evangelicalism. At best, troubled sinners are pointed back to Calvary. The problem is as Luther has reminded us - that forgiveness was acquired at Calvary but not delivered there. Calvary is back there in time almost two thousand years ago. At its worst, Evangelicalism turns the troubled sinner inward to his own conscience. This is a gross mishandling of law and Gospel as Dr. Walther reminds us in Thesis IX: "...the Word of God is not rightly divided when sinners who have been struck down and terrified by the Law are directed, not to the Word and the Sacraments, but to their own prayers and wrestlings with God in order that they may win their way into a state of grace; in other words, when they are told to keep on praying and struggling until they feel that God has received them into grace." This subjectivism is embodied in the hymnody and liturgical practices of Evangelicalism. The cultus of Evangelicalism exchanges the absolution for assurances of grace, the Gospel as the efficacious Word of salvation for a gospel that invites and requires a human decision, and the supper of the Lord's body and blood for a symbolic recollection of the upper room. Where is the forgiveness of sins?

The answer has to be nowhere. When the external, objective Word of Absolution is lost, forgiveness of sins is lost as well, and a thousand different subjective remedies having no foundation in Scripture but merely concocted by the Evangelical tradition rushes in to fill the gap. No conversion experience or faith consciousness can ever be a replacement for the concrete into your life pronouncement of, "I absolve you from all your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."

Proposition 3. The Blasphemous Denial of the Lord's Presence in the Lord's Supper

Some might object to my use of the word "blasphemy", but if Lord is truly present in the Lord's Supper, then to say that he is not is blasphemy. Just as St Peter blasphemed against Christ when he denied that he knew or recognised not the Lord, so are those who blaspheme against Christ who refused to acknowledge or recognise Christ in the Lord's Supper. As Archbishop Cranmer puts it in his catechism, which is a translation from a catechism by the Lutheran theologian Justus Jonas,

And whereas in this perilous time, certain deceitful persons be found in many places, who of very forwardness, will not grant that there is the body and blood of Christ, but deny the same, for none other cause, but that they cannot compass by man's blind reason, how this thing should be brought to pass, you good children, shall with all diligence beware of such persons, that you suffer not yourselves to be deceived by them. For such men surely are not true Christians, neither as yet have they learned the first article of the Creed, which teaches that God is almighty, which you good children have already perfectly learned.

Of course, one might wonder why make such a big deal about this. The answer has to be once more the question of where is God acting in real historic time for us and for salvation? The bread and the wine which is offered to your during Holy Communion, is this bread, truly, really and objectively, the Body of Christ which is given for you? Is this Cup of the New Testament, truly, really and objectively, the Blood of Christ, which was shed for you and for many, for the remissions of sins? When this is denied, then the bread and the wine ceases to be the external, objective presence of Christ, acting upon you, giving himself for you and for your remission of sins, but instead becomes subverted into an avenue for us to do another mental work or experiential action to "ascend to Christ" and be reconciled to God by our own doings. What is meant to be a Gospel action of God, descending down and entering into our lives and acting upon us for our salvation, is completely inverted into a human work of our own making to attempt to ascend into heaven by our own mental work to attain salvation. The Gospel as a Gospel of grace, of God's objective action independent of us, has once more been eviscerated.

Corollary A: It is the Words of the Institution which makes the Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Christ, not our Subjectivity

Naturally the Calvinist and other Reformed theologians have invented ways to circumvent this criticism by arguing that they acknowledge that the bread and the wine is the Body and Blood of Christ through faith. But the first Protestants, the Lutherans, were not deceived by such theological tricks which retain the fundamental error. To this end, the Formula of Concord, or the doctrinal standard of the Lutherans have formulated two criteria to circumscribe the Calvnistic/Reformed errors. (1) The faithless and the ungodly do eat/drink the Body/Blood of Christ, although if they do it with wilful faithlessness they eat and drink to their judgement. (2) The Body/Blood of Christ is eaten/drunk not only spiritually but also orally, with the mouth and the tongue.

The reason for this very specific definition is simply once more to protect the Lord's Supper as an external objective word of the Gospel. The question is, upon what basis is the bread and the wine, the Body of Christ which is given for you and shed for you for the remission of sins? Is it by virtue of the Words of the Institution? Or is it by virtue of our subjective state or conscious state. If the Gospel as an external objective word is to be defended, then the answer has to be that the bread/wine is the Body/Blood of Christ, by virtue of the Words of the Institution, not by virtue of our subjective state. That is why the Body and Blood of Christ is also eaten by the ungodly and the faithless, and also why it is eaten orally, not only spiritually which evidently the ungodly or faithless cannot do.

But then again, the denial of Christ's presence in the Eucharist is simply part of a larger malaise of Evangelicalism: The persistent refusal to acknowledge the external objective action of God in the means which he has ordained, the Word and the Sacraments, and the perpetual insistence on locating God's action within our subjectivity. Which brings me to my next proposition

Proposition 4: Denial of the External Word and Sacraments of Grace

This proposition is simply a generalisation of the first three proposition. Amongst the Protestants, only within the Lutherans and High Anglicans does the concept of the external Word exists. The fundamental question which this is concerned with is: Where in our historic space-time, is God acting in Jesus Christ? Where is God's forgiving action to be found in our space-time circumstance?

The problem with Evangelicalism is that Christ has no real presence within our lives. He is firmly stuck there back in the first century and he can never break out of that barrier, because they refuse to identify Christ's action in the external Word and Sacraments. Often they like to cite the thief upon the Cross who did not receive baptism or absolution or the Eucharist and yet was saved as an argument against the necessity of baptism/absolution/Eucharist for salvation. But this citation completely misses the point about the external Word. The thief personally and within his space-time life history received the external word of Christ and promise that he will be with him in paradise. We on the other hand have received no such special revelation concerning our own salvation. Often when Evangelicals say that in the Bible God has promised them salvation, my answer always is, where is your name written? I don't see a verse which says, "And Christ forgives Dominic of his sins".

The external Word and Sacraments is precisely how God "invades" into our space-time life history and brings and enact salvation into us. It is there whereby Christ does personally say that you are saved, you are forgiven, this is my Body which is given for you. If in absolution Christ is not speaking forgiveness, if in baptism and the Eucharist, Christ's life is not being given, then the Evangelicals will have to find it somewhere else, and their answer invariably turns upon the subjective. But this, as I've noted time and time again, destroys the gracious nature of the Gospel by making God's action upon us dependent upon our mental work or enacted conscious experiences.

The irony of course, is that given the uncertainly and ambiguity which accompanies such subjectivity, the Evangelical is inevitably turned to outward signs of their election, to "fruits of the spirit", etc, to know as to whether they are saved. This is the tragic history of puritan "experimental theology" whereby they attempt to map out the psychological life of a truly regenerate Christian in an attempt to discern who is the elect. Need I point out that this completely destroy the very nature of the Gospel, when one turn to one own works to ascertain their salvation and state of grace? Thus the abundance of "fruit inspectors" who judges the state of one's Christian faith by one's "fruits" or works. Our Christian faith, as something determined by God's gracious action upon us, has been reduced to our ability to do good works and our virtues. The Gospel has been lost, and justification by faith alone, vanished. Which brings me to my last proposition.

Proposition 5: The Separation between Justification and Sanctification

In almost every tradition of Evangelicalism, the concept of "progressive sanctification" exists. Yes, we are justified by faith alone, and are forgiven by faith alone, etc. But, and here is the great but, we still have to become sanctified by doing good works, etc.

The problem with this, as I've highlighted in my note on sanctification, is that justification quickly fades into the background. It becomes a mere verbal affirmation of one's Protestant orthodoxy. Sanctification, the doing good works to ensure that one is a real Christian quickly overwhelms the Christian life. One is a "true Christian" only if one is "progressing in sanctification" or produces the fruits of the spirit. Thus, once more, our Christian faith is dependent upon how "sanctified" we are or how much good works we do. Once more, the Gospel of grace and justification by faith alone is lost. Fruit inspectors abound in Evangelical communities, all determined to test whether we be true Christians by our "progress in holiness".

But, uniquely to the Lutherans, to be sanctified is simply to be justified. To become holy is simply to be forgiven. Sanctification is simply to receive pardon for the particular sins which we commit in our lives. There is nothing more to sanctification than that, it is not our doing of good works or "progress in holiness", it is simply continual and perpetual repentance and turning back to God to receive remission of sins and justification.

Thus, if sanctification is simply nothing more than the particular application of justification into our lives, then sanctification is entirely the gracious, external, action of God in Jesus Christ through the Word and Sacrament. It is not something we do, but it is something which is done to us.

Conclusion

Thus, these are my fundamental objections to Evangelicalism, and why I cannot be an Evangelical. The propositions explained here are I believe, fundamental to the very nature of Evangelicalism, but which I also believe completely denies the Gospel as the Gospel of Grace, and of God acting in Jesus Christ for us and for our salvation. It has turned it instead into either a mental work which we do for ourselves or completely obscures the Gospel promise of grace by their thousand and one different invented spiritual experiences or "good works" or signs of election.

Why as a Christian I think Gay People Should get Married

2012-03-01T06:37:00.001-08:00

A gay male who marries a female, but claims to still be gay

"Yestergay", Urban Dictionary

But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

1 Corinthians 7:9

I realise that I haven't been writing much notes lately, so I gave a list of topics to a friend of mine and he thinks that I should write on this, onward then!

A Three Step Argument

My argument as to why gays should marry and enter into a marital union with the other sex is very simple. It can be reduced to three steps.

(1) Gays have sexual passion

This is self-evident, otherwise they wouldn't have known that they are gay!

(2) St Paul teaches that it is better to marry then to burn with passion.

C.f. 1 Corinthians 7:9

Ergo ("therefore" for those of you unlearned in Latin/philosophical language)

Conclusion: Gays should marry.

If this argument is really so simple, why indeed has it not occurred to anyone? Let's go to the objections.

Objection 1: Gay people aren't sexual attracted to the opposite sex!

So? Who said that the marital life is contingent upon physical attractiveness? Who made sex a function of attractiveness? Are all ugly and unattractive people to be denied matrimony simply because they aren't physically attractive? What nonsense is this? And all people will grow old one day and their six packs will disappear under their tummy and the ladies' breasts will sag and no longer attract. Therefore marriage ceases to exist? Bah! Ridiculous! (But maybe this linking of marriage to physical attractive might explain the rise of divorces, but oh well, another topic, another time)

Objection 2: Gay people can't love the opposite sex!

By "love", I presume you mean the agape love of Christianity not the eros of paganism, the sort of love which is outward looking, not seeking a selfish possession (eros), but one whereby one seeks the well-being and good of the other and acts to bring it about, the sort of love which exists in friendships whereby friends seek to to advance and further the interest of each other.

If this is what you mean, then it is an insult to gay people to insinuate that they are incapable of and love towards the opposite sex! Of course they can act for the good and well being of the opposite sex. And since it is popular conception that gay people tend to be great friends with the opposite sex and understand them so well, can you think of a group of people better suited for a heterosexual marriage? Can you think people who are more suited "to love and to cherish"?

On NOT Overloading the Meaning of Marriage

Perhaps my last reply has a tinge of being in jest. But that is only because of the fact that since the Romantic age, marriage has been overloaded with too much meaning and significance that the "lightness" in which I am treating marriage seems ludicrous.

For centuries since the Reformation, most of the English-speaking world has been married under the form of the Book of Common Prayer. In it, three "causes" of reasons for which marriage has been ordained by God is spelt out.

First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.

No doubt most of us today would gasp at the unbelievably cynical (and dreary!) view of marriage which the Book of Common Prayer has. It was first written in 1549 and it has remained that way ever since. Even until today, this form is still the official marriage liturgy of the Church of England.

Romanticism has basically introduced the idea of marriage and love union as possessing something like a total and complete claim upon our persons, the sort of passionate, intense, exclusive and total possession of our being so often upheld as the ideal in Hollywood and Disney.

Thus, the idea of someone who does not "love" his spouse with their "whole heart" (read: with total and intense passionate subjectivity), seems to us to be weird and strange.

In Christianity we have a name for this. It is called idolatry. In the "Two Greatest Commandments" of Christ, only God is to be loved "with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." (Matthew 22:37). To render any creature such total devotion and passion and worship is in effect an idolatrous sin against God. On a related point, when we start investing marriage with the total significance and passion which the Romantics want to do, expecting marriage to be the source of all our joys and happiness, is it any wonder that a whole generation quickly becomes cynical and sceptical when marriage does not deliver all which its promised and portrayed? Only in God is one to seek one's total good and joy. Creaturely marriage can provide some measure of consolation and comfort, but to invest it with more significance than that, is to burden it with an expectation which it cannot fulfil.

Therefore it would be instructive now to turn from this frankly fantastic notion of marriage to the much more sober conception which the Book of Common Prayer has.

First, it is for the procreation of children, to be raised in the fear and nurture of the Lord. As Christians, as long as the Lord has not return as yet, then we have a duty to continue to raise the next generation as witnesses to the Gospel and salvation history. But I think more relevant to our discussion would be the second and third cause. No matter how many Christians would want to gloss over the second cause, as a remedy against sin and to avoid fornication, it is practically a lifting off from 1 Corinthians 7:9. As I've argued earlier, this cause is really very simple. Gay people do feel sexual passion and since the only way for them to legitimately relief their sexual passion is in marital sex, then get married and have sex for God's sake! (Literally!) Sure, the sex may not be as pleasurable or as intense or as exciting as it would be with a person of your sexual preference, but then again as I've already pointed out, to make sexual attractiveness and pleasure a function of marriage, is to simply miss the point. As Christians, we naturally have an interest in their sanctification and as such, since this is St Paul's prescription to the temptation of sexual passion, by relieving it in marriage, then we are bound to honour it.

Which brings us to the third cause of marriage, the "mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity". This is, by the way, a distinctive Protestant innovation. Before the Reformation, only the first two causes are taught, so if you think the Book of Common Prayer is cynical, try the medieval age! But as I've already pointed out in Objection 2, to love which married couples ought to have in a marriage has nothing to do with the passionate and intense Romantic love, it is simply the proper agape love of friendship, "mutual society", helping and comforting of each other, i.e. the advancing and seeking the well-being and welfare of the other, etc. This is a duty and an act of will, "that the one ought to have of the other", not an emotion or a sentiment, whereby one seeks the good and the welfare of the other.

In most Christian marriage liturgies, we are take a vow to love our spouses, we don't take a vow to be in love with our spouses. Its the agape-eros duality in marriage. Agape is selfless and generous, it gives and sacrifices oneself for the other's benefit, without consideration to oneself, one's interest or desire. While eros is inherently jealous, it seeks to possess the object of desire for oneself, it is drawn towards it and acts to "have it". To put it simply, agape wants your good, eros wants you.

Thus, when we vow to "love her, comfort her, honour, and keep her in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto her, so long as ye both shall live" it is fundamentally agapistic in nature. We do not vow to be attracted to our spouses, but to love, comfort, honour and be loyal, to give ourselves, while our spouses vows the same loyalty to you. To love is an act, to be in love is a state.

On Overloading the Significance of Marriage

I wish to remark in passing that we Christians do not honour the institution of marriage by overloading it with significance or meaning, we turn it into an idol instead. The whole idea of a marriage where both people are perfectly in love and happy and simply fitted for each other and possessing the whole of one's being is simply nonsense, a point I'm glad to see pointed out by the Reformed pastor Timothy Keller.

It is this idolatrous view of marriage which could explain our aversion to the ideas of gays in a heterosexual marriage. We think somehow that "something is missing" from a marriage whereby one's partner does not fit into one's sexual preference. I'm sure most people have a preference for hot guys and girls, but they are unfortunately in short supply, besides of course completely missing the point of marriage. Remember, the significance of a marriage is limited to procreation and rising of children in the Lord, relieve of sexual passion, and mutual society, help and comfort, to invest it with more than that is to threaten it with idolatry. So as long as a marriage fulfils the three purposes for which God has ordained it, what more is needed?

We may argue that gays will always "desire" a person of their own sex. This can be read in two ways, by "desire" you mean sexual passion, the solution is then relieve this passion in marital sex. Or it can be "desire" in some not-so-biological-pressure but intentional sense. In that case, then, well, renounce this intention! We all can't have what we "desire" or intend. I may desire to be absolute ruler and dictator of Singapore, or for my enemies to be crushed, but then, I know that is ungodly and I should renounce this intention.

Conclusion: Making it Work

I guess as a final objection, we can legitimately raise the question, this all sounds very good and fine, but has it ever been tried? The answer is, yes! An Israeli rabbi has precisely such a ministry whereby he pairs gays to lesbians, which you can read here,

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/3/israeli-rabbi-pairs-gays-lesbians/?page=all

Thus, it is about time we transcend the limitations which the concept of "sexual orientation" (a completely secular and not a theological category by the way), and return back to the roots of our Scripture and church traditions.

If this is still hard for you to wrap your minds around, I've written before in the past about what meaning heterosexual sex may have for a gay person. The following is a passage which I wrote in context of the hypothesis that a lot of gay people, who are attracted to bodies of their own sex, tend to beautify their bodies and "buff up", because they love their own bodies.

Thus, it seems to me that for those people who are "gay", or who have a predominant homosexual desire, I do not see why they cannot go on to have a heterosexual marriage with homosexual desires. It is true that gay people may not be very sexually attracted to their spouse, but sexual attraction, as I've pointed out, has nothing to do with marriage, Love in the agapistic sense does. But more importantly, I think it is possible for them to be unashamed of their homosexual desires and even treat it as godly and holy, because their homosexual desires, their drive to look good and attain a body that is pleasurable and enjoyable to their spouses, is a great gift which they are giving their spouses, it is part of their agape love to make their spouses happy with such a beautiful/handsome partner. Admittedly for the gay person, the relationship has more "agape" than "eros", there is more self-sacrifice on the part of the gay person then for the heterosexual partner, since the gay person will be giving up on a more intense sexual experience. Such a marriage may be tragic in a way, but in a manner no different from a couple who cannot conceive, the result being that their love shall be fruitless and without children, but I see no reason why it cannot be as loving and as happy as any other marriage, given that the element of loyalty, honour and trust to one another, bound together by the most intimate friendship and ultimately by God.

Actually, it may not be necessarily true that a gay person may not be able to enjoy heterosexual sex fully. As I've argued elsewhere before, it may be intrinsic to every phenomenon of sex that it contains a homoerotic element, a summary of this "Hegelian" reasoning is that in sex, my sexual desire is for my partner to desire and be "turned" on by my body, I wish to see my partner sexually aroused by my body, I wish "to see myself" through my partner eyes, thus I am sexually aroused by how sexually arousing I am. What else does this boil down to, but that I am erotically moved by my own body as seen through my partner's eyes? And what is this but homoeroticism? Thus, it may be that even those who have predominantly gay instincts may "vicariously" as it were, enjoy the male body form through the pleasure and sexual desire of their spouse. The full argument can be access here,

http://logos-pistis.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-all-sexual-desires-have-homoerotic.html

Thus, to conclude, it seems that even popular culture has already transcended the limitations of sexual orientation with their concept of the "yestergay", which I picked up from the urban dictionary, isn't it about time that the Church does to, that they might be more faithful to the Scriptures and the Christian tradition?

Update

I thought it would be instructive to add the following objection to this note which I had online, and my subsequent replies.

Objection:

I'm not sure I even agree with that quote you mentioned. I'd be very hesitant to share this with others. It's an opinion piece, firstly and to me, the big problem is: in the past this was already done. People suppressed or hid their homosexuality by getting married. I guess in some cases it may have worked BUT how can we tell for sure that ALL such marriages were beneficial to both parties, without future fallouts such as secret gay affairs, or finally leaving the family because they couldn't suppress their desires any longer.

Reply:

‎*shrug* those problems are not unique to gays. Are you saying that straight couples don't have affairs or leave their families because they couldn't suppress their desires for another man/woman? Of course not.

My argument would be that you're misdiagnosing the heart of the problem of divorce. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation, physical attraction or lack thereof, as Christ said when asked why did Moses issue the writ of divorce, the answer is hardness of heart, I.e. Sin. The failure to honour one's marital vows is not the failure of satisfaction of some carnal desire, it is ultimately a failure to obey the will of God, and obedience to God's will is not contingent upon physical attraction or appetites.

So if you're going to make ALL marriages contingent upon where we can "tell for sure that ALL such marriages were beneficial to both parties, without future fallouts" then you shall have to forbid not only gays in heterosexual marriages but straight people in heterosexual marriages as well for the same uncertainty applies there too.

Why the Recent Plight of Catholics in USA Proves that Christian Witness Cannot be Dependent upon Charity and Other Observations

2012-03-01T06:31:00.001-08:00

No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions; he had money as well.

Margaret Thatcher

In the News...

One of major policy which President Obama is attempting to enforce is a policy which would compel all religious-run charitable organisations, especially Catholic organisations, to provide insurance coverage for their employees for contraceptives and other milder abortion methods known otherwise euphemistically as "preventive care". Naturally since both contraceptives and abortion goes against Catholic moral teachings, this policy has provoked a fair amount of outrage amongst the Catholics of an essential violation of the Catholic's conscience and freedom of exercise of religion.

But whilst we await the outcome of this crisis between the government of America and Catholic institutions, this current confrontation has provided the rare opportunity to sharpen and clarify certain theological issues about the relationship between the Church, the Gospel and the secular world.

The Gospel not tied to the Church's Ability to Perform Charity

This recent event has demonstrated clearly that indeed the Gospel message cannot possibly be dependent upon our charitable services. The reason is not far to seek. In order for us to provide public charity, we would need the state's approval, if not approval, then permission, and if not permission, than at the very minimum, tolerance. Yet however, a secular state granting churches the approval/permission/tolerance is fundamentally a contingent matter, a matter of prevailing socio-political sentiments.

If the Gospel is truly tied to our ability to perform charity and if our ability to perform charity is fundamentally tied to our ability to "play the political game", that would make the Gospel dependent upon the whims and winds of politics, which would be an intolerable insult to the independence and transcendent validity and power of the Gospel over and above the powers and principalities of this world. To apply this argument to our present example, if Obama insists on going through with his policy, then Catholic hospitals will either be forced to betray their moral conscience if they wish to continue operating in public, thereby ceasing to be Catholic, or they will be forced into closure and retreat from the public sphere of charitable healthcare, thereby they will no longer be able to perform charitable deeds anymore. In fact, such is the dilemma facing Catholic adoption agencies in UK who are being compelled by legislation to permit homosexual couples to adopt, or be forced into closure.

Given that our ability to do charity is essentially tied to the contingencies of worldly power and politics, we cannot possibly believe that the power of our Gospel is save is essentially tied to such worldly contingencies. In fact, this insight should have been evident from Margaret Thatcher's remark that the Good Samaritan didn't only have good intentions, he had money too. Our ability to perform charity is essentially tied to our ability to accumulate economic wealth and power. We cannot feed the starving with good intentions, we need money. But the Church's possession of worldly wealth and resources and political leverage is essentially a contingent matter. Imagine how ridiculous it is to say that we need to accumulate and garner political leverage and/or economic resources for the sake of the Gospel! Next we will be saying that we shall need the power of the sword to enforce the Gospel... oh wait, we have said that before.

The Transcendence of the Gospel

The fact is that the power of the Gospel to save cannot be tied to worldly power and principalities. It is for this reason that St Paul stridently affirms that the preaching of the Gospel is "foolishness", a "stumbling block", that it is for the weak of this world, and the foolish. This is so because it is essentially a preaching of Christ crucified, of Christ who refused worldly power and authority and choose instead the Father's will instead.

The power of the Gospel is, and must be independent of the Church's possession of worldly power and influence. The church does not necessarily need to reject economic and political power outright. We are definitely free to use whatever worldly gifts and blessings which it may please the Lord to grant to the Church for the relief and edification of our worldly needs. But, as the Lutherans would put it, our possession of worldly power must be kept utterly distinct from our possession of spiritual power, the power of the Keys, the authority to forgive and retain sins. The power of the Keys is ours by divine right, and its power is derived solely from the contents and the message of the Gospel itself, and administered via preaching and the sacraments. It's power is not in any way dependent upon our possession of worldly power, whether social, economic or political, which is a contingent matter. The Gospel transcends and triumphs over all these worldly principalities and powers.

This ought to be evident from the church's experience of martyrdom. When the Church is officially persecuted by the state and is deprived of the means of public charity, what, is our Gospel therefore silent and powerless? By God, it absolutely is not! The preaching of Christ's crucified, and his real presence in the sacraments, is still therefore for the Church and still offered to us to save us from sin, the world, the flesh and the devil, and the Gospel's saving power retains all its glorious efficacy even without the embellishments or privileges of charity. For Christ's death by worldly power, and the vindication of his life by the resurrection, is itself a critique and a triumphing over worldly authorities and powers. After all, in the Roman Empire, the central government did give out free dole and charitable grain at the capital so as to increase the population size of the capital. The ability of the imperial government to perform such charitable deeds is a sign of their power, their fatherly magnanity and their political legitimacy. Is the Church to play the same political game of charity provisions with worldly powers and principalities, and be expected to manipulate and juggle the distribution of economic and political power?

On the "Public Neutral Space"

To move on to another observation, it is perhaps ironic that the Catholics should be the most persecuted by the secular world since they, of all parts of Christendom, are amongst the most committed to public reason and civic engagement. After decades of "dialogues" and discussions, after entire forests razed down to fuel academic papers attempting to bridge the Catholic Church and secular culture, the only thing they have to show for it is a secular world judging that Catholics are essentially irrational by the standards of "neutral public reason" and are to be clamped down and circumscribed.

The hope of a publicly accessible "good, true and the beautiful" available to both Christians and non-Christians is rapidly diminishing. Secular culture increasingly is judging the Church to be evil, false and ugly in their various moral stance and beliefs. The idea of a neutral space of public reason, common good, and accessible truth and beauty for all, simply cannot be sustained.

The reason of course for this failure is not far to seek. The Lutheran Church historian, Jaroslav Pelikan, once noted that when St Thomas Aquinas wrote his Summa Contra Gentiles, the ironic thing is that of course there weren't many gentiles left in Christian Europe to argue against. The "reasonings" of St Thomas Aquinas were not based upon neutral reason accessible to all, but upon reasonings and premises of a Christendom formed by inculturation and conversion of Western Europe to the Gospel. Once Christendom collapsed, along with the Christian culture which held the West together, the so-called "neutral reason" and "public space" would inevitably disintegrate with it as well. There is simply no more neutral reasoning or public space which does not refer to explicitly Christian premises, which can be bridged to Christianity. It's us versus them now.

Conclusion

But it is precisely at times of such clear confrontation between opposing forces whereby we must once more take our refuge under the name of Jesus and set forth the Gospel in all its glorious independence, power and transcendence. The Christian Gospel does not require "neutral reason", "public space", the political-economic powers of the world to work salvation. It's power is derived purely from itself, and it is rooted solely upon the action of God in Jesus Christ.

Therefore we must no longer hide behind public space, neutral premises and reasons, as if we were ashamed to confess the name of Christ which is the power of salvation unto everyone who believes, but we must boldly preach Christ and reassert the role of Christiendom is forming and creating Western civilisation, in all its gory particularity so offensive to secular and supposedly "neutral" ears.

A Protestant Ecclesiology; or On Fellowship and What is a church For?

2012-03-01T06:29:00.001-08:00

Also [we] teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.
And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6.

Augsburg Confession, Article VII: Of the Church

Evangelicals in general have no idea what to do with the church. Their iconoclastic attitude towards the doctrine of the church along with their refusal to engage it theologically has merely generated a variety of meaningless platitudes and slogans like, “The church is its people”, or the “universal priesthood of the believers”, etc. But of course when we refuse to think theologically about the church, we do not therefore end up with no doctrine of the church, we simply end up with doctrines of the church which has simply nothing to do with the Protestant tradition. This can especially be observed from the contemporary prattling about the church as a “community”, whereby the visible church suddenly becomes identified by some form of either tribalistic social club or effectively is reduced to a form of charitable organisation. Ecclesiology has become strangely Roman in its sudden empirical visibility.

The Present Confusion

Consider some suggestions as to the role of the church. Is the study and teaching of God’s word the prime function of a church? The problem is that simply we can study and learn about God’s wordanywhere. With a collection of theological texts and an excellent internet connection, one can study God’s word virtually from the comforts of one’s home (think podcast lectures!). What need then to arise on a Sunday morning to go to church to gather knowledge about God’s word?

This of course does not imply that a church does not have the duty to teach God’s word and Christian doctrines; it clearly does. But if teaching is the prime function of the church, we would be buildingseminaries not churches, and we wouldn’t be having sermons, we would have lectures (and podcasts!). Although sadly most sermons nowadays do sound like lectures anyway, and most pastors and preachers have no idea what is the difference between preaching and lecturing.

Is the Church the place of “fellowship” and for making Christian friends, etc? There is of course a sense in which the church is the place of fellowship. After all in Acts 2:41-42, after St Peter preached, the masses who “received his word were baptised... and they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” However, the “fellowship” in this context is located firmly within that of hearing the apostle’s teaching, the celebration of the Lord’s Supper and communal prayers. However, is this “the fellowship” which goes on in most Christian circles nowadays?

A friend of mine made the interesting observation that in most Christian circles, especially the so-called “church fellowship”, what is normally discussed is about worldly activities and trends and happenings, etc. Or they would talk about their past history and so on and so forth. As a first generation Christian, I knew exactly what my friend was referring to, having been around enough churches and their “fellowship” to know that this is largely true. But what is strangely missing and almost never discussed in such “church fellowships” is theology or the Christian faith, the “fellowship” has been divorced from the devotion to the apostles’ teaching. The fundamental question is fellowship in what? When we speak of a Christian fellowship, surely it must be fellowship in holy things, things pertaining to the Christian faith, not fellowship in worldly things and activities. There is of course nothing wrong with worldly friendships in worldly things like football, TV shows or the latest fashions and trends in music or movies, etc. But these do not properly pertain to Christian fellowship. A Christian can have, and even should have, worldly friends as Christ commands (Luke 16:9), and is allowed to partake and even fellowship in worldly activities, but this sort of fellowship must be kept distinct from Christian fellowship. The basis and content of the two types of fellowships are very very different indeed.

But because most Christians do not grasp the difference between the Two Kingdoms, that of God and that of the World, we tend to confuse the two together. “Christian fellowship”, so-called, seeks to supplant and replace worldly fellowship, “Christian fellowship” suddenly is meant to function exactlylike worldly fellowship except with a “Christian veneer” as another friend of mine once puts it. The Church fellowship goes out for bowling, movies, Settler’s, etc, in other words, engages in completely worldly activities, but simply calls it “Christian fellowship”. This is simply nothing more than a very elaborate and frankly dishonest farce and is certainly not the biblical sense of what a Christian fellowship should be.

The Church is not here to replace our worldly friends; it is not the primary function of the Church to provide “alternative friends” to replace worldly friends to do worldly things. I am not saying of course that you can’t do worldly things with Christian friends, but only that there is no link between Christian fellowship in holy things and worldly fellowship in worldly things. You can fellowship in worldly things with worldly friends as well as with Christian friends. But to fellowship in worldly things and then call it Christian fellowship is just misleading at best, a distortion of true Christian fellowship at worse. Think about it, during times of intense persecution when Christians had to meet in catacombs, what, did they cease to have “fellowship” because they can’t do worldly things together anymore, like visit the theatre as a Christian group? Of course not. They maintained their fellowship because it is fundamentally a fellowship in holy things, Christian things. They maintained fellowship by hearing the Apostles’ teaching, celebrating the Lord’s Supper and in praise, prayer and thanksgiving. Fellowship in worldly activities is simply an overlap over and above Christian fellowship in holy things but is in no way the essence of it.

The Reformed and Evangelical Roots of the Confusion of Role of the Church

This simple empirical observation on state of the church is merely poking at the symptoms of a deeper malaise in our Protestant churches. Ultimately these problems which I’ve just highlighted are symptoms of a much deeper theological and dogmatic confusion of the Christian faith, a dogmatic confusion which can be traced to when the Reformed group departed from the Lutherans on the question of how the Word and Sacraments works.

We are not quite sure what the Church is for because we are not quite sure what the Word and Sacraments are for. In almost every Protestant confession or article of faith, the formula that the Church is where the Word is preached and the Sacraments is administered can be found. But if we have no idea what it means to preach the Gospel or what does the sacraments do, then we shall have no idea what the Church is for either.

The problem is the failure to locate the salvation event in our time. Where does salvation happen to us?

The Lutherans have longed noted that upon Calvary salvation was won or acquired, but it was notdistributed there. Upon the Cross salvation was merited for all the world, but it was not given to us there. Salvation must come to us, it must happen to us. The question is how does salvation happen to us? Where is the salvation event in our lives? Or to frame the question differently, upon the Cross, remissions of sins was acquired for the world, but the event of the Cross does not by itself remit the sins of all the world by default. We want to go from “Christ died for the world” to “Christ died for you”. This particularisation of the Calvary event into our individual lives is what is required. Otherwise we would be guilty of the quip of Lionel in the Peanuts comic who says that he loves mankind, it’s just people he can’t stand!

It is here where the Reformed/Evangelical confusion sets in. In neither groups has there ever been anything corresponding to the concept of the External Word as it is found in Lutheran theology. For the Lutherans, the “salvation event” occurs to us in absolution and the administration of the sacraments. Preaching is simply generalised absolution. The preacher receives the authority to proclaim Christ’s salvation, by proclaim, I don’t mean disseminate information about Christ’s salvation, I mean, to put it crudely, do salvation to us. It finds its ultimate expression in absolution, the form of absolution is roughly, “Because of what Christ has done, therefore you are forgiven and absolved ofyour sins.” Absolution, preaching and the administration of sacrament is precisely where “Christ died for the world” becomes “Christ died for you.” It is the giving, granting and offering of salvation to particular hearers. This word of absolution is an External Word, because firstly, the deed done to us isexternal to us. Not on the basis of who we are or what we do but simply upon the Externally preached Word, we are offered, granted and given the remission of our sins. Then upon this external, objective Word whereby remissions of sins is given, we put our trust in this word of absolution, grounded upon the Word of God, and receive the remission offered there, to our salvation and unto everlasting life.

Thus in the Lutheran scheme, God’s gracious saving act, gracious for being based upon himself and his action alone, and not upon our actions or state, is done to us in absolution and sacrament. Then we, through faith, receive this deed to us into us, to our salvation and everlasting life. To repeat, the salvation event is located precisely in the absolution and in the sacraments in the Lutheran scheme, the preaching and the sacraments are precisely the means of grace, the means whereby God offers and gives his grace.

But in the Evangelical/Reformed scheme, no such concept of the External Word exists, there is no such “doing the Word” to us. The salvation event does not happen to us in the preaching or the sacraments, externally or objectively. But when External Word in preaching and the sacraments is no longer the location of the salvation event in our lives, the question becomes, where is it? And it is here where the Evangelical/Reformed scheme fundamentally loses the Gospel.

There have been two extreme solutions to the location of the salvation event in our lives; all Evangelical/Reformed solutions has merely occupied various spectrum on the two extremes. One extreme, or you can call this the “Far Far Away” extreme, is that the salvation event of our lives is located at the Cross. Back two thousand years ago at Calvary outside Jerusalem, there are we saved. But as we noted, the event of Calvary does not by itself imply the salvation of all the world, so how is the event of Calvary to be made “for us”? If it is not by the preaching or the sacraments distributing its benefits to us, bringing it to us, then it must be us trying to go back and revisit the Cross to get salvation there. Thus the many songs in Evangelicalism about “going to the Cross”, performing some mental acrobatics to re-imagine ourselves at the Cross, see ourselves crucifying Christ, etc.

Thus according to this scheme, the “for us” is realised, not by an external objective preaching or sacramental act, but by our own mental efforts at trying to get back to Calvary. The salvation event in our lives is a product of our own mental gymnastics. This is not justification by faith alone, this is justification by imagination. What happen to salvation by the gracious action of God without works, mental or otherwise? This is especially exemplified by the Reformed doctrine concerning the Lord’s Supper. It is not the giving of Christ’s true body and blood to us and into our tongues and into our stomach, which we receive passively in faith, it is an active mental ascend upwards towards heaven in some form of mystical experience communion with Christ’s body and blood “up there”. The Evangelicals do a mental skip to the past, the Reformed does a mental leap into heaven. In both cases, it is wewho are striving and working and trying to acquire salvation by mental gymnastics. The key problem is of course, the salvation event does not happen to us. It is located far far away from us, on Calvary two thousand years ago, or up there in heaven, and we must make the effort to get it for us and for ourselves. When the “for us” is not done by external objective means, then we must do it for ourselves. The Gospel has been completely eviscerated.

It is curious to note how close this extreme of locating the salvation event far far away is to the otherextreme of locating the salvation event so dangerously close to us in our minds and in our hearts. If faith is not understood as passive reception but as an active mental work whether upwards to heaven or backwards in time, and if this active mental work is the determiner of the “for us” in Christ’s work and salvation “for us”, then it is natural to swing to the other extreme and re-locate the salvation event from “Far Far Away”, to “Deep in my heart”, to this mental work. After all, “Christmas isn’t Christmas... till it happens in your heart”. Salvation isn’t salvation for you until it happens in your heart. But what does it mean to speak of salvation “happening in your heart”? Some form of intensified subjectivity, some emotional high, some “conversion experience”, “true faith”, or even, gasp! Sense of assurance, etc. Legion are the “Deep in my heart” salvation event to us and in us.

The problem with these identifications of “Christ died for me”, or our salvation event, with some internal subjective state is that such internal subjective states are nebulous and uncertain. The subjective quality which we are supposed to possess for it to be true that “Christ died for me” is impossible to determine. Contrast these ambiguous and foggy attempts with the unambiguous, clear and objective certainty which the External Word of absolution and the physical tangibility of the sacraments brings. Furthermore, the even greater danger is that our salvation becomes a matter of something which we do, something which we work out in our minds or some exercise of our imaginations or emotions. The gratuity of our salvation, as a gracious act external to us, rooted in God and not based on something inside us or what we do, is utterly lost in this “Deep in my heart” scheme.

To summarise, just as in the incarnation, neither is the humanity and divinity of Christ to be divided or to be confused, so likewise in our salvation, the external objective reality of our salvation event must not be divided or confused with the subjective appropriation of the same. And it is precisely the Lutheran’s “External Word” which keeps this delicate balance between the two. The extra nos, outside of us, and the pro nobis, for us, aspect of our salvation must be kept in hypostatic union, never to be divided or confused. The salvation event is located squared in the event of the External Word proclaimed. In the proclamation of the Word, whether through preaching/absolution or by sacrament, our salvation’s externality is preserved, it is the external word by which we are pronounced forgiven or saved unto everlasting life, whether it be the word of absolution or preaching or the words of the sacraments, “This is my blood which is shed for you and for many, for the remissions of sins”. The wine is an external objective reality, there is the blood of Christ truly given to you and for you for the remission of your sins, it is real blood, it is objective and it is certain, as certain as you can taste, smell and touch the wine with your lips and with your tongue. It is not based on your subjective state, actions or being. It is therefore, really, externally, objectively, for you. But this external giving of our salvation is inseparably united with our internal reception of the salvation offered there through our faith. For Lutherans, faith is not some mental work or gymnastics; it is simply that passive receptivity and reliance on the salvation which is being done to us by Word and Sacrament. Luther can even speak of suffering the Word to be done to us. As long as we do not receive the sacraments or Word in wilful disbelief or rejection, the salvation offered there is ours by default and by virtue of the promise and the power of the Word.

Thus in the External Word proclaimed is united the events two thousand years ago, the Cross and the Empty Tomb, and the present distribution of our salvation in us here and now. But when the salvation event is not located at the External Word which alone joins the past and the present, the inevitable result is the identification of our salvation event “Far Far Away”, back to the past or up in the heavens, which we have to make an effort to go back, or fly up, or the salvation event is relocated to “Deep in my heart” and become lost in the chasm of the darkness of our infinite subjectivity.

Seminaries or Spiritual Raves?

This long detour into the history of conflicting Protestant sacramentology is necessary in order to understand the present confusion about the role and place of the Church. If with respect to the "Far Far Away" view of salvation, the salvation event is simply identified either "back there" or "up there", then our salvation is simply a transcendent and eternally true fact or proposition. There is no need for it to "happen" to us here and now in historic time. All we need to do is to grasp the fact of our salvation as it has happened in the past or in the heavens. "Preaching" is therefore deducing and spelling out the implications or meaning of this fact. The Church is simply a seminary.To coming to a saving knowledge is, quite literally, to accumulate knowledge about God and Jesus Christ.

The problems with this views are virtually self-evident. Knowledge once grasped is retained. There is simply no point going back to a seminary to learn again truths which one already knows. To wake up early in the morning to be reminded of what one already knows is pointless. Therefore, the Church likewise ends up to be redundant.

On the otherhand if the salvation event is located, "Deep inside our hearts", then salvation is essentially about emotional manipulation and drug-induced spiritual highs. Churches are essentially concerts or raves which are meant to induce precisely such an experiences, that is what it means to be "saved", to "experience" God. The reductionism of our salvation event to a mere experiential high is needless to say, utterly pagan and has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity.

Church as Location of Kergyma

In the light of these considerations it is easy to see why in Protestantism there is much confusion about the Church. We simply do not know what it is for. Generally conservative churches would tend towards the "seminary" view, generally more contemporary churches would tend towards the "rave" view. More disturbingly, some Evangelicals are started to develop various utopian views of the Church as the location of an ethically ostentious community, making visible the love of the invisible God via their charity and good works. They might as well just become Roman Catholic.

Only something like a Lutheran understanding of the External Word whereby the proper role and function of the Church can be preserved. In Protestantism, the Church is in its essence, kergymatic, or "Proclamation". It is the place where the Word of the Gospel is proclaimed, and works upon its hearers unto salvation. This must be understood rightly, it is not a seminary view whereby "Proclamation" simply means a dissemination of information or eternal true facts. The proclamationitself works salvation. The easiest way to think of this is simply absolution. Absolution is not merely the declaration of an already known fact, the pronouncement of absolution itself remits sins and grants eternal life. Preaching is therefore simply generalised absolution applied to many people at once. It is on par to the making of a promise. When one makes a promise, one is not simply informing the other party of a fact he or she already knows, the very making of the promise, the speech act itself, creates a new relationship. Likewise is it for preaching, absolution and the sacraments, the very distribution of remissions of sins, and therefore life and salvation, in those events works salvation.

The congregation so gathered around the Word proclaimed is the creature of the Kergyma. The congregation is the Church only in so far as they hear and receive the Gospel proclaimed in Word and Sacrament. But the congregation does not itself become a part of the Gospel message proclaimed, they are merely passive receivers of the Gospel salvation. To somehow make the congregation an extension of the incarnation, where God's love is somehow made visible by our works, is to fall into the Roman error. Christ himself is the sole revealer of God, and he is present solely in the Word preached and the sacraments administered. This is why in Protestantism, the Church is simply the assembly of saints where the Gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administer. It is simply the people who has been sanctified, saved and forgiven by the voice of the Gospel in as preached in the Word and administered by the Sacraments.

Conclusion

Is there therefore a necessity for the Church? Most certainly. The Church is God's appointed instrument through the power of the Holy Ghost to do salvation to people through his Gospel purely preached and his sacraments rightly administered. This is the proper work of the Church. Everything else, worldly fellowship, charity, etc, are merely secondary. Whilst worldly fellowship must be formed and good works and charity must be done, but they are not a necessary part of the Church as the Church. They can be done in any other worldly context, either as individuals, families, as part of a private charitable organisation or government organisation. But it such activities takes place in the context of a church organisation, then that is simply a matter coincidence or convenience, but it does not belong to the Church as a church and is not the proper role of the Church per se.

On Sanctification and Daily Renewal

2012-03-01T06:28:00.001-08:00

SANCTIFICATION, IF IT IS TO BE SPOKEN OF AS SOMETHING other than justification is perhaps best defined as the art of getting used to the unconditional justification wrought by the grace of God for Jesus’ sake. It is what happens when we are grasped by the fact that God alone justifies. It is being made holy, and as such, it is not our work. It is the work of the Spirit who is called Holy. The fact that it is not our work puts the old Adam/Eve (our old self) to death and calls forth a new being in Christ. It is being saved from the sickness unto death and being called to new life.

Gerhard Forde, “The Lutheran View of Sanctification”

I rarely ever talk about sanctification and good works; I think I’ve only written one note on that topic and that was right after reading Gerhard Forde’s masterpiece. I once quoted on facebook a remark often misattributed to Mark Twain, “Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.” And it was interesting to observe that a Christian friend of mine thought that I was complaining that people like to talk about good works but not do anything about it. He was not aware of the double layered sarcasm contained in the remark. On the surface of course it seems to be complaining about people all talk but no action, but the second layer is that we can’t actually do anything about the weather and it is pointless to complain about no one not doing anything about it!

Likewise I believe that we can’t actually do anything about sanctification or attempting perfection. Thus I approach the topic of Christian sanctification with some apprehension, lest I too be guilty of complaining that no one does anything about the weather. Forde once remarked that he has a shirt with two slogans on it. On the front is printed, “Beware, this man has no ecclesiology”, on the back, “Weak on sanctification”. But if I were to have a shirt on sanctification, it would read, “Warning! This man never progresses in sanctification!”

But before I begin, it would perhaps be instructive to review sanctification as it is understood in Reformed/Evangelical circles before moving on to the Protestant/Lutheran understanding of sanctification.

Progression in Sanctification?

It would be instructive to begin by quoting the Singapore Methodist Church Article of Religion on sanctification,

Article XXVI - Of Sanctification
Sanctification is that renewal of our fallen nature by the Holy Ghost, received through faith in Jesus Christ, whose blood of atonement cleanseth from all sin; whereby we are not only delivered from the guilt of sin, but are washed from its pollution, saved from its power, and are enabled, through grace, to love God with all our hearts and to walk in his holy commandmentsblameless.

Blameless? Yes, that was the first thing that came to mind. One cannot help gasping, blameless?! One might wonder indeed about those who are unable to “walk in his holy commandments blameless”, are we to infer that they are therefore not “delivered from the guilt of sin... washed from [sin’s] pollution, saved from its power”? It is depressing to speculate how many consciences have been brought into agony, and how many Christians have fallen away, because they judge themselves “untrue” Christians, unatoned by Christ’s blood, for not being able to fulfil this frankly dangerously false conception of the Christian life.

Of course we may judge this Methodist Article is be unrepresentative of the Reformed and Evangelical faith and a mere oddity, to which then we shall have to probe deeper into the root system or concepts which gave rise to such a frankly utopian view of the Christian life. And we need look no further than the Reformed Westminster Larger Catechism in the part about how justification and sanctification differ, “[sanctification] is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up toperfection.” Whilst certainly a marked improvement from the Methodist false conception of a “blameless” walking in holiness, in that they note that sanctification is not “in this life perfect in any”, but one cannot help wondering whether this is merely a difference in degree than in any fundamental sense.

The problem is simply with the conception of perfection. There is of course an entirely biblical “perfection”, in the sense of whole, complete and holy. We speak of the ways of the Lord being perfect, his perfect will, etc. There is a legitimate place for the concept of “perfection”. But unfortunately, it is not the Bible but Aristotle who is guiding our conceptions of perfection. This can be seen in their idea of “growing up to perfection”. The image of the Christian life is cast not in the mould of the Scriptures but in the mould of Aristotle’s philosophy. Christian perfection is identified with Aristotelian “flourishing” or eudaimonia. The image is that of a plant or an organism, who needs “virtues” or what is “good for it”, to grow and flourish into a fully grown plant, and once the organism has reached its teleological goal, it is “perfected”.

Thus, the Christian life is cast in such teleological terms, there is a form of “perfection” towards which we are supposed to “grow into”, sanctification is the process whereby we “grow” virtues and kill vices, and this “growth” into full flourishing is an empirically discernible process. Thus, whilst most Evangelicals and Reformed groups may reject the Methodist “blameless” walking in holiness, but the concept of a “progress” in Christian sanctification stubbornly remains. We can actually narrate our Christian lives as a progress in sanctification. Whatever the anti-Catholic rhetoric of these groups concerning frivolous externals, they haven’t quite shaken off the Catholic Thomistic-Aristotelian theological synthesis, as the Lutheran theologian Hermann Sasse once remarked concerning the many Catholic thought structures which can still be found in Reformed systems, great indeed is the power of tradition!

There is of course a very serious theological problem with such a conception of the Christian life. But before we articulate that at length, we can just make a very simple empirical objection. It just isn’t true! We simply do not observe such a growth in sanctification in the lives of any of the saints or patriarchs of the Old Testament. Abraham commits the same sin of lying about his wife again and again and despite being the Father of Faith, loses faith in God’s promise and conceives a child with Hagar. Moses did signs and wonders by the mighty arm of God, but even he lost his nerve with the Israelites and stuck the rock with his staff, which caused him to be banned from ever settling foot in the promise land. David was exalted with the highest praise of being a man after God’s heart, but what a fall indeed when he committed both wicked adultery and murder on Bathsheba’s account. And after writing that moving penitent Psalm 51 you thought that he would grow on, he sinned again by taking a census which the Lord had forbidden. And if the seemingly never ending cycles of sin and repentance of the Hebrews are not enough, St Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, ought to be our model of a “stagnation in sanctification”. First he confesses Christ as the Messiah, then he denies him three times, then after being dramatically restored to his Apostleship, he sinned again by refusing table fellowship with the Gentiles.

When the Christian life is cast in terms of progress in sanctification, the result is inevitably either Pharisaical hypocrisy, or simply antinomian despair. The first justifies one’s state as a Christian by some completely arbitrary empirical markers of our “growth in sanctification”, which more often than not are merely shibboleths and standards invented by our tribe (the justify oneself by their own invented works). The second, who is more honest, knows that his Christian life is not “progressing” but if anything, becoming harder and “regressing”, and despairs instead of ever being able to live the Christian life and so either falls away or starts attacking those arbitrary empirical markers which are just too hard, along with other legitimate commands of God.

On the Schism Between Justification and Sanctification

Whilst the previously noted empirical objection, along with the disastrous pastoral implications, should be more than enough, but we shall need a deeper theological diagnosis of the problem which is firmly rooted in the Scriptures (instead of Aristotle!) to locate the source of the problem. The problem is simply that of the split between justification and sanctification.

Whilst the Roman Catholics have merely collapsed justification into sanctification, i.e. making our remissions of sins and our reconciliation to God dependent upon our progress or growth in holiness, the Reformed and Evangelical have maintain both justification and sanctification, in theory at least. Yes, they would affirm that we are forgiven and reconciled to God by faith alone without works, etc. But this affirmation becomes a mere verbal preface from which we hurry on towards the real focus of our Christian life, sanctification and growing to perfection! Justification recedes rapidly into the background into a mere doctrinal or theoretical background, to be parroted as a test of Protestant orthodoxy, but otherwise to be quickly forgotten in favour of sanctification. Justification has been overshadowed by sanctification; justification ceases to be a living force in the Christian life.

As long as the Thomistic-Aristotelian form of sanctification remains, as long as we understand the Christian life in teleological terms, ad modum Aristotle, instead of in eschatological terms, ad modumScripture, justification by faith alone shall always be swallowed up by sanctification, and the comfort of the Gospel shall be quickly forgotten. What we need is a concept of the Christian life which is oriented around justification by faith alone, its narrative life framed by the eschatological invasion of God’s action in our personal narrative histories, a conception formed by the Scriptures and not by the philosophers. In other words, we need to collapse sanctification into justification by faith alone.

First, we must grasp the totality of justification by faith alone. When God justifies the ungodly, he imputes Christ’s righteousness unto us, as a whole. This righteousness is complete and perfect, and it remits all our sins and covers them before God. This righteousness is receive through faith alone, complete and entire. Because it is received from outside of us, it is also known as alien or forensicrighteousness; it is a righteousness which is derived from and has its source, not in anything within us, but it is from outside of us, rooted not in our own works, but in God’s gracious action from beyond us, particularly in baptism whereby this complete righteousness is given to us.

This alien righteousness which is given unto us is the basis upon which our sins are forgiven. This is why Luther reports that whenever the devil accuses his conscience, he replies, “I am baptized!” But yet, what about the remaining flesh and sinful nature within us? We must thread here very carefully lest we let Aristotle back into our Christian faith.

As Luther would put it, “For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.” With the alien righteousness of Christ given to us in our baptism, comes also our new life in the spirit and lived in innocency after God’s holy commandments, this new life is born of Water and of the Holy Spirit. However this new life after the spirit is now joined in battle after the old life after the flesh. The two exist in the state perfect and complete opposition. This is the simul iustus et peccator of Luther. As the Anglican theologian Peter Toon explains succintly,

While on earth, the position of the Christian does not change. He is totally righteous through faith, and he remains always and completely a sinner. With reference to Christ he is righteous; but with reference to his fallen nature he is sinful. Yet this apparent contradiction does not imply a static situation. The very faith that draws Christ into the heart and creates the new nature gladly and freely allows Christ to do battle against the old, sinful nature (= “the flesh”). The result of this spiritual conflict (described by St. Paul in Romans 7, 8) should be that “Christ is constantly formed in us and we are formed according to his own image.” Each and every day faith is to grasp anew the word of promise which is the gospel and appropriate Christ, who is our righteousness. Further, each and every day sin, the devil and temptation must be fought. Yet despite all the daily battles, the old nature remains with us until death. There is no escape from it, nor from the possibility of sin. So Luther has no doctrine of progressive holiness or growth in sanctification (as these terms were later used). The flesh or old nature does not change; rather, Christ (or really the new nature) grows within the believer. Justification includes the daily renewal of the new nature. The believer can never say he is less sinful than he was at any earlier time!

Thus, in place of “growth in sanctification”, we simply have daily renewal. In place of a linear progression towards a teleological goal, we have an oscillating cycle between the old nature and the new nature in Christ. A life of repentance is simply a life whereby every day or even at every moment, we turn from the sin which arises from our old flesh, whether it be in lust, word or deed, and we turnto the perfect alien righteousness of Christ given to us in our baptism, or affirmed in us by the absolution and the Lord’s Supper, whereby such sin is pardoned and cleansed, and we go back again to the world to live. Wash, rinse, repeat. Literally. To be “sanctified”, is simply to hear the pardoning voice of the Gospel for each of our particular sins, over and over again, as often as it is committed, and it is simply to receive new grace for holy living from Gospel administered by Word and Sacrament again and again, as often as it is needed. Thus, it is not something we “do”; sanctification is something which is “done to us”, by God in absolving us and feeding us the Gospel. Sanctification, as Forde says, is simply getting used to justification, getting used to having our sins remitted, and our new man renewed.

Of course, the length of this cycle differs from individual to individual. Some may fall into sin and abandon the faith for days and weeks at length before returning and remaining in it for days and weeks, before falling again for an extended period, it could even be years, or it could be merely for a few days, or even for a few hours. Or a mixture of all of the above. The point is simply the cyclicalnature of the Christian life, moving to and fro from the complete righteous life given in Christ and the life of the old flesh in Adam.

But does the Christian literally have nothing to look forward to? No visible change to anticipate or to hope for? Is he perpetually to be “trapped” in this endless cycle? The answer is two-fold: As far as this life is concerned, now, there is really “nothing” to look forward to. Everything which you have is already given in baptism. Christ alien and complete righteousness and new life in holiness is given in perfection there. We need only appropriate it again every time we fall into sin. Luther speaks of this as the “return to baptism”. We are holy tomorrow, by being holy today, by returning to the Gospel in the present. The Gospel promise is available each day, and must be grasped anew each day, His mercies are new every morning. We cannot live today base upon yesterday’s grace, we must grasp it anew each day by turning back to baptism today. Thus, we don’t look forward, we look back, back to baptism, and from baptism, back to the Cross and the Empty Tomb. This “looking back” or memorial is also a part of the Lord’s Supper, which benefits are brought forward into the present in the bread and the wine.

Yet the cycle is not endless. There is as a matter of fact something to look forward to: our deaths. When after this vile body has fallen into corruption, we are set free at last from this body of death and sin and are resurrected unto new and everlasting life, into perfect and complete righteousness. Luther emphasizes throughout his writings that in baptism is contained the sign and the reality signified. The sign, the washing in water, is quickly over after the baptismal event, but the reality signified by baptism and granted by the washing, the death of our old self and the rising of the new spiritual man, is something which continues all our lives and finds its fulfillment and completion at the resurrection. This we can observe from this passage in his treatise on baptism,

...you give yourself up to the sacrament of baptism and what it signifies, i. e., you desire to die, together with your sins, and to be made new at the Last Day, as the sacrament declares, and as has been said. This God accepts at your hands, and grants you baptism, and from that hour begins to make you a new man, pours into you His grace and Holy Spirit, Who begins to slay nature and sin, and to prepare you for death and the resurrection at the Last Day.

Thus to summarise this section, philosophies and worldly religions have teleologies, a creaturely striving towards perfection, it is fundamentally a movement upwards, an ascend into divinity. But the Christian faith has an eschatology, not our movement upwards or progress towards holiness, but thedescend of God towards us. In the Christian faith, salvation history is not a narration of how man progresses, but how God continually invades into your lives and space-time history to deliver us, save us and forgive us; the incarnation being the fulfillment and climax of God's complete invasion into our space-time world. God is the central actor, not us. If this is true for salvation history, this must also be true for our own lives. It cannot be a narration of how we "progress" and grow to perfection, it must be a narration of how God again and again invades our fallen lives to raise us everytime we fall, it must be a tale of God's constant and continual restoration of us in Word and Sacrament, a tale of the persistent justifying voice of God who ceaselessly and eager awaits our return to him everytime we sin and fall, that he might pronounce his gracious absolution and justification unto righteousness.

Grow in Grace?

Even though sanctification is simply nothing more than the continual renewal of Christ's justification and reception of pardon there, not our growth towards perfection, accumulation of virtues or good works or whatever, Gerhard Forde does also speak of a growth in grace. Now we must be very very careful lest here we let Aristotle into the backdoor, for he is always lurking nearby given his long familiarity with Western Christianity.

The best way we can understand this "growth in grace" is to look back to Forde succint statement about sanctification, it is the art of getting used to justification. It is not that we become holier or mightier, it is a growth precisely in grace, a growth in being more and more dependent upon God's gracious forgiving action in Word and Sacrament, growing more and more used to being constantly forgiven by God, constantly receiving spiritual food for our new man through the Eucharist. It is reduction in being dependent upon ourselves, less and less trusting in our own works, our own efforts in trying to be holy and build up our Christian life. It is a diminishment of our attempts to strive towards man-made goals, and simply becoming more dependent on being forgiven and justified by God.

Whilst in our world, it is considered a mark of maturity to "become independent" and "depend only on yourself", but not so for the Christian faith. In the Christian faith, depending on yourself is denying God as giver and preserver of all. In the Christian faith, learning to depend less on ourselves and more on God is the mark of Christian maturity, a true growth in grace.

After all, in the First Commandment is declared, we shall have no other gods before the Lord. We are commanded, it is our holy work and duty, to seek no other gods, no other refuge, no other source of goods, help or life, than from the Lord. And when we call upon the Lord to help us and save us, we are fulfilling our duty to the first commandment and glorifying God by calling upon him. As Philip Melanchthon puts it beautifully in his Apology for the Augsburg Confession,

Ps. 50:13,15, which rejects the victims and requires prayer... "Will I eat the flesh of bulls? etc. Call upon Me in the day of trouble; I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me." The Psalmist testifies that this is true service, that this is true honor, if we call upon Him from the heart.

Thus, our true service, our true honouring of God, our true "work of sanctification", is simply to call upon God, to simply return back to God and plead his forgiveness, life and salvation. And in so doing we glorify him and do honour to his name. The more dependent we are upon hearing God's justifying voice, the greater our growth in grace, and the greater our "sanctification". Once more, not a movement of us towards a goal, but the movement of the goal towards us, it is simply the invasion of God's justifying and forgiving grace more and more into our lives. Eschatology, not teleology! Therefore those preachers and Christians who sneer at "nominal Christians" who only call upon God when they are in trouble and yet don't serve God at any other time are to be harshly condemned. The problem with these so-called "nominal Christians" is not that they don't do good works and only call on God when they are in trouble, the problem is that they don't call upon God all the time!

Conclusion

I think this note has grown too long, but all in all, if justification by faith alone is to take its rightful place in the Christian's life, sanctification must be reoriented, Aristotle banished from our theology, and God's glorious justifying grace declaring the remission of our sins must take centre stage in our lives at every day and at every moment, that in all times, especially when we sin, God might receive the glory for our forgiveness, for the establishment of our life in faith, and God be the sole actor in our lives.

Predestination according to “Simul Iustus Et Peccator”: Transcending St Augustine’s Framing of the Question

2012-03-01T06:27:00.001-08:00

St Augustine and Predestination

It is interesting to observe that it was in the context of St Augustine’s polemics against Pelagius whereby the doctrine of Predestination received it’s most extensively and systematic development. This would have enormous repercussions upon Western Christendom discussions on salvation and has ever since determined the terms upon which the doctrine of Predestination has been discussed.

It is also interesting to observe that the discussions on predestination are largely restricted in the West. Amongst the Eastern Orthodox, the concept is virtually unknown and rarely discussed, which just goes to show how large and dominant a role St Augustine (whose theology is largely ignored in the East) has upon the concept of predestination. But that also unfortunately means that it is his system which has defined the terms of the concepts, whether it is in support of him or in rejection of him.

There is no point trying to be iconoclastic for the sake of it, nor do I reject the fathers like a rebellious teenager. However, whilst we may laud St Augustine rigorous defence of the necessity and totality of God’s gracious action in our salvation, it is legitimate to wonder whether he has not invoked the wrong doctrine to go about it, i.e. the doctrine of predestination.

A major problem with this theological approach is simply that Christ is side lined in our work of salvation. Predestination is not a purely Christian concept, stoics, Muslims and Greek philosophers have speculated about the absoluteness of divine action and the helplessness of human agency, however, the framing of such speculations have been always made without reference to Christ. God from the heavens and from all eternity decrees the salvation of the elect, and Christ is roped in as a mere after thought to get it done. The focus of salvation has shifted from Christ, as a concrete, historical, incarnate man, towards some mysterious divine decree in the heavens, with Christ as a mere historic ornament after an eternal fact. Saying that this decree is a mutual decision between the Holy Trinity does not help as well, for the essential historic humanity of Christ in our salvation in real time will still be side lined and our salvation becomes strangely docetic.

We shall therefore need to reorient our discussions and understanding of predestination, from speculations about eternity and time, about foreknowledge and freewill, etc, from these essentially philosophical concepts, towards placing the incarnate and concrete Christ, who acts in real historic time, in the centre of predestination. In other words, a thoroughly Christological understanding of predestination is needed, if we are to deliver predestination from St Augustine’s legacy and restore it in line with our Christian faith and the Scriptures.

To that end, I believe that Luther’s “simul iustus et peccator” or a person being at the same time just and sinner idea will be of enormous help in reorienting our understanding of predestination towards Christ. This understanding was somewhat developed further in the Lutheran Confessions about predestination, but yet even they ended up in paradoxes because they could not quite free themselves from St Augustine’s legacy. This note will sketch out how a consistently developed “simul iustus et peccator” understanding of predestination will provide a way out of St Augustine legacy and help us read the Scriptures with more completeness and consistency.

At the Same Time, Predestined and Reprobate

Let me first throw out a rather abstract and loaded thesis first, before going on to explain it.

The Christian is at the same time predestined unto salvation and reprobated unto damnation. The new spiritual man in us, born of Water and of the Holy Ghost, being clothed in Christ’s perfect righteousness, thoroughly cleansed in his blood, and blessed with every spiritual blessing and holiness of his life, that person is predestined for salvation. The old Adam in the flesh in us, born of dust, alienated from Christ, being utterly and perfectly sinful, containing in itself all the blasphemies and works of damnation and the damned angels, has been marked for destruction from eternity with the devil and all his angels, which fires was prepared before the foundations of the world.

No doubt you are going, what?! What the heck am I saying?! How can we be predestined for salvation and reprobated unto damnation at the same time? Well, as a side line, the Catholics also found the simul iustus et peccator, being justified and sinners at the same time, also to be utterly paradoxical and outrageous.

But the explanation is very simple. We cannot take the simul iustus et peccator of our salvation seriously if we do not take our death and resurrection seriously. In most of our theological systems, there is no real dying in our salvation. Underneath our theological anthropology, the continuous subject, the “me” between the old Adam and New Adam, survives God’s act upon us. This “me” is where we “truly are”, which gets to exercise freewill and choose, or whom God has elected (or damned!). But this person is untouched by death and resurrection, he chooses, or is chosen, without regard to Christ’s act and action on us; Christ is merely added on to this continuous subject after the fact, there is no fundamental disruption to our person, no split in who we are, no death of the old and raising of the new.

But if we are to take Romans 6 seriously, you have died with Christ. Who has died? What has died? The person of sin, the faithless man, the man apart from Christ, the person who rejects and blasphemes against the God and his Son, the source and doer of all evil in ourselves, that person has been crucified, he is dead, that person has been from all eternity been reprobated unto damnation, whereby baptism is simply the bringing forward of the sentence of death of the old man of flesh into the present. He has been put to death, he can’t do any choosing, or change his election unto damnation, he is simply crucified, and his sentence of reprobation and death is brought forward. Who has been raised with Christ in the spirit? The new man in Christ, born of the Holy Spirit, clothed with his righteousness, united to his resurrection and his new and risen life. That man is perfect in holiness, and baptism is the seal, the promise of his revealing at the General Resurrection, prepared before the foundation of the world. He also doesn’t do any choosing, his faith is in God’s promise, his obedience to God's commands, and nothing will ever change his election unto salvation, he is simply raised by the power of God in union with Christ, our rising in the spirit is simply brought forward.

There is no continuous subject who survives the death and resurrection of baptism in Christ. The distinction between the two men is an absolute distinction, perfectly opposed and warring with almost infinite intensity until the day of our death or the return of Christ. But there is no “you” in between the two, no continuous subject which survives the eschatological split, and who gets to transcend the battle between the spirit and the flesh, to be the “chooser” of the two (Arminian), or the “elect” over and above the two (Calvinist). The new spiritual man is elect, the old fleshy man is reprobate, and never shall the twain be mixed.

Here is another way of looking at it: Who is the reprobate? Who is the one who is damned? The person who rejects Christ and God’s will in him. Who is this person? The fleshy old Adam in all of us is precisely such a person. Every day and every moment, the old fleshy Adam in us under the devil’s control is constantly and perpetually denying and rejecting Christ and resisting God’s commands, we hear his thoughts, we feel his lusts, and sometimes even do his deeds. But though for the unbelievers, they have only the old Adam, but for the believers, the strong man has invaded the house, the Holy Spirit has stormed into our flesh, the devil quakes and the flesh trembles before this consuming fire who pronounces his sentence upon the flesh and the devil, and grafts the former unto the Christ’s crucified flesh. And the Holy Ghost gives birth into us a new spirit, fashioned after the likeness of Christ, partaking of his resurrection, now the devil’s voice and the flesh lusts is pitted against the Holy Ghost’s voice and the spirit’s desire, the devil no longer gets a solo performance, but now is forced into a whisper against the authoritative commands and promises of the spirit. With fleshly lust is now pitted against holy abhorrence of sin, and sometimes we even act out the desires of the spirit! And who is the one who is predestined? Who is the one who is saved? The person who believes and obey God’s will of course. And who is this person? The new spiritual man in us is precisely such a person.

Perhaps the first reaction will be, what? You mean I don’t have to do any good works or even believe? The spiritual man in us will simply be saved? But to paraphrase the Lutheran theologian Robert Kolb, whenever one encounters such a question, we have to reply, “Who’s asking?” Is it the old Adam of flesh who wants to and intends to sin and is simply looking for an excuse? Kill it with fire! Or in our case, put it to death with the Law! Our answer must be, of course not! You must do good works and must believe! If you separate yourself from your spiritual self, you sure as hell (literally!) won’t survive! The Law and Judgement of God will damn you if you persist with your evil intent! But if the person asking is already despairing under the judgement of the Law, and is seeking desperately for God and his love, then that is the new spiritual man speaking who desires the things of Christ and is being oppressed by the devil’s accusation, then feed him with the Gospel! Our answer should be, of course! You are already saved and fully accepted by Christ without any good works, here, let me absolve you and/or feed you with Christ’s body and blood that his life maybe yours and the sin and the devil in your may be killed and driven away, and you shall live with him in eternity.

But ARE we Saved?!

No doubt this seems to turn us Christians into schizophrenics, but then again, we just got killed and risen, a little of bit of split personality is perfectly understandable. But one might complain, but this is just as abstract as the former idea of predestination! Although spiritually there is a distinction between the two persons, but before our earthly eyes we do sort of see a united subject, one person. Besides, how would such a schizophrenic understanding of predestination make sense of the Final Judgement? Surely we won't split into two people and then one shall be thrown into hell and the other enter heaven?

That is a legitimate objection. Ultimately, only one unified subject shall stand before the judgement, and the question of which "person" shall prevail is a valid one. However, it is always dangerous to speculate on what God has not explicitly revealed, and the further away we move from the concrete proclamation and preaching of Law and Gospel in time, and further higher and higher and higher into transcendence, the riskier and more dangerous the enterprise. But yet, perhaps, just perhaps, this passage might help us,

According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

1 Corinthians 3:10-15

Who we are, as formed by our works and our lives, will be tested by fire, and if that work has as its foundation in Jesus Christ, then he will receive a reward, but if that work is outside of Christ, outside of faith in Christ, then it will be burned up, the person will "suffer loss", but yet "he himself will be saved, but only as through fire".

What does this mean? Given the two spiritual persons which resides in us, the Old Adam and the New Man, how the conflict between the two enter into our personal narrative history is naturally a contingent and relative question, after all, we are simul iustus et peccator, sometimes we act and live according to one, sometimes we act and live in accordance to the other, the cycles of oscillation between the new man and the old man could be a minute, a day, a week, even years. But in the course of our lives, those parts of our lives which are acts of the spiritual being, by definition having its foundation in Christ because they are acts of faith in Christ, would survive the test by fire, on the other hand, those parts of our lives, which are acts of the old Adam, and by definition outside of Christ, would be burned up. After all, what part can those parts of our lives which are lived in sin, and contrary to the will of God, have in communion with God? None at all, so they will be definitely burned up and consumed by judgement. This corresponds exactly to what we say about the New Adam being predestined unto salvation, and the Old Adam reprobated unto damnation.

Thus, this account will remove death as the sort of special "finish line" or determiner of whether one is saved or not. Yes, "the one who endures to the end will be saved", but the problem is that most people tend to make the utterly unwarranted inference that the one who does not will not be saved. What is certain, and what is the promise of Christ here, is that the one who endures to the end will be saved, but what Christ did not say is that the one who does not endure to the end will be damned, and so we must not put words into Christ's mouth.

But doesn't this sort of imply that as long as we "accumulate" an amount of living after the New Man, then we can go on our merry way to indulge on the Old Adam, confident that the New Man lived previously shall be resurrected and raised to everlasting life?

First, to ask such a question is to imply that there is actually a sort of mathematical formula to calculate how much of our lives can be lived in holiness in order to qualify for the resurrection to eternal life. But such a formula is ridiculous, there is no such magic figure to determine, so the question is practically meaningless. But it maybe objected that well, as long as there has been a part of our lives lived in faith, then we shall be some part of us which shall be saved right?

Here is where we must draw the eschatological line and not transgress it. We go back to what has been mentioned before, who's asking? Such questions are posed in time and by live persons whom we are confronted with in real space-time. If the poser of the question of the life in faith will be saved is asking with the intent to sin and to engage in wanton living, then we must apply the law to such a person and say one can shipwreck their faith and that the person who lives in denial of the faith which they have enjoyed before is threatened with damnation. But if the poser of the question is asking fearful of their salvation and suffering under the devil's accusations, then we must apply the Gospel and say of course, the live in faith will be saved, have absolutely no doubt about that for the promise of God is infallible.

Thus once more, I have to reiterate a principle which I've formulated before, "We are not saved by making deductions about the state of our soul from a criteria list; we are saved by receiving and hearing the forgiving voice of Christ to us in Word and Sacrament. To run through the criteria list to judge our salvation, is to confuse Law and Gospel." Thus, there exists no such criteria by which we can "measure" how much of our lives lived in holiness will qualify for salvation, and how much of our lives lived in unholiness will damn us. To ask such questions, is to descend into making our salvation dependent on our works and our living instead of God's forgiving action in Word and Sacrament, confusing Law and Gospel, which we must utterly utterly refuse to do. For the fearful who seeks God's grace and love, apply the Gospel, to the impenitent and wilful sinner, apply the Law.

That's well and good from a subjective point of view, from a first-person to second person, proclaimer-receiver relation. But from an objective point of view, if we see a person who has believed, and then lost his or her faith through sin or apostasy and died in that state, what are we to make of such a situation? How are we to judge the state of such a person's soul? My answer is, we don't. Again, we do not transgress the eschatological line. We do not ever judge the state of the souls of others. To reiterate what I wrote before,

We are only answerable to our own standing before the judgement seat, and we know that our only possible answer to the judgement is Christ’s promises given to us in the Gospel, which we appropriate through faith by the means of grace, the Word and Sacraments, speaks to us as individuals, to pledge his love to us. But God’s speaking to others, that is for others to hear and to receive, not for us to know, judge or pry into. In other words, that’s simply between him and God...
...We never presume to judge the state of the souls of others. Assurance is an individual matter, between the Gospel’s voice and me. And when I listen to the Christ voice speaking in Word and Sacrament to me in faith, I receive his promise and assurance of grace. But when I cast my eyes upon others, I dare not pry into their souls, and so my only attitude towards them is prayer and faith in God’s desire to redeem them.

Thus, we uphold both the Law and Gospel, the simul iustus et peccator and the Old Adam and New Man. When we see such a person, who believed but died as apostates, we do not presume to judge such a person's soul, trying to formulate some criteria to say whether such a person is saved or not (such an objective criteria does not exist), we simply say, we know that the promise which God has given for the person's election to salvation is true, but we also know that the threatening of God touching on that person's sin, especially apostasy, is also true, that in the former, his New Man is elected unto salvation, in the Latter, the Old Man is reprobated unto damnation, but when the fires of testing comes, will there be anything left? We do not dare to judge, instead, we pray for this person and commend this person unto the mercies of God, confident and hopeful in the God who desires all to be saved and none to perish, and that the promises which God has made to this person will be good. But as I wrote before,

If we dare not pronounce upon the damnation of anyone, neither do we dare to pronounce upon their salvation either. Our faith in Christ’s desire and power to save is a faith grasped in hope, but it is not one grasped in knowledge. We simply do not know whether that person will be saved, we can only pray and hope in Christ that he will be. But this prayer and hope does not by itself allow us to boldly presume or speak any guarantees to others, especially if they refuse the means of grace, of their salvation. Precisely because the threat of damnation remains real, which is why the need to pray for them remains real. The latter does not take away the former.

Thus, from a third person point of view, we simply do not know about the state of souls of others, only in prayer is it possible to speak about the souls of others, and that prayer must be a prayer of faith, hope and love for that person. But when it comes to a first to second person relation, when it is a question of my own salvation, or when we are confronted by the questions of another person, we apply the Law and Gospel rule. To the impenitent and curious sinners who seek an excuse to sin, we apply the condemnations of the Law and the sentence of reprobation for the Old Man and the threatening that a person living according to the Old Man will be utterly burned up when the testing fires come. But for the New Man seeking freedom and relief from the accusations of the Law and the Devil, we apply the Gospel and assure such a person of that his spiritual being has been elected unto salvation and that there is absolutely no fear for him.

Conclusion

This note is already becoming too long so I will stop here. But this account of predestination sketched out is simply an attempt to identify God's action in eternity, God's action in predestination and reprobation, with God's action in time, especially in the concrete historical Christ, as Christ acts and lives in the Word and the Sacrament, and that this "election" or "reprobation" must happen to us in real time and must be identified with God's action in Jesus Christ through Word and Sacrament. Which is why whatever builds up the New Man, baptism, Lord's Supper and Absolution, these are God's action of election unto salvation, but willful and intentional sinning against the will of God, the works of the Old Adam, is to be subject to God's wrath and displeasure, and the Law pronounces that the Old Adam has been from eternity reprobated unto damnation.

Otherworldly Hopes, this Worldly Living; Message for Septuagesima Sunday

2012-03-01T06:25:00.001-08:00

The following is a message which I shared today at a prayer meet up for the Sunday called Septuagesima, or the third Sunday before Lent, my first attempt at live Law and Gospel discourse.

Text: Psalm 104, Genesis 1:1-2:3, Revelations 21:1-14

Today is Septuagesima Sunday which roughly translated means "seventieth", or the 70 days to Easter Sunday. The liturgical calendar is sort of like a miniature of the entire Christian story, running through the events of Christ's life every year. Therefore in that light, we can begin by taking today's Septuageisma Sunday, which looks forward and anticipates the Easter Resurrection, as a sort of miniature of us in real life, living in this age and in this world, looking forward to great day of the General Resurrection at the end of time.

And so we have just read in the Revelations of St John what is this great hope to which we are looking forward to, "the new heaven and the new earth" in verse 1. However, even though in our time we tend to value the newest stuff and the latest trends, but new stuff tends to replace and displace the old. And that is not something we will always like. New stuff is great when it comes to replacing handphones and electronic gadgets, but when new ideas, new policies and new governments come into power, people may sometimes feel that their old way of life is being threatened, and we resist the new changes.

It is the same thing with the new heaven and the new earth. The new heaven and new earth will be the place where God will dwell with man, verse 3, it will be the place of God's people, and when that happens, he will wipe away every tear and death and mourning and pain will cease. But, and this is an important but, verse 4 ends this announcement of the wonders which awaits us with this phrase, "for the former things have passed away." The coming of the new threatens the old. What does this mean?

In the new heaven and new earth, where God is all in all, where God's life, glory and wonders will fill every corner of that realm, there will simply be no room for any of the former things, the things of this world which shall pass away. But for the people who set their hearts upon the things of this world, whose only concern is with worldly things, how would such people react to the news that such things will pass away, and that such things have no place in eternity? It would seem like very bad news! They wouldn't like the new heaven and new earth at all where God will dwell with his people in the closest of intimacy, because their hearts and their desires are fixed upon worldly pleasures and delights, and when God at last takes them away, they'll become angry and resentful, for they have never opened their heart to him who is the true joy of the world, Christ the Lord.

This is why in the same breath which Christ declares "Behold, I make all things new", verse 5, he also threatens, verse 8, that the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the idolaters, the liars, murders, etc, will have absolutely no part in this new heaven and new earth, and will instead be condemned to "the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." For how can the place of no tears, death, mourning and pain, accomodate those who inflict pain by lies and hate? How can the place where God shall dwell with us, accomodate the idolaters who prefer to love the world over God? How can they stand to dwell with God in intimacy?

It is impossible of course. And such is the state of all of us, we are steeped in sin, and who resist the Will of God and the things of God in word, deed, and desire. But yet, even as St John saw the new heaven and new earth, and the passing away of the first heaven and the first earth, he also saw the New Jerusalem, the holy city, coming down out of heaven, "prepared as a bride adorned for her husband", verse 2. As we know, the Church has often been described in the Scriptures as the Bride of Christ. And the New Jerusalem, the Kingdom of heaven, has been prepared by God, prepared as a Bride for Christ, that we might become God's people and be fit to dwell with God. And this is a gift which is given to us, which we receive through faith in Christ. Why? Because it is prepared, in the Greek, this is a perfect participle, it is a completed action. It is not a call for us to go and prepare ourselves, but the preparation is already completed by God in his Son's death and resurrection. And in verse 6 Christ declares that, "It is done!" It is done. And so he goes on to say, " To the thirsty, I will give water without price from the foundation of the water of life", that is of course, baptism. The work of preparing us to make us fit members of God's new heaven and new earth has been completed upon the Cross. Now we need only receive this work and gift, and whoever thirst for it, God will give the water of life which grants us eternal life in the promises contained in baptism.

But whilst we have received this gift, we have to remember that it only complete to faith and grasped in hope. Just as today it is only Septuagesima Sunday, and not Easter Sunday, so we are still living in the first earth and in the "former things", not the new heaven and the new earth. The old hasn't passed away, and the new hasn't come yet. So whilst in baptism is given to us the garments of salvation whereby we are clothed in suitable wedding dress, fit for marriage to the Lamb, but we haven't arrived at the New Jerusalem yet, we are still at our old homes, awaiting the Bridegroom to come to fetch us, that is, for the coming of Christ.

What does this mean? To use an analogy, in the movie "Shawshank Redemption", one of the prisoners had access to the warden's office which has a gramophone, and he started playing an opera by Mozart on it. Then he proceeded to quickly locked the warden's room to prevent anyone from coming in, and he switched on the public announcement system and broadcast this opera music throughout the entire prison. All the prisoners upon hearing this unspeakably beautiful piece of classical opera simply stopped what they are doing to listen, and in the words of one of the prisoners, acted by Morgan Freeman,

I tell you those voices soared, higher and further than any place that we dared to dream, it was like some beautiful bird had flapped into our trapped little cage and made those walls dissolved away, and for the briefest of moments, every last man at Shawshank felt free.

But for us, the beautiful bird which has descended into our world is the Holy Ghost, in the appearance of a dove, and whilst their freedom is present for the briefest of moments only whilst the music was playing, to us, our freedom from sin, the world and the flesh, it is always present to us in faith, the music of the coming new heaven and new earth, the celebration of the New Jerusalem, resounds constantly to our faith, whenever we hear the Christ speaking to us his forgiveness and words of life, in his Word and in his Sacraments.

To expand upon our analogy, when we become Christians, we turn from prisoners to watchman, we are still living in this world, we do not seek to escape from it, but we watch and wait for the coming of the King who shall once and for all, liberate us from the captivity of our prison wardens, namely sin, the world, the flesh and the devil. We keep a vigilant watch for the coming of the bridegroom, and there in the dawning of the day, in the approaching reign of our Lord and God, is where our hopes and our trust is placed.

So what are we to do in the meantime? We have to remember that our analogy is imperfect, for this world is not strictly speaking a complete prison. To amend our analogy, it is more like a castle, originally good and built with many comfortable rooms and plently of supplies, until an enemy captured this castle, started to sack the place and enslave us. Thus, the castle is "fallen", in every sense of the world, to the enemy. However, we have the promise of deliverance, given personally by the true Lord of the castle himself, and so now we await his deliverance from our captors. But in the mean time, the true Lord of the castle tells us to use whatever means which has been given in the castle to survive.

This corresponds to the truth that this world was originally created good. God has made it to be able to sustain earthly life, making it capable of providing food, ordering the cycles of nature, and preventing global and catastrophic disasters, as we can read in the Psalm appointed for today, verse 11-12,

You send the springs into the brooks,
which run among the hills.
They give drink to every beast of the field,
and the wild asses quench their thirst.

and verse 15-17

You make grass to grow for the cattle
and plants to meet our needs,
Bringing forth food from the earth
and wine to gladden our hearts,
Oil to give us a cheerful countenance
and bread to strengthen our hearts.

and verse 10, 21.

10: You have set them their bounds [the seas] that they should not pass,
nor turn again to cover the earth.

21: You appointed the moon to mark the seasons,
and the sun knows the time for its setting.

So whilst in faith we grasp the eternal joy which is to come, but with our bodies we return back to the world to work the soil and labour, to sustain our earthly existence, and when it pleases the Lord to bless us, to enjoy the fruits of the earth, and to do good works and help our neighbour, watching all the while for the Return of the King and pointing our fellow man towards that hope which is to come.

But we have to remember that this world, although was made good and capable to sustaining earthly life, is not our final home nor is it the heaven which is promised us. The Psalm also reminds us that whilst in verses 29-30,

All of these look to you
to give them their food in due season.
When you give it them, they gather it;
you open your hand and they are filled with good.

but it goes on to say, verse 31,

When you hide your face they are troubled;
when you take away their breath,
they die and return again to the dust.

that in this world, God is hidden from our earthly eyes, and that he has made no promises of long or good life in this world, but he works all things, life and death, giving and taking away the breath of life.

As St Augustine would put it in his "City of God", God gives us enough in this life to prevent us from despairing of his grace, but not so much as to become comfortable with this world and neglect the next. Therefore while in the body we work in the world, enjoy the fruits of the earth and serve our neighbours, but in the spirit, let us praise and celebrate the joy of the Lord present to our faith, and let us pray with the Psalmist for the sinners to be consumed out of the earth and for the wicked to be no more, that is, for the sinner in ourselves, the old Adam, the old being of flesh, and not only the sinner in ourselves, but also the sinner in all mankind, may be destroyed, that the new man, born of the Holy Spirit, maybe raised up and live forevermore. And so once more, the last three verses of the Psalm,

I will sing to the Lord as long as I live;
I will make music to my God while I have my being.
So shall my song please him
while I rejoice in the Lord.
Let sinners be consumed out of the earth
and the wicked be no more.
Bless the Lord, O my soul.
Alleluia.

Amen.

Why I am Not Roman Catholic

2012-03-01T06:23:00.001-08:00

The most serious theological question of our time is whether theology exceeds ecclesiology. Can theology legitimately seek to stand outside of any community, any institution, in order to think Christianity through? If the attemptis futile, then authentic theology is that which is done in the service of an institution; its authenticity is a function of the intrinsic authority of a certain institution. This is the either-or of contemporary theology.

Theo Hobson in "Against Hauerwas"

Such an omniscient church we wish indeed;
'Twere worth both Testaments, and cast in the Creed:

John Dryden, "Religio Laici" or "The Layman's Faith"

I think I would interrupt my "Contrarian Cultural Commentaries" to codify my non-movement into the Roman Church. It is an inertia born partly out of disappointment (or disillusionment), the failure to find the "omniscient church" longed for by Dryden, and partly out of being force into a theological crisis of decision, the "either-or" posed by Theo Hobson in the quote above. Towards the end, I will sketch out what is the substantive Protestant understanding of the Church, solely lacking in contemporary Protestant circles today.

Can the Church Save the World?

Like many Christians today, I guess I was pretty much alarmed by the decay and degeneration which is spreading throughout Christendom, which I need not repeat here. With the lost of the Gospel of salvation and the respect for the authority of God as revealed in the Scriptures, one's natural instinct is to look towards Rome as the immovable fortress in the midst of a church fast falling prey to the forces of the secular world.

This is particularly pertinent for myself as an Anglican here in Singapore, I had thought the Anglican standards of the 39 Articles of Religion and the Book of Common Prayer were sufficient safeguards to the doctrinal and dogmatic integrity of the Church. However, the Evangelical dominance in the Anglican Church here made me doubt, and finally despair, of any hope of that the Anglican Church here will ever take the those practices of the Gospel, so necessary for my salvation, seriously, such as baptismal regeneration, the ministry of absolution, the real presence of the Eucharist, etc. Not forgetting the utter subjectivism which always infects any Evangelical circles in both their worship and theology and their understanding of the Gospel alienated me as I deemed the external objective reality of the sacraments as means of grace as necessary to the redemption of my own subjective sinfulness. Also, the many compromises on the Biblical faith in both confession and deed, like in the issue of woman's ordination and their utter indifference to the question of eternal salvation and increasing worldliness seemed to me to think that the whole thing was hopeless.

Thus, Rome does seem to me to be the very natural solution to these troubles. The Throne of St Peter did seemed to be an immovable rock amidst a fluctuating world and so I began exploring a couple of Roman parishes and even young adult groups. To my utter shock and horror, the young adult groups turned out to be simply Evangelicals with Hail Marys. I quickly abandoned those groups and merely floated near a Latin Mass group, which conducts Latin Masses every alternative week, and pondered my next course of action.

Of course, I knew even from some time ago that the Roman Church here in Singapore suffers from the same kind of problems which the Anglican Church does. I've attended Bible studies by Roman priests who refuse to confess outright that the resurrection occurred, and of course there are many other horror tales about Roman priests not exactly toeing the dogmatic line from the Vatican. But I didn't think that really mattered, after all, what was vital was as long as the centre, See of Peter and his magisterium, held together right?

But I was starting to realise that there was a very distinct possibility that to become Roman would mean ending up in the same position as being Anglican. The "correct" doctrine would be encoded somewhere in some document, but it would not become a living reality on the ground.

The decisive halt to the swim across the Tiber came when I came across this story about the rate of Catholic "annulments" in comparison to Protestant divorces. Briefly, a Catholic technically cannot get divorced, but they can get an "annulment" which is a declaration that their marriage was never valid in the first place. Annulments are normally employed in cases of coerced marriages or when it is discovered that the marriage was contracted invalidly, i.e. one of the partner is say, your long-lost sibling and thus would be incestuous. Anyway, the story went that in parts of the Western world, the rate of Catholic "annulments" are virtually comparable to that of Protestant divorces, that annulment tribunals were granting annulments on the lamest of excuses.

When I read this, the first thing which of course came to me was that these Catholic "annulments" were simply re-worded Protestant divorces. They can call them whatever they want, but in substance they were no different. Then the second thing which struck me was that a Catholic who got such an "annulment" would be free to re-marry, opps, not re-marry but marry for the first time since his or her first marriage was never valid in the first place, and would have access to all the means of salvation, absolution, the Eucharist, etc. On the other hand, a Catholic who got a slightly meaner or stricter tribunal would only be able to get a civil divorce and if that person re-marries, that person will become all but in name an excommunicate and denied all the means of salvation.

When this realisation struck me, I was outraged. Can it truly be, that a person's salvation and reconciliation and access to God can be decided by a mere legal trick? Can the contingencies (read: whims and fancies) of the "strictness" of an annual tribunal, be the deciding factor between a person's salvation and damnation? I cannot accept that, and I refuse to accept that. When I saw this, the following thought suddenly occurred to me, how is sin and error to be dealt? By ecclesiastical documents and canon laws? Or only by the Gospel alone? It dawned upon me that I had become distracted by impressive outward forms and institutions, believing that they can stem the tide of error and sin, when in actual fact it is only the Gospel of forgiveness alone which can cleanse them, and that mere human institutions and canon laws cannot stop sin, because all they do is to cause sinner to circumvent the laws and find ways around it and therefore hypocritically appeared to be good "catholics" all the while not being so.

This insight was further confirmed when I read of the "internal tribunal", that ultimately an earthly tribunal's judgement is not final but subject to the judgement of the "spiritual tribunal" in heaven which alone can determine a true and false annulment. But to appeal to this spiritual tribunal is, in effect, to empty the earthly tribunal of its force and meaning, it is to vacate the strongest point of the Catholic Church, namely, that it makes visible the invisible presence of God. But if even eventually the visible form is not final but ultimately subject to the invisible judgement, then the Catholic Church has effectively shrunk into a Protestant ecclesiology.

I guess I started to realise that it is silly to expect impressive outward forms and institutions to save the world and to define the church, and that having an impressive set of documents codified somewhere does not change anything, only the actual administration of the sacraments and the preaching of the Gospel does. But these set of reflections provoked an even deeper theological question for me.

Find the Catholic Church?

The question which I had to face was, which is prior, the Church or the Word? When I was on my Rome-ward path, I was of course convinced of the priority of the Church or at least its necessary complement to the Word. But in the light of the fact that even a visible Church's judgement is still ultimately subject to the truth of the situation, I was forced to face this question squarely without any evasions, does truth make the Church or does the Church make the truth?

If annulment tribunals do not determine a person's true moral standing before God, does a bishop's mitre guarantee doctrinal soundness? Or a Papal tiara and a collection of cardinal's hats?

Suppose we take up a common challenge of the Catholics to the Protestants, how can you know how to interpret the Bible, without a church? Doesn't your diversity of interpretation imply a need for a church to interpret?

Of course, when I use the word "Catholic Church", I simply assumed that it referred to the Roman Catholic Church. But I now had to ask myself, even if I accept that the "Catholic Church" is necessary to interpret the Bible and to determine its truth, the question now is, where is the "Catholic Church"? Why identify the Roman Church with the Catholic Church? Suppose we adopt this line of questioning. We accept the premise that yes, we do need the "Catholic Church" to help us interpret the Bible. The question now is, where is this "Catholic Church" which possess this power to interpret the Bible? The Roman answer is simply that the Catholic Church is all the faithful in communion with the Successor of St Peter. But where is the Successor of St Peter? They simply identify it with the Bishop of Rome. (Interestingly enough, the present Pope's book "Called to Communion", which was meant to be a defence of the Roman ecclesiology, was sparse in its arguments linking the Successor of St Peter to the Roman episcopate.) But why believe that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of St Peter? Well, it is at this point they will cite the Church Fathers and historical evidence and all that.

But unfortunately, the Church Fathers are not consistent on this point. Some have spoken of all bishops as the successors of St Peter, some have located it with other Eastern Orthodox patriarchs too (some of them carry the title of "Pope" too!). This just goes to show, that to attempt to re-locate the source of truth away from the Scriptures to a supposedly infallible Church capable of interpreting the Scriptures merely re-locate, not solve, the problem. If a diversity of interpretative claims upon the Scriptures demands a Catholic Church, then the diversity of claims to be the Catholic Church will demand...? The problem is merely pushed back one step. From answering how to get the right interpretation of Scripture we now are simply hunting for the answer as to how to get the right interpreter of Scripture.

Perhaps this problem can be seen from another angle. I remember some time ago having a dispute about whether Anglican and Lutheran bishops are validly ordained and therefore possess Apostolic succession. The Romans argued that the Anglican and Lutheran ordinations are invalid because they lack the proper ordination form, and therefore, they did not possess Apostolic succession. I pointed out that in the Anglican archbishop's reply to this charge, they argued that going by their own logic all the Roman orders would be invalid too because they also used to lack the proper ordination form and therefore none of them would also possess apostolic succession. Then a friend of mine decided to turn away the question of the validity of an ordination's apostolic succession from that of ordination form to that of whether they are ordained into the Apostolic faith. But then of course, the problem with this move is that, it has effectively collapsed the question of the validity of the outward church form, into the question of the truth of the faith!

So we have returned right back where we started. In order to decide the truth of the faith, we appeal to the Scriptures, in order to decide the right interpretation of the Scriptures, we turn to the Catholic Church, but in order to decide where the Catholic Church is... we go back to the truth of the faith! This is a fine merry-go-round we are forced into.

One can replace "Catholic Church" with any of positivistic outward form which one likes. Be it "Successor of St Peter", "Consensus of the Faith", "Sacred Tradition", "Apostolic Succession", etc. The problem with these "solutions" is that they are by no means self-evident. We need to find out and test their authenticity, and unfortunately more often than not, their authenticity can only be tested against the Scriptures. We have come one full circle. Cardinal Newman, the famous Anglican convert to Rome, once said that anyone who is deep in history ceases to be Protestant. Well, maybe. But anyone who is deeper into history ceases to be Roman or Eastern Orthodox. I guess I should have always known that compared to romantic accounts of the "consensus of faith" and "tradition", the church tradition and the fathers are not a harmony of voices but more like a cacophony of contradictory voices. To just give one example, St Thomas Aquinas, the arch-theologian of the Roman Church, horrors of horrors, said the following, “The reason is that only canonical Scripture is a measure of faith.” Sola Scriptura apparently was not invented by Luther but deprived from the fathers before. Of course this does not prove sola scriptura, for I've no doubt that there are fathers who speak of tradition as a rule of faith, but the point is merely that the fathers and tradition says contradictory things, and is therefore cannot possibly determine or form a unified "Church/Tradition/Consensus of faith" for us to take our guide from, as the Eastern Orthodox theologian Fr. George Florovsky puts it,

...we are not to prove the truth of Christianity by means of "universal consent," per consensum omnium. In general, no consensus can prove truth. This would be a case of acute psychologism, and in theology there is even less place for it than in philosophy. On the contrary, truth is the measure by which we can evaluate the worth of "general opinion." Catholic experience can be expressed even by the few, even by single confessors of faith; and this is quite sufficient. Strictly speaking, to be able to recognize and express catholic truth we need no ecumenical, universal assembly and vote; we even need no "Ecumenical Council." The sacred dignity of the Council lies not in the number of members representing their Churches. A large "general" council may prove itself to be a "council of robbers" (latrocinium), or even of apostates. And the ecclesia sparsa often convicts it of its nullity by silent opposition. Numerus episcoporum does not solve the question. The historical and practical methods of recognizing sacred and catholic tradition can be many; that of assembling Ecumenical Councils is but one of them, and not the only one. This does not mean that it is unnecessary to convoke councils and conferences. But it may so happen that during the council the truth will be expressed by the minority. And what is still more important, the truth may be revealed even without a council."

So to the challenge that that we need a church in order to find the right interpretation of the bible, our response must be, we need the bible in order to find the right church! I guess in a way, I've confused the messenger with the message. I've focused upon who is the speaking rather than what is being said; confounding the outward form of the delivery with what is being delivered. Ultimately, the truth of the Gospel validates itself and it is not in need of any outward or human or institutional defenders. It is one thing to say that one learns that there are infinitely many prime numbers from a teacher. It is another thing to say that the teacher authorised or makes this mathematical proposition true. There are infinitely many prime numbers not because your teacher says so but because of the laws of arithmetic. The teacher merely communicates the truth but does not authorise it, the contents of the message justify itself, not the messenger! It is sometimes argued by Roman Catholics that the Church had to authorise the Scriptures, etc. But as the Reformers pointed out, the Church Councils which compiled the canonical list described the canon, "for these are the things which we have received", they received the Scriptures, they did not authorise it, you do not authorise what you have received. Therefore the Church is merely an instrument for passing on the Scriptures and the truth, not for authorising it.

I guess this should have been evident even from the Scriptures itself when St Paul in Galatians 1:6-9,

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel -- not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

Thus, the apostle St Paul is clear that the Gospel's authority and truth is independent, even from himself, and that if he were to preach a different gospel, he would be accused.

A Protestant Ecclesiology

It is paradoxical, that because most Evangelicals are unwilling to theologise about the Church, with the exception of a couple of bland, "universal priesthood of the believers" (which the vast majority have no idea what it means), or "the church is its people", most Evangelicals end up with a very Roman ecclesiology. Observe the inordinate amount of unthinking prattling about being a "community", etc, etc, or being "salt and light of the world" and all that.

I guess in a sense, to make visible the Church has ever been the temptation of Christians. For the Romans they seek its visibility in a Roman institution, for the Evangelical, in pious good works of righteousness.

But the problem for both is that they make the messenger part of the message. Whether it is the formation of a salt-and-light community bonded by love or a communion with the See of Peter, what is implicit in both is that this community or communion becomes a part of the Gospel message itself. The Gospel message isn't merely that Christ's death and resurrection grants you remission of sins, it also includes the good news of this wonderful community and/or communion for you to be a part of. From Christ alone and his work alone as the object of faith, now this community of love or this Petrine communion has muscled in to become part of our faith too and to demand our trust.

But whilst at least the Romans are able to empirically identify this "Petrine Communion" (although to justify it is another matter), but for the Evangelicals to identify this "community of love" is impossible, an exercise in utopian or idealistic ecclesiology. It is a sham Gospel that does not deliver what it promises, for most Protestant churches tend to look more like Corinth than salt and light of the world, it is devoid of any empirical meaning.

But traditional Protestant ecclesiology have always insisted that the Church is not a part of the message, the Church is not part of the Gospel's proclamation but is a creature of it. The Word is prior to the Church. The Gospel message creates the Church, judges the Church and sustains the Church. For the Romans, the Church is an "extension" of the incarnation, it participates in the life of Christ through the bond of charity and unity as it were, it has become a part of the message of Christ. But for the Protestant, the Church is not incarnational but kergymatic, based upon proclamation. The Gospel message of Christ death and resurrection and remission of sins is proclaimed, those who receive it become Christians, and the Church is thereby created. The Word is prior to the Church, and because it is the Word which creates the Church, therefore the Church is both sustained and judged by the Word. It is not bishops who determined what is valid apostolic doctrine, it is apostolic doctrine which determines who are valid bishops. The Church is but a witness to the message, not part of the message itself, the Church no more embodies the message than does the mathematics teacher embody the truth of the mathematics. The Church is but an instrument for passing on and administering the truth and the Gospel. But to pass on the Gospel is not to become a part of it, even less authorise it.

Conclusion

This note I think has grown too long and I'll stop here. Maybe in future I'll write a more extended exposition on a Protestant doctrine of the Church. But for now, I'll leave a two links to between understand the difference between a Protestant and Catholic ecclesiology.

"Ecclesiological Fundamentalism"https://sites.google.com/site/theohobson2/autumn2004modernbelieving

This article was quite instrumental in helping me see the sharp difference between a Protestant and Catholic ecclesiology, and the fundamental incoherence with trying to make the church a part of the Gospel's message. Theo Hobson's "Against Hauerwas" too was helpful in this regard, unfortunately it is only available in pdf, which if you want you can pm me for a copy.

"The Frenzy for Ecclesiology"

http://gnesiolutheran.com/lectures/

This is actually a podcast lecture by Steven Paulson, one of my favourite Lutheran theologians. In this lecture he presents and explains a very distinctly Protestant understanding of the Church contrary to many contemporary "frenzy" for turning the Church into a social power/community, etc.

As a Christian, I am Offended for Singaporean Buddhists

2012-02-16T06:20:00.001-08:00

Recently there was posted in NUS by Campus Crusade for Christ (CCC) the following picture which insinuated that Thai buddhists have little joy.

I reaction to this, the NUS Buddhist Society (NBS) has lodged a complain to the Office of Student Affairs. I wish to register and state here my offense at the NUS Buddhist Society for demeaning Singaporean Buddhist by such a reactionary move.

I am offended that the NBS would insult Buddhists in NUS and Singapore by insinuating that they are so insecure about their faith and joy in Buddha that they would have to resort to censorship to answer this slanderous attack by the CCC.

I am offended that the NBS would make Buddhists out in Singapore to be the equivalent of paranoid Medieval Christians who had to resort to inquisitions and burning of books and opinions to stamp out false charges against them.

I am offended that the NBS would degrade the intellectual capacity of Buddhists to answer false arguments and charges with reasonable and civilised debate and discourse and made Buddhists out to be poor infantile morons who needs paternal coercive censorship to save their fragile sensibilities from what is a false charge anyway.

I am offended that NBS have represented Buddhists as people who are unable to demonstrate their joy in Buddha by their deeds and compassion, by their patience and long sufferings to slanderous charges, and have instead represented them as people who could not demonstrate the joy of Buddha by their own deeds but by censoring those who attack it instead.

I am offended that NBS have made Buddhism out to be lesser religion than Christianity, as if turning the other cheek to an enemy is purely a Christian virtue, as if tolerating insults and false charges from enemies is something which Buddhists are incapable of, but the capacity only of Christians who tolerates insults from militant atheists and secularists like Dawkins and Da Vinci Code without the need to resort to censorship.

I am offended at some Buddhists who have said that such an offensive claims by the CCC is seditious. For this implies that somehow Buddhists are such violent and petty people that they will resort to arms to defend their faith which would disrupt national and civil order, making such offensive claims to be "seditious". This is an utter misrepresentation of the instrinsc non-violence of Buddhism and long suffering in the face of enmity and I am offended by these Buddhists who would insinuate otherwise.

Therefore,
I register once more my offense at the NBS and other Buddhists named above who have dragged the name of Buddhism into disrepute and shame, would like to state categorically that the Buddhist I know of are in no way the infantile and pathetic petty morons implied by this frankly junvenile and reactionary move by the NBS.

Thank you.

Feel free to repost this

Update:

I received the following comment below,

Hi, my name is Kwek Yan and I am a former President of NUS Buddhist Society (NUSBS). I am writing to clarify because you may not have had the full picture before writing this blog post and your facebook note.

I was among the first to see the photograph on facebook and immediately shared it with some current committee members. It was about 8pm then, and the facebook photo states that it was uploaded 3 hours ago, which would make it 5pm.

I went down immediately to LT15 to verify that there was indeed such a poster, but could not find it at all. This was about 8.15pm.

The current President acknowledged knowledge of the matter at 11.30pm. By 12MN, the original facebook photo and website has already been disabled.

Therefore, from this timeline,

(1) The photo and website was not taken down because of a complaint from NUSBS.

(2) From my knowledge of the meeting between OSA, CCC and various student groups, CCC stated that they took steps to remove the photo and website because the photo went viral.

(3) The photo was already going viral before NUSBS knew of it.

I am sure you are a person that values truth and fairness, so kindly update your post (above and on facebook) regarding your accusations against NUSBS.

And this is my reply,

Kwek Yan,

Thank you for your clarification. NBS has my unreserved apology for my groundless accusation. I will update this and my facebook according. I hope that NBS will not mind letting me continue to put this up as an rhetorical device and object lesson in mutual religious discourse, and I am very pleased and glad to be able to have it with you and that I have been vindicated in my confidence in the reasonableness of the Buddhist society and community in Singapore.

Yours,
Rubati

Contrarian Cultural Commentaries: Being a Racial Nihilist; Why as a Christian I can say that some Races are Superior to Others

2012-02-05T05:54:00.001-08:00

...for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Galatians 3:26-29

Since today is Chinese New Year, I thought that I would continue my "Contrarian Cultural Commentaries" series with a note about race. Whilst it is politically correct language to immediately speak of the equality of races, but I wish in this note to give a full and proper theological concept of race, to tease out the underlying premises which govern our paranoid prattling about racial equality, and to situate the phenomenon of race in the light of the Gospel.

Race: Human History or Human Nature?

Here is an interesting question to begin with: Is race a part of human history or human nature? How fundamental a part of us do races form? To speak of something being a part of human nature is to speak of a kind of necessity to human order and reality, to speak of something as being a part of human history is simply to note that it is a part of the human reality, but merely contingently, not necessarily. It simply happened to occur as part of human history. Here is an example: Being in a certain caste is part of human history. The caste system did exist and still does exist as part of human reality, albeit implicitly, in various parts of India. Indians can be categorised according to their castes, if they bother to. But though the caste system is part of human history, but it would be ludicrous to hold that the caste system is part of human nature, the idea that one's trade or vocation is somehow genetically determined and therefore determines the vocations of the descendents. The caste system exists as a part of human history and is purely a matter of human convention. It is objective, in the sense that it is not based on any single person's whims and fancy, but it is not immutable or a fundamental part of the human reality, since the caste system can and did wane in its place in the lives of Indians.

The question which we shall need to ask ourselves is this: Is categorising people according to their race just like categorising Indians according to their caste? Is race simply a human convention which is merely a part of human history, but of no greater significance for the human condition than that? Naturally this is not to say that human conventions are insignificant or unimportant or even sometimes of very grave importance. The concept of a currency, for example, is on the one hand a matter of human convention. A group of people agree to accept certain pieces of paper (or plastic in our case!) and metal or electronic units of a central monetary body, to be a medium of exchange, and these currency units therefore becomes “legal tender”. These currency units have a value independent of our subjective whims or beliefs (as Western nations learn constantly as their currency continues to spiral downwards). But it would be ludicrous to argue that therefore currency is a part of human nature, no doubt currency is a much more efficient medium of exchange and a good store of value compared to barter trade, or maybe not, depending on the empirical situation, but the point is is that it exists purely by human convention, no doubt a very important and significance part of human history, but nevertheless, still a part of human history, not human nature.

Can the same be said of a race? On the one hand, there has sometimes been effort to tie race to genetics, but even if such an enterprise can succeed (of which there is every sign that it is a futile endeavour, especially with cross-racial intermarriages), it would be beside the point. Phenotypes can only determine the “outward” form of a race, i.e. skin colour, hair colour, physical features and characteristics, etc, but many people do not consider one’s race to be merely a matter of bodily appearance, (and if they do, then the concept of race isn’t a very interesting one, a matter purely for the biologist), but consists of things like a shared ancestry, a shared history, culture, language, etc. Although technically such qualities has been called ethnicity, but we shall continue to use the word “race” to denote all these traits for when people speak of race, they normally have in mind these characteristics as well, including the physical qualities.

But of course, if by race we simply mean all the qualities associated with ethnicity, then race is undoubtedly simply a matter of human convention, a part of human history, whereby by social convention and history, we attempt to group people according to some vague and fuzzy genealogy, tied with a certain human culture and language, just as how certain Indians used to group people according to their caste. No doubt today if an Indian bothered to trace his ancestry, he or she can actually find out which caste he or she belongs to, and if I am not wrong, the dialect which an Indian speaks can also betray one’s caste. But simply because an Indian can trace and determine his or her caste does not entail that caste is of any relevance to him or her. The caste system is simply a part of human history, its significance is merely a matter of human convention, in some areas in the world, it has completely died out, in other areas, especially in some parts of India, there may have been an outward suppression of its expression, but it is still implicitly acknowledged and considered relevant to social interaction.

A Eulogy for Race

The question to which we shall need to ask is is the concept of a race a living or a dead concept? Is race a dead system and method of categorising people, in exactly the same way in which the caste system has died in some Indian communities? If by race we denote the unity of physical characteristics, linguistic and cultural practice, then the answer has to be that the concept of race has pretty much died in many areas and for many people, especially in Diasporas. The number of people who live in such a unity is daily and constantly shrinking, and people are increasing in a “mix-and-match” state of adopting various cultures, language, etc, from all over the world.

This of course is not surprising. The concept of a race can only survive in a world which is bound to their immediate parochial surroundings, where communities can police their boundaries against “foreigners” and enforce linguistic and cultural norms unto its members. But when communities can no longer police their boundaries and enforce linguistic and cultural norms, then the entire concept of race collapses and dies. Even for myself, I admire the British monarchy, the English culture, history, philosophical thought and literary works, my sole and primary medium of communication is English, I can hardly speak any Mandarin and virtually no dialect, but I also have no desire to eat scones and tea and crumpets every day, nor do I feel any compulsion to speak with an English accent, I prefer mah-jong to bridge and steam-fish to fish and chips. In a sense, I am of no race because my life is not in unity with my biological descent, my culture and my language, and this is not because I am trying to adopt a race foreign to my biological descend, since I don’t adopt all aspects of English culture or even language, I live in a mix-and-match from various cultures, races and languages, it simply the case that I just don’t care about race, race as a unity of descend, language and culture. Race is simply a dead concept to me, and I suspect not just for me but for an increasing number of people in the world as well.

Is Race a Necessary Part of Human Order?

The question becomes, is the death of racial identity a good or bad thing? Is race necessary to maintain the moral and human order? Naturally the question of the goodness and badness of a human phenomenon is a moral and theological question. Already from the fact that we have noted that race is not a part of human nature but merely a human convention which forms a part of human history should hint at the “lightness of being” of race. But here are two ways in which we can evaluate the question of the relationship between racial reality and moral behaviour. (1) It can simply become an empirical question, whether communities and individuals with a greater sense of racial identity tend to be more moral. To look at the question from this angle is to simply ask an empirical and statistical question, which can simply be answered by census and statistical data. (2) But the question can also be posed in a more fundamental and philosophical manner, that somehow racial identity and being part of a race is necessary to human and moral order.

We are naturally concerned with (2), not (1), and it is evident that if race is merely a part of humanhistory and not human nature, racial identity is therefore not necessary for the life of humanity and for human and moral order. To claim that somehow race is necessary to our moral order is to turn race into a sort of divine ordinance, instituted by God for the preservation of humanity. But such a theological claim is patently absurd, not forgetting utterly pagan in elevating a transient and human construct to the level of divine law.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Herman Sasse in drafting the Bethel Confessions had to engage this question and respond to the claims of the “Reich Church” of the Nazis that somehow race, and by implication, the Aryan Race, is of divine institution and necessary to the civilisation and moral order and improvement of the world. To this claim, the Bethel Confessors had to state in clear and unambiguous terms what Orders are of divine institution and given by God for the preservation of humanity, and why this Aryan paganism forms no part of such these divine orders.

The orders that we have been given are those of gender, marriage, the family, the nation, property (work and the economy), profession or trade, and government. Human beings cannot escape from any of these orders, nor can any of them be transferred or transformed into another. Marriage remains marriage, the nation [Volk] remains the nation, government [Obrigkeit] remains government. Furthermore, the Bible and confessions understand the human race as one united race in its origin and its final destination (Adam – Christ, Acts 17:26). A human being is a human being, and this unity of the human race calls for our obedience. In the course of history this unity has unfolded as numerous tribes and peoples. But the modern concept of race is not found in either the Bible or the confessional writings. The tribes of Shem, Ham and Japheth, who were the sons of one father, are not the final boundaries of communities based on bloodlines, but rather become thoroughly mixed together.

Thus, racial boundaries are not the “final boundaries of communities based on bloodlines” but rather have become “thoroughly mixed together”; this is what I mean by the “mix-and-match” which has become more evident nowadays. Thus, race forms no part of the divine order, is not necessary to the maintenance of moral or human order, and exists by mere convention.

Another part of this passage may be particularly relevant to our discussion. The passage mentions that the orders cannot “be transferred or transformed into another. Marriage remains marriage, the nation [Volk] remains the nation, government [Obrigkeit] remains government.” This part was added in opposition to the concept of a “Total State”, whereby every other order is subject to the state and the state, or government, gets to determine and define the validity, shape, form and meaning of every other order. Thus, the state does not exhaustively define or determine the nation, and work and property does not define or exhaustively determine the government and nation, etc, each order is independent of each other and they find their unity only in God who instituted them, although worldly authority may have a limited responsibility for reconciling the tension between the various orders, but the orders do not find their unity in anyone of them, especially not the government or state.

Given the historical fact that traditionally race and racial cultures have provided a strong focus of unity between the various orders, i.e. racial cultures have traditionally weaved into a unity the family, marriage, government, etc, we might be tempted towards a sort of “Total Race” corresponding to the “Total State” whereby race or racial culture determines and defines the shape, meaning, practice and validity of the various orders. This is simply nothing more than another form of paganism which would exalt a human construct as the source of the validity and meaning of a divine ordinance.

On True and False Racial Equality

Whenever we speak of “equality”, the implicit question must always be, “equality of what?” Equality of wealth? Equality of height? Equality of weight? The notion of equality can only be applied to things which are measurable and comparable, and is meaningless with things which are immeasurable or incommensurate or incomparable. Unfortunately, things which are measurable are often earthly, contingent and variable. Thus, the magnitude which a race, culture or nation possesses any measurable quality is necessary a contingent empirical fact. If this is the case, what sense is there in the idea of an absolute racial equality? If two races or nations are equal, that has to be a contingent empirical fact, we can’t decide a priori whether or not two races or nations are equal in respect of some earthly posteriori empirical measurable and contingent thing!

Maybe the instinct between assertions of racial equality is the notion of equal worth, that all nations or races are equal in their worth. But this merely pushes back the inevitable question, and just how is this worth supposed to be measured? Ah. We’re back to where we started. If “worth” is as a matter of fact a measurable, comparable thing, then it has to be a contingent, empirical phenomenon, which then it would be absurd to decide a priori on the equality of any contingent human phenomenon.

But of course in the Christian faith, there is only one source of worth and that is the saving grace of God which has appeared in Jesus Christ. The question now therefore is, is it possible to measure the extent of a race’s salvation? Since salvation is a divine matter, therefore it is impossible to speak of comparing or measuring the extent of anyone’s salvation, and therefore the concept of equality, as a contingent, empirical matter, would be impossible in this context.

Thus, because there can be no question about a contingent empirical measurement of salvation, therefore only in the question of salvation and the Gospel, can we speak of an a priori absolute equality before God. If there is a form of racial equality, it is equality in our alienation from Christ, for it is meaningless to measure how close a race, or any other finite human phenomenon, is to an infinite being. As the Bethel Confession would put it,

The message of the Gospel is equally accessible, or equally inaccessible, to all nations. For it is only God’s Holy Spirit that can bring about faith in people and awaken consensus on the true confession. The communion of the confessing church extends across the borders between nations. The boundaries of nation and church are never the same.

Because of the independence of the saving grace of the Gospel from all human work, therefore the power of the Gospel proclamation to call humanity to faith and grant salvation must be independent of the race or culture or nation to which the Gospel is preached. It must be insisted in no uncertain terms that no culture, race or nation is more “oriented” or “fitted” or “suited” or “prepared” for the Gospel than another. All races, cultures and nations are equal in this respect in their inaccessibility to the Gospel, given the infinite gulf which exists between God and all human reality. But given the infinite reconciliation achieved in Christ, we can with assert with equal confidence that no nation, culture, or race is more unprepared, unfitted and unsuited for the Gospel than another, for the Holy Spirit, very true God, proceeding from the Father and the Son, can perform the miracle of conversion and calling to faith in Christ in any human circumstance or situation, race or culture or nation. To claim that there is something about one’s culture, race or nation which contributes to God’s saving work, is to claim that some form of human work prior to the proclamation of Christ does contribute to the workings of the Gospel, which is a blasphemous denial of the divine saving grace of God without works.

Therefore, if there is any form of racial, cultural or national equality, it can only be equality with respect to divine things, with respect to things above, but equality with respect to things below or earthly measurable and contingent things is not something which is evident a priori but can only be known empirically posteriori. To claim that somehow all races or cultures possess some kind of equal intrinsic worth or value simply by virtue of being a race or a culture is simply paganism, for God did not create races or cultures, neither has he ordained any or elected any, except Israel according to the flesh. To assert an independent source of worth outside of God’s action in Jesus Christ is blasphemy.

But here is an interesting question: God has not ordained only the Gospel for salvation, but also the Orders or Laws for the preservation of worldly life, whilst we may insist upon the equality of all races before the Gospel, do we also insist upon an equality of all races and cultures with respect to the divine orders?

This question has at its heart the Law-Gospel distinction, which distinction if not maintained, will inevitably lead to a confused and distorted answer. As our first and fundamental premise in discussing this question, when we deal with the question of the “political use” of the Law, we are not speaking about salvation. God instituted the Orders for the preservation of worldly life, but he grants salvation and eternal life only through the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments. Thus, the ability to conform and participate in the Orders may grant a sort of “worldly blessing” and worldly greatness, a sort of blessing which even heathen nations are able to participate and receive from God. One’s natural reason is sufficient to discern the Orders and does not need divine revelation to learn or know about them; heathen and non-Christian nations have access to the orders and are able to discern them as well, and the physical and earthly life of these nations, cultures and races are preserved, even exalted, to the extent to which they participate in these divine orders. Natural reason is able to discern that without government, or worldly authority to restrain evil doers with the power of the sword, the nation will descend into chaos. Without the vocation of work or the institution of property, it would be impossible to produce and store the resources and goods necessarily for the nourishment of fleshly life, etc. You do not need a theologian to tell you this; natural reason can discern this well enough.

But it is clearly obvious that to be blessed by God in worldly terms with worldly greatness has absolutely no relation at all to being saved, reconciled, or favourable to God. The two are distinct, the Law and the Gospel is not to be mingled or confused. Ability to participate in the Orders has absolutely nothing to do with one’s acceptability to God or justification before him. That comes not by man’s efforts in participating in the Orders but is only passively received through faith as administered by the preaching of the Gospel and the sacraments.

Therefore since the Orders are concerned with worldly things and fleshly life (not spiritual life), and with empirically contingent and measureable earthly phenomenon, then it does make sense to speak of degrees and magnitudes of conformity which races, cultures and nations have in relation to the divine orders, which is liable and open to historical study, research, and examination, capable of generating an intelligible and meaningful answer with statistical and data collection, etc.

For example, we can broadly say that whilst traditionally Western cultures, because of the benefit of Christianity, have done well in worldly terms, having access to the divine orders through the Scriptures, but this is not an immutable and invariable fact of the West and with its abandonment of those divine orders, we can expect a decline of the West, the seeds of which we can already see. But who knows? Maybe a change of heart might change the fortunes of the West. And because the East has preserved some of the orders better than the West for some time, their worldly fortunes have been rising, but who knows instead how the whims of the human heart may change?

But it cannot be stressed enough that this is an empirical and contingent judgement. There is nothing intrinsic or immutable about a race, language or culture. They are part of human history, sharing in the changes and chances of worldly fortunes. Like any organic life, it lives, grows, decays and dies. But to reiterate a previous point, whereas nationhood is a divine order, but race and culture are not. Therefore although as an empirical and contingent matter, some races and cultures may have significant overlaps with the divine orders and may have realised it better here and there, but they are neither necessary, nor required, for the function of God’s order, nor, I’m sure I need not mention, for the working of the Gospel and maybe one day, the entire concept of race shall perish altogether, to be relegated to feudal relations, etc, and become truly history.

Conclusion: On the Paranoia about Racial Equality

In the light of our foregoing discussions, we need to ask ourselves: Given the “lightness of being” of races, why are we so obsessed and anxious about racial equality? There could be two explanations, one benign and well-intentioned, the other idolatrous and pagan. Race has been invoked as a pretext for denying the access to the law and public/civic facilities, therefore in this context, the “equality of races” has been asserted to argue that they should have access to these laws and public facilities. In this case, this isn’t really an issue of the “equality of races” but rather the consistent application of the law. Muslims in our nation are subject to different laws in certain public institutions, but just because they have different laws governing them says nothing about their equality, or lack thereof, with us. Whereas the American Declaration of Independence asserts that it is a self-evident truth that all man have been endowed by their Creator with the right to, etc, thus it is inconsistent to deny them to African-Americans as well.

Another case might be that sometimes racial traits, especially citations of biology, have been invoked to claim inferiority in intellect, civility, morals, etc. Well, as far as I can see this is merely a question of a scientific mistake rather than a crime or moral outrage, since there is no empirical evidence linking genetic or racial phenotypes of intelligence. But in other matters, such as physical athletics, can we truly deny that biologically speaking, Africans are physiologically the best marathon runners in the world, better than most other races? This has manifest empirical confirmation, to which to deny would be just being a politicised nut. As far as morals and civility are concerned, obviously the measure in which we should judge a cultures/ethnicity’s morals is by its conformity to the divine orders, and are we truly expected to believe that somehow cultures which practice polygamy are “equal”, in respect to marriage practices, to cultures which practice monogamy, and that the practice of monogamy is not superior to polygamy? Only those who deny the divine orders or are extremely politicised would deny this judgement.

But when people affirm racial equality, because they derive their sense of worth, belonging or value by virtue of being of a certain race, language or culture, and view any denigration of their race or culture as an attack on who they are, then this is a pagan and idolatrous conception of racial equality, and whereby race has become a god granting value to their lives, which we must crush with the proclamation of divine judgement on all races and cultures, and its eventually dissolution and cancellation in Christ when race shall cease to be, and only faith in Christ, the true divider of humanity.

Has God Made any Promise of Health, Wealth, Prosperity, Holiness or Social Transformation?

2012-02-05T05:53:00.001-08:00

Promise of Health, Wealth and Prosperity?

The problem with the Prosperity Gospel is not in their hopes; there is nothing inherently wrong with desiring earthly success in one’s career or for some financial venture to succeed, or for material well-being and health, the Christian faith is not the faith of puritans or solely that for monastics, and the Old Testament does celebrate and pray for Lord’s granting of good harvests and worldly abundance. Who attempts a financial venture expecting God to doom it to disaster, or embarks on a career thinking that the Lord is going to frustrate it?

The problem is simply the wrong inference from the fact that simply because all good things come from God, therefore God has promised or guaranteed them to us. It is simply a problem of falsehood and misrepresentation, God does give those good things, but he has not promised or guaranteed to always and everywhere to give them, and it is a blatant lie to assert this contrary to the clear and explicit teachings of the Scriptures. To claim God’s name to make all kinds of promises and guarantees which he has not bound himself to honour is a gross violation of the Second Commandment, that “thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain”, and we ought to be warned, “for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” (Exodus 20:7) For such claims raise false hopes and expectations and when the claims do not come to past, the name of God is brought into disrepute and dishonour, and the innocent who has trusted in these claims will be shaken in their trust in God, and in some cases, shall blaspheme against him as a God who does not keep his Word, which in the first place never made such promises.

Promise of Holiness and Justice?

This is the same problem with which the “sanctification” and “social justice” Evangelical suffers from. Once more, there is nothing wrong with desiring holiness and virtue and for a more just society, but as with the case of the prosperity Gospel, Christ has simply not given any promises about their fulfilment in this life, and to raise false hopes and expectations about the Christian’s progress in holiness in this life, or about the Christian community’s ability to effect change in society or their environment, is simply to be set up for a major disappointment and disillusionment, not excluding the fact that making such false and ungrounded promises is a gross violation of the second commandment. “My Kingdom”, as Christ would remind us, “is not of this world”. It is simply false theology to identify any worldly social enterprise, no matter how “just” it may seem in the eyes of the world, as the expansion, growth or realisation of Christ’s Kingdom, and even worse to pretend that the Scriptures teaches some sort of promise of the growth of God’s Kingdom on earth through our works, no matter how noble and charitable or great, as the Bethel Confession, drafted by Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Hermann Sasse puts it in the clearest terms,

We reject the false doctrine that would see within the world a gradual development taking place which will culminate in the new world. Even that which is most noble in this world must go to its death. Christ had to go to the cross. Even the most devout must face the judgment. For our sake, Christ was cursed by God upon the cross. No teaching can be given about the outcome of the judgment, neither the restoration of the entire world nor its eternal rejection. Only in prayer is it possible to speak about the outcome of the judgment.

The Gospel has for its fundamental concern, eternal righteousness and everlasting life, not temporal justice/righteousness or secular life. God grants the latter in so far and in so much as it aids the former. To identify the righteousness of this world with the righteousness of the Kingdom of God is to confuse Christ’s righteousness with human righteousness. But as the history of Israel testifies, sometimes too much of the latter leads to people to forget the Lord and to puff themselves up with pride and arrogance, to which God will then need to take it away to bring them to repentance. Which same history also just goes to prove the recalcitrance of sin in the world and the cycles of blessing, sin and repentance which the history of Israel was plagued with, they certain never “progressed” or archived much social change or personal holiness despise their special election!

This case also holds for the Christian Church. Just as Christ has issued no promise about the progression of holiness or ability to effect social transformation, neither is there any sign of it in the early Church. St Paul and St Barnabas disagreed about taking John Mark in Acts 15, a disagreement so sharp that they even went their separate ways, (perhaps the first recorded schism in the Church); after St Peter’s dramatic restoration to the apostolic office by the post-resurrection Christ in the Gospel of St John, and his bold testimony and witness for the Gospel throughout Acts, was shortly followed by a disastrous wavering for the faith which lead him to compromise upon the Gospel and separate himself from the Gentiles, bringing many consciences into agony and doubt, and leading to an engaged rebuke from St Paul as his furiously passionate letter to the Galatians records in explicit detail. Of course I need not mention the state of the Church of Corinth whose state was not much the better of having received the Gospel.

The True Promise of the Gospel

The fact is that the promise of the Gospel is grasped in hope and which finds its fulfilment, not in this age, but in the “life of the world to come”, the next age, to which we look forward to with eager longing. The sufferings in the present age will be redeemed by the glory which will be revealed to us. For now all creation groans under the bondage of sin, awaiting its liberation with the return of Christ, and we ourselves also are weighed down by the infirmities and corruptions of our sinful flesh as we eagerly await our death and liberation from our fleshly bodies so that as we share in Christ’s death, so shall we shall be raised together with him at the General Resurrection at the end of time.

Thus, if the narrative of the Church and the individual Christian life will simply be that of a continuous cycle of sin and repentance, then what exactly is the promise of Christ to us? The promise has to be that of perpetual faithfulness to us, the promise of the Gospel to us, is not the promise that we shall become perfect, or some linear progress in holiness in some empirically discernible way, or be able to effect social change and become a social or political power and force, but it is a promise that his eternal faithfulness and presence to us and for us, it is the promise that no many how many times we fall and fail, and as long as we live in this fallen world in sinful flesh, we will fall and fail, God will always be there to pick us up again, to restore and renew us, to bear and remit our sins until to the very end of our lives, in the name of Christ and by the power of the Holy Ghost, it is in short, the promise of a never ending supply of chances, from the vast and inexhaustible wells of God’s grace and longsuffering patience for us even as we stumble about in this fallen world. For as St Paul says, if we deny him he will deny us, but if we are faithless he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself. It is the promise that no situation is so bleak, no sin so great, no tragedy so unspeakable, that the Lord who went through death and emerged out from the tomb, cannot create a future, cannot forgive, or cannot speak a new hope.

Conclusion

Thus the Christian hope and God’s promise, is not about some attainment of worldly success or material achievement, or some progression in personal holiness or some ability to effect change in society or accumulate social power, but it is the promise faithfulness, of grace, and of perpetual renewal and restoration, no matter how many times we fail and fall in this world. For as Luther would put it, we progress, by starting over again. And therefore if the Christian life is to be described as a “growth”, it can only be a growth in grace, as we learn more and more the faithfulness and grace of God in Jesus Christ for us, grasped anew every time we hear and receive the forgiving voice of the Gospel for the recalcitrant sins of our lives and our persistent failures, even as we suffer through this life, captured by the vision glorious of the life of the next.

Contrarian Cultural Commentaries: Why the Institution of Slavery is Compatible with the Gospel

2012-01-22T02:48:00.001-08:00

We began to stir against slavery. Hearts grew soft, here, there, and yonder. There was no place in the land where the seeker could not find some small budding sign of pity for the slave. No place in all the land but one—the pulpit. It yielded at last; it always does. It fought a strong and stubborn fight, and then did what it always does, joined the procession—at the tail end. Slavery fell. The slavery text remained; the practice changed, that was all.

"Bible Teaching and Religious Practice", Samuel Clements

Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called. Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God.

1 Corinthians 7:20-24

It is fitting to begin my series on "Contrarian Cultural Commentaries" by striking at what is considered by most to be an "obvious progress" upon human civilisation: the abolishment of the institution of slavery. This event has been lauded uncontroversially by almost all as an event and proof of the "progress" of the world and of the capacity of human political efforts at "improving" the human condition. To motivate this discussion for Christians, I wish to refer to the passage by St Paul just quoted above. It seems that the condition of worldly slavery is simply a matter of indifference to St Paul. His advice to Christian slaves is simply to "not be concerned about it", although he does recommend freedom, if they can get it, but it is not a matter of any urgency for St Paul.

Now, am I saying that the Scriptures recommend or command the institution of slavery? Obviously not, since St Paul himselves recommends slaves to be free. But all I'm saying, and which it cannot be denied is the attitude of St Paul here, that the institution of slavery is compatible with the call of the Gospel. The Gospel's message is not diminished in the least or substracted by the institution of slavery, or the lack thereof. Given that there is evidence here to hold that the institution of slavery is not really of much concern of the Gospel, why then do we contemporary Christian seem to find it so intolerable and always try to play up the Christian's role in abolishment of the institution of slavery and insist that that is the "full outworkings" or implication of the Gospel? It is to this question which we shall now explore.

Is the Institution of Slavery an Inherent Wrong?

It is important here that we distinguish between the institution of slavery and the practice of slavery. The practice of communism or socialism in China and North Korea says nothing more about the systemof socialism and communism than does the practice of slavery throughout history say anything about the institution of slavery. When we think of slavery, we automatically associate it with images of gallery slaves, ball and chains, whippings like that of Israel in Egypt, etc. But in reality the practice of slavery has been a lot more complex than the caricatures.

Yes, it cannot be denied that there has been those horrible galley slaves, ball and chains and whippings. But there has also been slaves who have been highly educated by their masters and served as tutors to their children. Slaves have been known to even own property and accumulate wealth (that's how some can redeem themselves out of slavery). Slaves aren't all locked up and most are able to raise families; (how else can the "slave race" the African Americans, perpetuate themselves?) granted that sometimes a slave being traded resulted in the break up of slave families, but effort was made through legislation by Constantine to sustain and keep intact slave families through transactions.

I mention all these merely to raise the question as to whether the evils or bads of the institution of slavery is *inherent* to the institution of slavery itself, or does it result from empirically contingent factors such as the benevolence or malevolence of the masters, the wisdom or righteousness of rulers or governments defining the scope and practice of slavery, etc. But given how varied are the forms which the practice of slavery has taken, (for example, concerning the question of the marriage and the status of children born from slave and free unions), it is not easy at all to give a blanket judgment that the institution of slavery itself is an inherent bad.

At the basic level, the institution of slavery is simply the concept that one's person life "belongs" to another person. As we have noted, the extend and control which a master has over a slave is not unlimited. In Constantine's time, masters who killed their slaves without just cause were liable for persecution under the law (beautifully represented in the Socratic dialogue of Euthyphro who charges his father for murder when the latter bound a slave who subsequently died). Laws can require that slaves who are sold be sold together with their families. The question is, are the evils of the institution of slavery simply the result of *bad masters* and *bad laws*, or is the institution of slavery evil *because* it is slavery?

Perhaps the link between the institution of slavery and the evils which it has been associated, can be made this way: The institution of slavery inherently creates an *unequal* relationship, between owner and owned, between master and slave. The unequal power relation between them, inherent within the very concept of slavery, is what makes the instituition of slavery evil, whether or not there exists benevolent masters or good laws protecting the rights of slaves.

This objection might have a point, provided one of the two premises are true: (1) There is something inherently evil about being unequal and (2) The institution of slavery creates the unequal power relations rather than merely formalises, regulates and codifies an unequal power relation whichalready exists.

I will deal with premise (1) later on, but for now, I would like to argue that premise (2) is false. That the institution of slavery merely formalises a relationship which already exists, and to remove the mere form does not result in any substantive changes.

A Marxian Analysis of Slavery

Perhaps one of the things which Marx has been right about is that fundamentally inequalities in societies are fundamentally a result of unequal economic and power realities. The form which this inequality takes, whether it is between that of master and slave, between lord and serf, or between the owners of the means of production and the workers, is a matter of irrelevance. The forms exists because the unequal economic relationships exists.

For most of history, people become slaves through one of these three ways (1) Capture through wars, (2) Selling oneself into slavery because of debt, commonly known as the debt slave, and (3) Parents selling their children into slavery because of dire poverty. Thus, to put it in other words, the majority of cases is simply that the lack of resources forces one to be subject to those who possess the resources. To abolish the institution of slavery does not fundamentally alter this reality as can be very easily demonstrated.

In the developing world, especially Africa, China and India, child labour exists, and sweat shops and factories with the most unimaginable working conditions and dismal renumerations exists. Their working conditions are worse than the working conditions of many slaves throughout history, with managers who are, well, literal taskmasters. But the question is, why would they subject themselves to such working conditions and relations? The exact same reason why people sell themselves and their children into slavery, poverty. The forms may have change, on paper somewhere in some government office, your "rights" maybe enshrined, your "freedom" guranteed. But the reality has not fundamentally changed. Unequal power relations still exists, people are still subjected to unimaginable hardships, forced to obey the orders and instructions of "managers" (read:taskmasters), on the pain of losing their meagre wage, their sole means of survival. The reasons people sell themselves into slavery are the exact same reasons why people work under such conditions, and their lives are not fundamentally different. In fact, at least for the slave, the chance of a benevolent master might make their lives easier, but an impersonal corporation run by faceless managers, well, you get the picture.

To expand upon this point, one might indeed wonder how much good has the emancipation proclaimation in America done for the African-Americans. There is no denial that many African-Americans, compared to the whites, lived in dire poverty, commit a disproportionately high number of crimes along with drug abuse. Again, to have their rights enshrined on paper somewhere in Washington D.C. is one thing, but a great distance exists between that piece of paper, and the actual reality on the ground. One might be almost tempted to say, many of their black ancestors might actually have been happier than them, for at least they had work and a sort of living. But the fundamental point remains, a change in the outward political form does not change the fundamental economic-power realities on the ground, and many African-Americans continue to live in misery because those realities still exists, whatever the political form.

This should warn us about being so easily deceived by simple changes in outward political forms, thinking that amending some law somewhere necessarily leads to some sort of change down below. Think about it, we don't even allow our maids here to date and get married, on the threat of dismissal and deportation, how different really are we from slave owners of old? Having your rights enshrined somewhere on some piece of paper will not eliminate cruel and hard "employers", whether industrial or domestic.

I am of course not saying that the abolishment of the institution of slavery did not do any good or did not change anything. Inspite of all I've said, I would say that it did do some good. But the good which the abolishment of slavery, and legislation of laws extending the rights of free persons to slaves, is acontingent fact. It is an empirical question whether the legislations of slavery abolishing laws will lead to improvements of lives. Only in certain contexts, especially in contexts whereby there is a willingness by the culture to share and spread available resources, will legislation give that "extra push" to facilitate the process. Otherwise like places in Africa, China and India, the laws may exists, but no good will be done, because of the unequal economic-power realities renders enforcement of the laws moot. The abolishment of the institution of slavery does not by itself entail the improvement of lives, the relation is a contingent, empirical one, to be determined posteriori, not one which can be inferred a priori. There has been cruel masters and benevolent masters under formal slavery, and there has been cruel corporations and benevolent corporations under a "free" society. It is these realities which truly impact the lives of many, not some legislation.

Therefore, it is not as if the abolishment of the instituition is some sort of absolute good, as if the instituition of slavery is some form of absolute evil. If the reality of slavery still exists, despite the elimination of the institution of slavery, then it is not the institution of slavery which is inherently evil, but the underlying realities which gave rise to it that is.

"You will always have the poor among you"

If we accept this Marxian analysis, that fundamental to the evils of slavery is not the institution of slavery but instead the underlying economic-power relations, the question will naturally become whether we can actually change this unequal economic-power relation. Marx certainly himself thinks so with one of his most famous quotes, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." But can these fundamental economic-power relations be changed? The experience of history has shown that in most communist states, the removal of the old forms which gave shape and codified the power relations have only resulted in new forms of the same inequality. The aristocrat in Russia was simply replaced by the party official, nothing has really changed. Thus, you can rail against the current face of those possessing economic-power, the capitalist, bankers, the aristocrats, etc, but even if you manage to bring down that face, you're merely swapping one mask for another, someone else will occupy that space which the previous incumbent left behind. In place of the royalty in France arose the Revolutionaries with greater brutality and violence than has been seen in decades.

That inequality and unequal economic and power relations is a permanent fact of the human condition, which no philosophy or political system can ever change, has already long been long observed by Christ himself. "You will always have the poor among you", declares our Lord, and this will be so, until Christ returns in glory. The question is therefore not how to remove the unequal economic and power relations (which only swaps one form for another) by rearranging systems, but simply in how can we, in each of our concrete situation and circumstance, help relief suffering and ease the burdens of our concrete and actual neighbours and friends? Remember the parable of the Good Samaritan, he paid for the robbed and wounded man's injuries without enquiring what economic class or background the wounded man belongs to. The wounded man may be rich for all you know, which would make paying for his stay ludicrous. But the Good Samaritan simply paid for him anyway, because he recognised an immediate and concrete need and sought to meet that need.

On a more communal level, the question of legislation shouldn't be able trying to "level the field", which would be impossible given the fundamental inequalities of our historical and natural circumstances, which no legislation can ever fundamentally correct, without extreme violence and oppression (which of course will not be corrected anyway but swapped), but in understanding the realities of the human condition and human nature, and the particular circumstance and history of the community in question, and then passing legislation which best "fits" the situation, bettering lives where legislation can do some actual good, but not trying to be god and think that legislation can solve all problems. These are all contingent empirical questions, it cannot be known a priori the form which legislation should take in the particular circumstance we are in, only posteriori. The realities of the human condition and human nature may be known a priori via philosophical and theological principles, but those principles are not sufficient in themselves to determine what form or shape legislation should take, for that, we need actual empirical and history information on the ground.

It is for this reason which is why I think that it is not apparently a priori to me that the abolishment of slavery is necessarily a good thing, certainly at least not something to have a conviction about, no matter what the American founding fathers may claim about how "self-evident" it is. That there is much posteriori empirical evidence to suggest that it has done much good is not in doubt. But to treat it like some landmark of the progress of human civilisation, well, I think it is a bit premature.

The Gospel and the Institution of Slavery

No doubt many may find my skepticism about our ability to change the fundamental economic-power inequalities in the world to be unacceptable. But then Christians do not look to redeem this world but to our complete redemption in the next. The Gospel is about eternal righteousness and everlasting life, and its concerns with temporal righteousness and this life is so far as it has to do with the next life. This life exists for the next life, not the other way round. Thus, the Gospel can do its work in any kind of political form, be it within slavery, within aristocracy, capitalism, feudalism, etc, these forms do not in the least contribute or hinder the Gospel's power to save. To imply that somehow the Gospel's ability to grant eternal life is dependent upon our political and social action is nothing short of the denial of sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice to justify man and impute righteousness and dignity through faith. We do not receive our worth from political or economic or social systems, we receive it only through faith as administered by the Word and Sacraments. To imply that some form of social-economic-political arrangment is necessary to the workings of the Gospel, is a denial of the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice and his Gospel and Word to save.

It is only when those social-economic-political system impunge upon the Gospel, then must we rise up and flatly deny that earthly instituitions have anything to do with divine sacraments. For example if ever there is the idea that slaves cannot receive baptism or the Eucharist until he obtains his freedom, then the Church must flatly deny that divine salvation and justification can ever be dependent upon our worldly status. But the independence of the Gospel goes both ways, just as being a slave is no impediment to the Gospel and that salvation and the sacraments is to be granted to both the slave and the free, so is being a freeman not in anyway some kind of "completion" of the Gospel freedom or work. Neither slave or free is of any relevant to salvation for as St Paul says, the slave is free in Christ, and the free is a slave to Christ. The independence of the Gospel from worldly and man-made systems must always be defended, and never must the Gospel of salvation be made to be dependent upon some political-economic arrangment or work of man.

But as I mentioned earlier, just as the Gospel can work under any system, the commandments of God can also work under any system, and Christians living in these systems do have an obligation to love their neighbours in the concrete circumstance to which they are placed in by God. Masters must not ill-treat their slaves, but instead deal with them fairly and kindly, owners of corporations must ensure good working environments and just pay, employers of maid must treat their maids well, etc. The Gospel and the law of charity is not constrained by the system in which we are found in, and only in the rarest and most extreme cases would there be a need for a fundamental revolution. But charity depends only upon the Holy Ghost, not upon the economic-power system we find ourselves in and we shall always have an opportunity to obey the will of God and do good in every circumstance we are in. Remember, the temporal well-being and happiness of people is fundamentally not dependent upon the system, but upon the persons who are part of the system, and for the sake of the Gospel, Christians have an obligation to do well by their neighbours.

Conclusion: How Big a Deal is the Abolishment of Slavery?

Having said all this, I am of course not recommending that we bring back the institution of slavery, even though it is still a reality of this world. Here is an analogy to understand how we should think about the institution of slavery: In the past, the majority of marriages are match-made or arranged by their parents, today most would be made by "romance". Now, has there been unhappy match-made romances? Yes, of course there has been, as dramas and stories have never ceased to tell us. But to say that all match-made marriages must end in unhappiness simply because they are match-made is just false and untrue. There has been unhappy match-made marriages, but I think the empirical evidence would say that the vast majority of such marriages have been, if not happy, at least contented. And just as there have been happy "romance" originated marriages, but the divorce rates today clearly tell us that "romantic" marriages are not better, if not actually far worse, than match-made based marriages.

Is "romantic marriages" somehow "progress" from match-made marriages? This is an empirical question, which can be determined only by looking at the evidence. But to infer that match-made marriages mustbe worse than romantic marriages simply because we can't imagine ourselves being match-made is just stupid. It is rather safer to just say that it is different, and that although we can't conceive ourselvesgoing back to being match-made, because of how different our mindsets and thinking is from the past, but our lack of imagination is no indicator of actual progress or the lack thereof.

It is the same with slavery, we can't conceive going back to the time of formalised slavery, but again, the limits of our imagination is not a good indicator of moral realities. Whether or not the abolishment of slavery is a "progress" upon the world is an empirical question, just as whether the transition from match-made marriages to romance-based marriages is progress is also an empirical question. Butdiffering social-political-economic forms is not the same as better forms, and to make this observation is not to recommend that we go back to slavery or match-made marriages, but it is simply a call to look past the forms and go to the realities and engage the realities themselves, to be concerned with what makes for true earthly happiness, what truly promotes the good and welfare of people as they exist in our concrete situation, rather than obsessing over abstract systems or laws.

To end off, we should look carefully at the remark of Samuel Clements about slavery. I've attended enough Evangelical seminars to know of the utter self-deception and white washing revisionist history which goes on in Christian circles about slavery. Yes, there has been a few Christians who have advocated for the abolishment of slavery, etc. But what is always passed over in silence is that there has been many many Christians too who have opposed the abolishment of slavery and have, legitimately in my opinion, cited Scripture which, if not legitimised, at least permitted the institution of slavery. To deny this and try to make out that the Gospel is utterly and absolutely opposed to slavery or that somehow the emancipation of slaves is an integral part of the Christian faith, is simply utter dishonesty.

Of course, the reason for this fierce debate is not far to seek. It is simply because the Gospel really does not have any direct implications on social systems or arrangments. It is concerned primarily with eternal righteousness and everlasting life, it is not here to re-organise the earth or redeem the old creation, but it is primarily concerned with proclaiming the eminent judgement and destruction of it, in favour of the new heavens and new earth.

Sixteen Propositions Regarding Eternal Damnation

2012-01-18T05:10:00.001-08:00

I thought that since recently my notes have been highlighting the importance of the life of the world to come, it would be important if I said something about the threat of damnation too.

As gristly as might be the wars and battles and slaughters of the Hebrews and the vengeful language of the Old Testament with regards to their earthly enemies, but even their occasionally rather graphic expositions of the destruction of their worldly foes pales in contrast to the warnings of Christ regarding eternal damnation. Of all the figures of the Holy Scriptures, Jesus had the most to say about eternal damnation, so if our Saviour himself takes it seriously, so must we.
"I believe in... The Communion of Saints", we confess in the Apostles' Creed. If heaven is a fellowship and Communion of Saints, the chief Saint being of course Jesus Christ the head, and if this intimacy is beyond anything which we can possibly experience on earth, then necessarily it can only be populated by people whose character and lives are compatible with this bond of love and fellowship with each other, namely, they must be people who accepts, discerns and love each other in spirit and in truth, according to God’s spirit and God’s truth. Only those who are willing to receive God's truth and live in God's love, shall be able to live in this company. It is impossible to force into the closest of intimacy, those who have nothing but hatred or indifference towards God and God's people. If you think sitting through a sermon for half an hour is bad, wait till you do nothing but adore, worship and listen to God's word for all eternity, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35. To the saints who love God's word and truth, these are sweet words of comfort, to the damned who hate God's truth, to be forced to listen to it forever and ever, this would be hell indeed.
Thus, eternal damnation can be known only in contrast to the Communion of Saints. Some Eastern Orthodox theologians postulate that hell is not really a different place, but the damned merely experience God differently. Those who love Jesus Christ and his people would experience this intimacy and constant exposure and presence of God as bliss, the beatific vision, as joy, for they love both God's truth and God's love and would enjoy it's never ending unveiling. But the damned will be repulsed by this constant, and dangerously intimate, exposure to God's presence. In their hatred for God, they will experience him as pain and torment, just as we would when we are forced to sit in the same room with someone whom we can't stand.
It is in this light that we understand St Paul's many threats of damnation. "Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience." Ephesians 5:5-6. The fornicator, the idolater and covetous man who lust after the things of this world and worship them, and care not for God’s truth or the things of eternity, would be tormented with eternal boredom in God's presence, for in eternity there is nothing to be gained, nothing else to be attained, except God, therefore for those who has not the slightest interest to seek after God, there would be nothing else, except the eternal frustration of transient desires. "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. So the threat, and state, of damnation is as real as is the state of communion. No one who does such works, or are of such character, shall inherit the kingdom of God, shall be able to live in communion with God and his people. The Law of God upholds the necessary demands for eternal communion, and upon those who falls woefully short, his wrath descends in fury, and even now is made manifest in this world. (Romans 1:18)
If this were all, then it would indeed simply be better to simply renounce Christianity altogether. But, and this is the vital but of the Gospel, the essence of the Christian faith, the hinge and great turn which everything hangs, but, St Paul does not merely preach the threats and demands of the Law, 1 Cor 6:10 continues on in verse 11, "And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." The Law is overcome by the Gospel, the threat of damnation is washed out in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of God. The reality of condemnation, is cancelled by the reality of justification, for "mercy triumphs over judgement" (James 2:13) Damnation is real, because Communion is real, but yet the reality of damnation is not an absolute reality. The threat is itself threatened; death indeed has been put to death, by the death of Jesus Christ. In the action of God in Jesus Christ alone is the reality of damnation threatened, and overcome. Through God's justification, our flesh and old self, which are incompatible with eternity, is put to death and killed, for as St Paul himself puts it, "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." (2 Corinthians 15:50), and our new self in Christ, is born anew by Water and of the Holy Spirit, containing all the perfections and graces necessarily for eternal communion, is given and shall be raised with a new incorruptible body at the General Resurrection, "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." (1 Corinthians 15:53)
Thus, the eschatological paradox of the Christian is neatly summarised by this statement of the Bethel Confession, 'In this way the church becomes the communion of “saints”. Its members are saints not because they are without sin; their holiness is not the fruit of human endeavour, but depends solely upon God’s action, God’s call. The church is therefore a community of sinners; it is a community of the godless, of people who are lost. Through God’s forgiving action of justification, that is, only because God reaches out to them, people who are without God become God’s children.' This is the great simul iustus et peccator of Luther and the Reformation. At the same time sinner and justified, simultaneously living in the present flesh and possessing the spirit of God.
But, where is God’s saving action to be found? Wherever the Gospel is preached in its purity, and the sacraments rightly administered, there the Holy Ghost works saving faith in Christ, and people are delivered from damnation unto salvation.
Is there therefore truly no salvation outside the Church, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus? The answer of the Catholic Church has always been, God is bound to his means of grace, the Word and Sacrament, the Church Catholic, but God is not confined to it. To put it another way, we know definitely where the Holy Ghost works, and God has bound himself by infallible promises to those means of grace, but as to whether God can or does work outside of it, we do not, and dare not presume to restrict God, reserving to ourselves only the right to reject any claims of the working of the Holy Ghost which contradicts our sure knowledge where the Holy Ghost is revealed, the Word and the Sacraments.
Is it possible to be saved outside of Christ? An absolute no must be insisted. The communion of saints by definition must include the chief saint, Jesus Christ, whoever denies him on earth, he shall deny before his Father in heaven. It is impossible for those who wilfully refuse to worship him on earth, to worship him in heaven for eternity.
Can we know who are indeed the elect or in Christ? Where God has not spoken, neither must we speak. God has not deigned to give us the census of heaven (or hell!), therefore we should not presume to attempt to peer into it. “I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God.” (1 Corinthians 4:3-5) If St Paul himself dares not judge his own heart, but commends it to the Lord’s Final Judgement, how much more ought we refrain from declaring whether individual persons are saved or damned! As the Bethel Confession puts it, “But as Christ was raised from the dead, so at the end time God will awaken the dead and call them before his judgment seat. Only those who believe can stand this judgment. But who are those who believe, and who are those who do not believe? This question, which we have to answer for ourselves, is the final thing that can be said about it here.”
But if we can’t know who are saved or damned, how shall we be assured of our own salvation? We are only answerable to our own standing before the judgement seat, and we know that our only possible answer to the judgement is Christ’s promises given to us in the Gospel, which we appropriate through faith by the means of grace, the Word and Sacraments, speaks to us as individuals, to pledge his love to us. But God’s speaking to others, that is for others to hear and to receive, not for us to know, judge or pry into. In other words, that’s simply between him and God. We are not saved by making deductions about the state of our soul from a criteria list; we are saved by receiving and hearing the forgiving voice of Christ to us in Word and Sacrament. To run through the criteria list to judge our salvation, is to confuse Law and Gospel.
But for those who died as apostates, excommunicates, or without faith in Christ, surely we can judge them to be lost? We return back to proposition 8, God is bound to his means of grace, but he is not confined to it. Christ came precisely to destroy the power of death, shall death limit the power of God in Jesus Christ to save and bring sinners to repentance? Is it not possible for Christ to preach, even to the dead (1 Peter 4:6)? Death is not the finishing line whereby beyond that there is no hope, our hope is precisely that which transcends and overcomes the grave. The Catholic Church has never officially pronounced upon the damnation of any particular person, despite the inordinate amount of anathemas in their decrees and councils, and if even an excommunicate Australian nun can be canonised, how much greater ought our faith in Christ be?
It is for this reason whereby prayers for the dead should and ought to be retained in the Church. Shall death silence our appeals to God’s mercy and grace, when Christ by his Cross and Resurrection has taken away the sting and power of death? No, we must confess confidently with St Paul that, “I am convinced that neither death nor life... will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:38-39) And we pray for the dead with firm assurance in this sure word of God, that indeed death cannot separate us or anyone else, from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. “This much is certain, that we have no theological right to set any sort of limits to the loving-kindness of God which has appeared in Jesus Christ.” (Karl Barth)
But don’t prayers for the dead take away our “assurance of salvation”? Isn’t it at the same time a confession that we don’t know whether the other person has truly been saved? Why else would we pray for the dead? We return back to proposition 11. We never presume to judge the state of the souls of others. Assurance is an individual matter, between the Gospel’s voice and me. And when I listen to the Christ voice speaking in Word and Sacrament to me in faith, I receive his promise and assurance of grace. But when I cast my eyes upon others, I dare not pry into their souls, and so my only attitude towards them is prayer and faith in God’s desire to redeem them. Just as no matter how “holy” a living person may appear to be, we would still pray for them, the same principle is retained, even if after that person is dead. And this principle is extended, even to those who appear to be the worse or most unrepentant of sinners, just as we judge not the state of the souls of those who appear holy, neither do we judge the state of the souls of those who appear unholy. What is Christ’s teaching with regards to our enemies? Bless them and pray for them, and yes, even if they die in unrepentance, continue to do so, for it is only Christ’s power alone, which has triumphed over the grave, which shall and can save them. This is the only attitude we should adopt towards others, not the attitude trying to place them in hell’s census. “I can speak of hell only in relation to myself, precisely because I can never imagine the possible damnation of another as more likely that my own” (Hans Urs von Balthasar). For we “believe in the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.” (Apostles’ Creed) We do not believe or confess our confidence and faith in hell.
But will not such confidence in the overwhelming power of Christ to save, leads us to presumption and boldness to ignore the Law and sin, wantonly believing that we shall have the chance to be saved anyway? While it is true that the warnings and threats about damnation are precisely warnings, which logically does not entail that there are any who are subject to the warnings, anymore than a sign saying that “trespasses will be prosecuted” imply that there is anyone who has trespassed, but it does not logically follow that there isn’t anyone who has not trespassed either. While Gospel does overcome Law, but the Law is not abolished but upheld. If we dare not pronounce upon the damnation of anyone, neither do we dare to pronounce upon their salvation either. Our faith in Christ’s desire and power to save is a faith grasped in hope, but it is not one grasped in knowledge. We simply do not know whether that person will be saved, we can only pray and hope in Christ that he will be. But this prayer and hope does not by itself allow us to boldly presume or speak any guarantees to others, especially if they refuse the means of grace, of their salvation. Precisely because the threat of damnation remains real, which is why the need to pray for them remains real. The latter does not take away the former. Make no mistake, the types of character described by St Paul in his letters truly will not inherit the kingdom of God, but only by continually dying to those characters and washing our souls in his blood through Word and Sacrament, in other words, only those who maintain their repentance, shall be saved. Those who refuse the washing endanger their souls and tempt God to destroy them utterly.
Therefore we end with this paraphrase taken from St Augustine, Christ was crucified between two thieves at the hour of their deaths, do not presume, for one of them perished, but yet also do not despair, for the other was saved, and this can be said to be an allegory of the Law and the Gospel. The Law truly does judge and condemn, do not presume but fear the wrath of God. But the Gospel also does truly save and deliver, therefore do not despair but believe in the love of God.

Righteousness and Dignity; Received Only through Faith in Jesus Christ, Not from Human Rights or Equality

2012-01-14T07:21:00.001-08:00

Every subject’s duty is the king’s; but every subject’s soul is his own.

Shakespeare

If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

Colossians 3:1-4

Redemption of the Earth?

A very subtle change has come over the Christian theological language over the past few decades. When theologians and the Scriptures speaks of redemption, the system of concepts which has always been associated with redemption is obviously redemption from God's wrath and judgement. And this redemption consists in nothing more or less than remission of our sins, and the reception of everlasting life, the hope of the resurrection after the dissolution of our bodies, earth to earth, dust to dust, ashes to ashes.

But today we speak of the "redemption" of creation, redemption of human societies and even nations. But what could such "redemption" possibly mean? What would it mean to speak of the "redemption of creation"? Or nations? Or human societies and cultures? That creation is fallen and given over to evil, is not without doubt, but that we can somehow actually "redeem" creation, what on earth does that actually mean?

If we speak of the redemption of an individual person, we know perfectly well what that means. He has received a new life in Christ, which is hid in Christ, and which shall appear in glory when Christ returns at his Second Coming at the General Resurrection. But what could redemption of creation or human society mean? Shall the earth be imbued with everlasting existence as well? Shall we somehow be able to correct the laws of physics, and cause all creation no more to be given over to causing disasters and evils? Shall we be able to cure all diseases? Prevent viral mutations? Or does the "redemption of the earth" consists in achieving some kind of environmental-human harmony?

It is remarkable how despite the cloudiness and vagueness of such talk, it has virtually spread like wild fire in today's Christian circles, everyone is babbling about it, but nobody really knows what it means.

Redemption of Human Societies and Nations?

What is the source of our righteousness, worth and dignity? The Reformation shall have absolutely no problems answering this question. Through faith alone in Christ alone, we receive remissions of sins, justification before God, and the imputed righteousness of Christ is our righteousness, our true status and our true dignity.

Yet once more, something has gone terribly wrong with our theological language. When we speak of human dignity, it is no longer something given through God's Word and Sacrament, received through faith in Christ alone, it is something which is mediated instead through human rights, through "equality", or some social or political action. Dignity is no longer the gift of God through faith, it is instead a gift of man through secular political and social action. A pretender has risen up to subvert and steal the rightful office of Christ. And it is us Christians we have crowned this pretender in our temples. Caesar and God has been confused, and we now seek the valuation of our existence from the former instead of from the latter.

When "redemption of mankind" no longer means remissions of sins, reception of Christ's righteousness and eternal life, but instead means, equality, human rights, etc, then our evaluation of what constitutes the heart of humanity, where our true worth lies, spiritual righteousness, hope in the resurrection to eternal life, and remission of sins, shift from the spiritual to the crassly material. We are only "truly redeemed" if we are possess a certain socio-political status, attain unto a certain material well-being or standard. Redemption has become a purely worldly affair, and consists of nothing more than to be exalted in this world instead of the life of the world to come.

In principle, there is very little difference between the prosperity gospel evangelical and the social justice evangelical. The ends of both is ultimately our "redemption" in the material sense. They both want the poor to be rich. They both desire the material well-being and uplifting of the poor. They only disagree about how to do it. The prosperity gospel evangelical at least trusts in God to provide it through prayer and faith. The social justice evangelical wants to do it through redistribution of wealth and material possessions or some socio-political action, affirmation or recognition. But both have lost sight of eternity and both have little, if virtually, no use for the remission of sins and eternal righteousness even as they continue to give it lip service for old time sake, but it is something which one quickly moves on to where our real redemption lies, in some form of participation in solidarity in some social-political community of a certain material standard of living or political communal bonds defined and given by social recognition, affirmation or human rights or whatever. Whatever happened to justification by faith alone? It has been replaced by justification by the works, material well-being and by socio-politics. Christ has been completely overshadowed by Caesar. The Gospel has completely vanished.

A Full, Perfect, and Sufficient Sacrifice, Oblation and Satisfaction of the Sins of the Whole World... Wait! We need Human Rights and Equality and Socio-Political Recognition Too!

During the Reformation, one of the key question was of course how are we humans justified before God, where is our righteousness, the true source of our worth, the justification for our existence? The Reformers raged against the many "invented works" of late medieval Catholicism which would seek other sources and means of attaining unto this righteousness than receiving it through faith. The additional "merits" of the monastic life, the work of the Sacrifice of the Mass which the priest offers on behalf of others to grant them righteousness, these are the particular objects of rigorous and vicious criticism by the Reformer. Particularly the Sacrifice of the Mass has been an object of intense scrutiny and the Reformers rejected this work by condemning its ex opere operato character, the idea that the Mass grants righteousness for others by virtue of being done by the priest without the need for the beneficiaries to receive it through faith.

This recent spate of social justice mania is simply a revivial of late medieval piety, albeit in a different form. Like the Sacrifice of the Mass, social justice seeks to grant mankind dignity, righteousness, justice, justification, etc, ex opere operato by virtue of some socio-politico work or legislation, without the need for faith in Christ. Like late medieval piety, they have invented their own works and ways of redeeming the world and granting God's righteousness which God has neither ordained or commanded. Charity, yes, that has been in the Church since the very beginning, but some reorganisation of socio-political systems or structures? Who ordained this? By what divine command were such works established to merit righteousness for others? Woe betide those who seek to establish their own ways of attaining righteousness, spurring the true righteousness and dignity which is received through faith in Christ alone!

Is Forgiveness Enough?

If our redemption means the correction of "injustices" (e.g. not being recognised as equals by some socio-political entity), the recognition of our rights, the end of all abuses, the advancement of our self-esteem, happiness, etc, then truly, can it be said that we are saved by grace alone, through faith in Christ alone? The "redeemed" person is someone who has attained unto some material standard of well-being, not someone who has received the imputed righteousness of Christ given by the Word and Sacraments. What use then the remission of sins? If redemption consists in this wordly well being, instead of the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come with Christ, do we still need to be forgiven by God? When "the sufferings of this present time" is no longer considered to be "not worthy of being compared to the glory which is to be revealed to us” (Romans 8:18), but instead is simply not worthy of us, period, is this still the Gospel? Even if it is protested that forgiveness of sins is still a necessary part of our "redemption", but it will be soundly declared, it is not enough! We still need to go on to redeem our "whole person", materially or in social-political terms.

What clearer evidence do we need, that our full, perfect and sufficient redemption in Christ, received only through faith alone has been effectively repudiated? It is not enough to be forgiven by God and justified in his sight for our worth, dignity and justification, for our complete redemption, we shall need some sort of socio-politico-economic status as well, which of course shall be granted to you by some socio-politico-economic action. The Cross of Christ and faith alone is not enough! Remission of sins is not enough! Something more is required! You're not completely redeemed until you have attained unto some worldly socio-politico-economic status.

On Bodies and Souls

The world is a very poor source for dignity. Whether it be from governments, society, the economy, etc, the righteousness granted by these worldly entities are fickle, unpredictable and dangerously idolatrous, especially if they seek to supplement Christ as our righteousness and source of dignity and add on to faith as another means of receiving this righteousness.

As the Lutheran confessions rightly distinguish between the Power of the Keys and the Power of the Sword,

...the power of the Keys, or the power of the bishops, according to the Gospel, is a power or commandment of God, to preach the Gospel, to remit and retain sins, and to administer Sacraments. For with this commandment Christ sends forth His Apostles, John 20:21 sqq.: As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained. Mark 16:15: Go preach the Gospel to every creature.
This power is exercised only by teaching or preaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments, according to their calling either to many or to individuals. For thereby are granted, not bodily, but eternal things, as eternal righteousness, the Holy Ghost, eternal life. These things cannot come but by the ministry of the Word and the Sacraments, as Paul says, Rom. 1:16: The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. Therefore, since the power of the Church grants eternal things, and is exercised only by the ministry of the Word, it does not interfere with civil government; no more than the art of singing interferes with civil government. For civil government deals with other things than does the Gospel. The civil rulers defend not souls, but bodies and bodily things against manifest injuries, and restrain men with the sword and bodily punishments in order to preserve civil justice and peace.
Therefore the power of the Church and the civil power must not be confounded. The power of the Church has its own commission to teach the Gospel and to administer the Sacraments. Let it not break into the office of another; let it not transfer the kingdoms of this world; let it not abrogate the laws of civil rulers; let it not abolish lawful obedience; let it not interfere with judgments concerning civil ordinances or contracts; let it not prescribe laws to civil rulers concerning the form of the Commonwealth. As Christ says, John 18:36: My kingdom is not of this world; also Luke 12:14: Who made Me a judge or a divider over you? Paul also says, Phil. 3:20: Our citizenship is in heaven; 2 Cor. 10:4: The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the casting down of imaginations.

Civil rulers defend not souls but bodies and bodily things. Wordly political governments exists to defend and protect our material well being, they do not exist to defend our worth, value or dignity, namely, our souls. They defend both our bodies from violence and our property from theft by the power of the sword which God has given them for this purpose, to restrain by bodily force the evil-doers and to enforce a form of external order and righteousness. But when wordly entities, be it human governments, societies or economics, seek to trespass their proper order and boundary for which God has ordained them and enter into what is the Christ alone to give through the church, i.e. eternal righteousness, eternal life and justification, then the Church must rise up and protest against this arrogation of worldly entities to roles and offices for which they have no business, and insist that we serve "the state by keeping the human beings under state authority safe from the devil’s deception, which would urge them to worship the state as the unlimited giver of life and of salvation." (Bethel Confession).

Our true redemption, dignity, worth and righteousness comes only through the Power of the Keys, the Church, in its preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments, and this is received only through faith in Christ, and let no other worldly entity seek to usurp what properly belong to Christ in Word and Sacrament to give. But I fear that instead of warning the world against seeking a dignity, righteousness and worth apart from the Word and Sacraments and from the full and perfect redemption which we have in Christ, we are instead pointing them away from Christ and to socio-politico-economic realities!

Conclusion

Therefore in the light of this manifest and widespread paganism which would locate redemption away from faith in Christ alone and in worldly entities and systems, I shall, in the course of the next few days, write a series of utterly contrarian cultural commentary notes which shall demonstrate how to distinguish clearly the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of the World, the Power of the Keys and the Power of the Sword, Eternal righteousness and temporal righteousness and ultimately, Gospel from Law.

Christian, until otherwise Proven; Or Faith: Not a Psychologically or Consciously Discernible Fact

2012-01-02T08:06:00.001-08:00

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God

John 1:12-13

Saving Faith?

Once the Reformation made faith the linchpin through which our entire justification or salvation is appropriated, the question then turned to what is the nature and shape of this faith upon which our status before God is decided. The answer has been legion and many, tied up intricately with many other theological issues, saving faith and sanctification, the object of faith, etc.

However, I think it would be most instructive to consider this issue from the issue of infant baptism, wherein the question of "saving faith" can be made more concrete, and shape of faith be more clearly understood. It is in the disputes about infant baptism between the Reformed and the Lutherans whereby the nature of faith can be decisively demonstrated. Once we have a clear and right understand of what faith exactly is, we can understand clearly how "assurance of salvation" truly works, and faith's relation to sanctification, and also how Lutherans and Reformed theology differs in their understanding of both.

Faith as a Gift Received in Baptism

In the disputes about infant baptism and baptism in general, Luther insisted against all the Reformed theologians like Calvin and Zwingli, that baptism saves and that anyone who has been baptised, even infants, are born again and are made children of God by virtue of baptism. Evidently this claim was rejected by the Reformed theologians who argued that this was inconsistent with the material principle of the Reformation whereby one is justified, and thereby saved, by faith alone. How can infants who "clearly" have no faith, be born again and justified and saved?

Luther being one of the principal fathers of the Reformation clearly did not simply forget about the material principle of the Reformation. But the answer which he gave both baffled and outraged his opponents. He argued that since baptised infants were born again and saved and since one cannot be born again and saved without having faith, therefore, infants had saving faith which the infants received in their baptism!

This claim would be puzzling if not completely weird to most of us. But then again, to provide a little historical context, we have to remember that in past in the Pre-Reformation era, baptismal liturgies begin with the following interesting exchange,

Priest: [Name of sponsor or catechumen], what do you ask of the Church of God?
Sponsor/Catechumen: Faith.
Priest: What does Faith offer you?
Sponsor/Catechumen: Life everlasting.

Faith is something which we receive from the Church of God. It is something which is offered and givenby the Church, through baptism, and which we receive. So for Luther, since faith is a gift of the Church and it is as a matter of fact given in baptism, therefore it logically follows that an infant does receive this gift of faith by virtue of his or her baptism.

If this seems strange, then perhaps this analogy might help. If a king dies and his son is merely an infant or a child, then the infant or son, becomes the next king, by virtue of the laws of succession and the ascension ceremonies instituted therein, and also by virtue of the royal lineage of the father who had just died, the son's status as king does not depend on whether he knows or is conscious of what's going on and what is his status or role. He is king and receives the crown by virtue of the laws of succession and the lineage of his father, not upon his psychology.

Thus, we are born again and made children of God and receive remission of sins, the Holy Ghost and salvation, etc, by virtue of the baptismal covenant and the "lineage" of the baptism ordinance, i.e. by virtue of the fact that sacrament of baptism and it's attendant promises of salvation have been given to the Church by the Apostles and from the Apostles ultimately from Christ himself. Thus, just as the son is the king by virtue of his father lineage and the laws of succession, independently of his psychological state, so is the baptised infant a child of God and justified before Him by virtue of his "lineage" to Christ and the baptismal covenant and promises attached to it by Christ.

Thus, our salvation is an external objective fact, grounded ultimately upon the act of God in Christ through the Holy Ghost in our baptism. It is entire "gracious" dependent upon the act of God alone, external to ourselves, not upon our works, who we are or what we do, but upon what God does, his regeneration of us via baptism, which we passively receive.

Therefore if one is born again, a child of God, receives the Holy Ghost by virtue of baptism, and if part of the gifts of the Holy Ghost is faith, which the child also receives in baptism, then the logical conclusion is that a child does have faith.

Faith as a Divine Mystery, beyond Psychology and Consciousness

No doubt we moderns who are so used to the idea of identity of faith with consciousness would find this completely absurd. But we must remember, the Holy Scriptures does not operate according to the categories of moderns, for doth not Christ himself declare, "Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?" (Matthew 21:16) If from the mouth of infants comes praise of God, then dare we deny them the faith necessary for such praiseworthy, erm, praise?

This identity of faith with consciousness has its origins not from the Sacred Scriptures but from Cartesian philosophy and it's "I think therefore I am" and equation of consciousness with being which today colours our understanding of faith as a psychologically/consciously discernible phenomenon. As Hermann Sasse, a Lutheran theologian, puts it,

... when does faith begin...? Is it at the age when we nowadays have confirmation or when small children are able to make some confession of faith, as Thomas Müntzer wanted? We would be making a psychologically perceived fact out of the wondrous working of the Holy Spirit if we here set a temporal boundary on the sway of the Holy Spirit.

Sasse would earlier describe the faith of children,

this faith of children is not yet a conscious faith that they can confess themselves

Thus infants have faith, even though this faith is not yet conscious. Faith is not a phenomenon, open to psychology or our own consciousness, but it is a divine mystery which we possess by virtue of the act of God in baptism. If we want to know this child's status as king, we do not ask a psychologist, but we consult instead the lawyers and historians is check the laws of succession and the royal lineage of his father through which the child receives his kingship.

But here we can legitimately object, but is one's status as a Christian determined in the same way, simply by virtue of baptism? What about infants who are baptised but later renounce their faith or deny their faith through unrepentant sinning? Can it be said that they are still children of God, justified before God, simply by virtue of their infant baptism?

Innocent, until Proven Guilty

We must first insist that one is a Christian by virtue of the objective, external acts of God in Christ through his own ordained means of salvation, and that one ceases to be a Christian only through unrepentant sin. This seems to be obvious, but it's application to our present case isn't that obvious which we shall need to elaborate.

Let's go back to our analogy. Now the child maybe the king, but because the child is still too young to rule, normally what happens is that a privy council rules in the stead of the child, and holds his ruler ship in trust. And in the mean time, the child is instructed in ruler ship, politics, etc. When the child comes of age, then the child shall simply assume the duties and responsibilities of kingship. But the child does not need to be crown again, he is already king by virtue of his coronation as a child, the laws of succession and his lineage. Thus, his crown is received not by any act of his but by the laws of succession.

However, and this is the vital point, the child who grows up, only ceases to become a king if he openly abdicates his throne and renounces the crown. Otherwise, the child is king, by default, by virtue of the laws of succession, etc. The child doesn't need to do anything more to become king, he only needs to assume his role as king which we has already received.

Thus, likewise it is with the baptised infant. He has faith, and he is a child of God, unless proven otherwise by unrepentant sin. So, the parents of the child holds his/her "Christian life" or role in trust and instructs the child of the Christian faith, until the child reaches the age of discernment and assumes his Christian life for himself. Thus, if the child grows up and at some later point of his life, renounces his faith and refuses to repent of this sin, then by this unrepentant sin, he ceases to become a child of God and a Christian. Or if the child who grows up lives in sin and refuses to repent of it even when confronted by the preaching of the law, then this child also ceases to be a child of God and a Christian by virtue of unrepentant sin.

So to put it another way, one is presumed Christian until proven otherwise. Thus, one is a Christian, not because one can "prove" his faith by his works or can discern some psychological state within himself, but simply by virtue of his or her baptism and the promise of God and benefits which flows through it, and one forfeits those benefits only when one refuses to repent of one's manifest sins.

On "Assurance of Salvation"

Hermann Sasse summarise the relation of faith to baptism in these terms,

... Luther goes his lonely way between the hierarchial safeguards of Rome and the psychological safeguards of the Enthusiasts. It is the lonely way of the Reformer, who heeds only the Word of God and counts on this Word for everything, even for what is humanly impossible. Only in this way can he and the Lutheran Church hold together the objectivity of the sacrament and the sola fide, whereby we do not forget that justifying faith is not the matter of a single moment, but the substance of our whole lives. Such faith is not some act of our commitment to God that is particularly perceived and experienced in some isolated moments of our life. Rather it is the constant though always clouded reliance on the Gospel's promise of grace.

So, faith is not any mental act of ours, consciously discerned or experience in discrete moments, but is the constant but clouded reliance on the Gospel's promise of grace. Luther has always insisted on the passivity of faith and of Christian righteousness, which is merely passively received through faith in hearing the preaching of the Gospel, especially as administered in the sacraments. Faith is merely an instrument of reception, and as Luther and even the early Reformers have never ceased to point out and emphasize, it is not our act of faith itself which justifies or saves or merits salvation, but faith is merely the instruments or means of appropriating the merits and righteousness of Christ.

Thus there are vast divergences between the Reformed and Lutherans regarding the "assurance of salvation". For the Reformed, because faith is a psychological and consciously discernible phenomenon, one "assures" oneself of one's salvation by turning inwards to find out whether one has "true and saving faith" and by making some mental acts or some psychological journey, as exemplified in the search for the ordo salutis or order of salvation of later Reformed orthodoxy and the "experimental religion" of the puritans (experimental, not in the scientific sense, but in the sense of an experiential faith). Because for the Reformed, one's salvation or remission of sins is not grounded upon an external objective truth, in God's act, but rather it is based upon some internal psychological fact, therefore for the Reformed, their "assurance of salvation" remains elusive and uncertain and ultimately, subjective, since it is grounded upon a subjective fact about ourselves. This is why the Reformed can never be certain of their salvation, because it is fundamentally contingent upon their subjective state which requires constant affirmation and mental maintenance, and gives rise to "fruit inspectors" and searching out of the fruits of the spirit to "prove" one's Christian state or faith. For the reformed, one is not a Christian, until otherwise proven by conscious "faith".

But for the Lutherans, since faith isn't the focus of our salvation, but the objective, external act of God in preaching and in the sacraments is, the "assurance of salvation" for Lutherans is the question of, where is God working infallibly to grant salvation, remission of sins and eternal life to me and from where can I receive these benefits. Thus, the objective external acts of God is the focus, and faith is merely the instrument whereby one receives those benefits. Thus, when it comes to question of, what makes me a Christian, the answer has to be baptism! Nothing uncertain here, completely sure and objective. That's because in Lutheranism, one's Christian state is not proven by one's subjective state, but is completely grounded upon the act of God in baptism. Remember, in Lutheranism, one is a Christian, until proven otherwise, thus, by default, we are Christian and justified and God's child until otherwise proven by manifest sin. To which upon repentance, one can know for certain one is forgiven, not because of the act of repentance, which ours would always be weak and insufficient, but because of absolution, whereby one is concretely forgiven of that particular sin, and absolution, as the Lutheran confession puts it, is the very voice of the Gospel itself, commanding remission of sins. To be assured about the one's future continuance in the grace of God, one simply needs to eat the true body and blood of Christ and trust in the bread of life to give strength to live the Christian life in the days to come.

But yet, is it not true, that we sin daily, hourly minutely, in both thought, word and deed, we can't possibly be constantly seeking absolution all the time! Herein is where we can understand Luther's freedom with regards to absolution. The Catholics formalised the distinction between venial and mortal sins into a very complex listing and categorisation. According to the Catholics, venial sins can be forgiven by confessing directly to God and prayer, but mortal sins which are much more serious, can only be forgiven via priestly absolution. And the identification of both is very complex and complicated and have burdened many a consciences which can't identify which sins to confess since the formula of identification is too complex.

But Luther simply pointed out that this distinction between venial and mortal sins is an artificial category which is merely created by man. Thus he "subjectivised" the distinction. For Luther, within the promise of baptism is contained all the graces and power to forgive any sins, serious and not so serious, in so far and as and when we repent of our sin and turn to God and re-appropriate the baptismal covenant which God has made to us to forgive us our sins. But yet Luther recognises that sometimes the devil may be too strong for us and that our conscience may not leave us alone and be uncertain, especially in cases of "serious" or "severe" sins, in such cases, absolution exists to give peace to consciences and to declare by an objective external voice that one's sins has been forgiven by the command and authority of the keys. As Luther puts it in his small catechism regarding confession, "But before the confessor we should confess those sins alone which we know and feel in our hearts." Thus, those sins which subjectively bothers us and which we can feel plaguing us, we can and should confess to a minister or priest and thereby receive absolution grounded upon the sure, objective and external voice of the Gospel. Thus, the line between "mortal" and "venial" sin is simply a line drawn between those sins which plagues our consciences and those which do not.

Thus, for daily reoccurring sins, we turn to our baptismal covenant and the promise contained therein to forgive us our sins and to bear with our constant infirmity and the weakness of the flesh, and we appropriate through faith the benefits given there. But for much more serious sins, whilst there is no necessity to confess to a minister or priest, for the baptismal covenant can forgive any kind of sin, minor or severe, but from a subjective point of view, because of the strength of the devil and our conscience and the weakness of our flesh, we need as much support and help we can get, and more serious sins tend to shake our conscience and cause us to fall prey to the accusations of the devil, to such, absolution exists to ward them off and to receive from outside of ourselves, the absolution and remission of sins.

Conclusion

Ultimately from beginning to end, it must be constantly maintained that our salvation, remission of sins, and yes, even our faith, is a gift of God, grounded upon the objective, external and sure acts of God for us in the Word and Sacraments, not upon an uncertain psychological phenomenon. And it is upon these promises, given to us objectively in the sacraments, whereby we can firmly rely and trust for our remission of sins and salvation.

GDP: The Measure of a Nation?

2012-01-02T03:09:00.001-08:00

I was asked to write another piece for The Singapore Globalist with the above named title. You can access that piece here. As ever, advertising this international affairs publication, please go and like their facebook page here.

Why Christians Cannot Behave and Think as if they have only One Life to Live

2011-12-26T09:17:00.001-08:00

But we would not have you ignorant brethren, concerning those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope.

1 Thessalonians 3:13

I look for the resurrection of the dead: and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Nicene Creed

Secularism and Worldiness

It is common to hear people speak of us only having one life and that therefore we ought to live it "to the fullest". Of course, to "live to the fullest" is often taken to mean some maximising of experience here upon Earth and squeezing every last bit of happiness and pleasure out of this world.

In times past the Christiandom would have condemned this as simply point-blank worldliness, being obessed with the here and now. As I've noted before, the word "secular" did not originally mean "non-religious", but is in fact derived from the Latin saeculāris or "worldly", "temporal", as opposed to transcendent and eternal. Thus, "secular" referred to "this worldly" business, while "sacred" referred to the "world to come" business.

Whilst it is perfectly natural for the secular world, who knows nothing of the happiness, joy and the hope of the life of the world to come, to invest this world with total significance and as the arena of redemption. For the secular world, governments are gods, this worldly communities or nations are heaven, and human beings are angels. Thus, their expectations and obessions with economics and politics or "social justice", they dream of utopias of perfect happiness on earth, demand of their gods to provide it, and is angered, frustrated and disappointed when their governments fail to realise heaven on earth, as if they have been cheated out of their birth right.

With such worldly thinking, their dignity and evaluation of a person's life is determined solely by the quality of this life, his worldly possessions, his this worldly life experiences, etc. With the same evaluative frame do everyone else live, trying to hoard wealth, "experience life to the fullest", and "do something meaningful", or ultimately, "to be happy", because they know only this world as the source of their worth and happiness, and they live in dreadful fear that they shall end up as "sad losers" with "no life" or be "average" and "medicore", according to worldly perception or standards of course. Thus comes the strange paradoxical attitude of the modern world towards the poor. To them, the poor are at the same time "favoured" as the focus of their concern, as well as "unredeemed", without dignity or worth, and needing of their worldly economic redistribution or poverty alleviation. The truth of course is that they find the existence of poor people intolerable, their attitude is one of condescending pity, a blight upon their visions of utopia and an object of contempt, but whom they shall graciously condescend to speak upon their behalf and act as their advocates. No wonder today being offended on other's behalf has been horned into a fine art! Poor people, who are bereaved of every worldly dignity and possessions, are worthless in their eyes, because they know of no other source of worth of an individual, but from their priviledged positions, they shall condescend to speak out for them, to elevate them into the same "worth" as themselves. These people know nothing of hope and redemption of Lazarus, they seek only to turn Lazarus into the rich man, even if in so doing he shall be damned in the life of the world to come!

Confusing the Inn with Home

But a Christian cannot think that way, we cannot live as if we know nothing of the life of the world to come. Our hopes, joy and true happiness is not located here on earth but in the next life at the final consummation. But when was the last time you heard a Christian who was going through bad times say, "For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us"? (Romans 8:18) How often is it heard from a Christian who speaks of deliverance from this worldly troubles by the glory and happiness of the life of the world to come?

Let's admit it, we're as secular and as worldly as the non-Christian world. We no longer "look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come", our sights are set firmly upon this world and we are as obessed with this world as the secularists are. The resurrection victory for most of us has a purely this worldly significance, as a victory to be experienced and embodied in this world. But the afterlife is topic which has receded rapidly into the background, the afterlife is merely a "problem" for us, death is like a disease or illness which needs solving, and heaven is merely an insurance policy which we buy, so that we can solve this "problem" and forget all about it and return back to our realconcerns and hopes, this world and this worldly happiness.

But for the Christian the hope of the resurrection or heaven is not merely a solution to the problem of death, it is a central tenent and one might even say, the source of all hope and joy for the Christian! It contextualises and fundamentally limits the significance and meaning of this world. Because redemption, justice, true happiness and joy, is firmly to be located and found in the next world, can we live properly in this world, and not burden it down with infinite expectations, meanings and hopes. It is patient with this worldly sufferings, it does not despair if one is a "loser" in this world or if it is deprived of the comforts, joys, pleasures, dignity or status, because we know of our rewards and comforts of the life of the world to come, we know where our true worth, dignity and righteousness is located, in the justification of Christ by faith.

We fear such talk because fundamentally we fear the Marxist critique that we're just using the afterlife as an "opium" to soothe the pains of this world. But why should we listen to the criticisms of those who know nothing of the life of the world to come, knows nothing of the redemption which is located solely upon action of God in Jesus Christ, and who is jealous of the hope which we have in the next world and wants to steal it and locate it in this world? Only a lack of faith and doubt in the life of the world to come, only when we cease to hope and wait for "the coming of the day of God... which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire... for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells" (2 Peter 3:12-13), only when our hearts cease to be grasped by this hope, will we try to seek after worldly righteousness, "social justice", to fantasise of utopias on earth, to desperately search for that perfect system to attempt to resolve the fundamental flaws of this fallen world under the bondage of sin, or as T.S. Eliot puts it,

They constantly try to escape
From the darkness outside and within
By dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good.

But we know that the redemption of this world can only be found in Christ, not in man-made philosophical systems or human political action, and that redemption does not consists in some strange chilistic hope that we can "gradually" improve this world or redeem and perfect it by human or social or political action, but in the dissolution of this world, the burning up of all flesh with the triumphant return of Christ with his legion of angels, and the ushering of the new heavens and new earth, and it is there, not in some earthly social or political system, where righteousness shall dwell in all it's glory.

Therefore we should not confuse the inn with our home. For centuries the Christian faith has taught that this world is merely an "inn", and life is a journey towards our final home. An inn is merely a place of temporary residence, a mere stop towards our true home. But today we seem to have forgotten that this world is but an inn but am trying to turn it into a home instead. We complain that this inn is not a mansion, and we desperately try to turn it into a permanent home. But in so doing, we create false hopes and create massive disillusionment and anger, when they failed to be realised, and in the process of attempt to "renovate" the inn into a palace we wreck the inn which was not made to bear the infinite weight and expectations which we are today burdening it with.

Living this Life in the Light of the Next

History teaches us that most utopian projects eventually fail and wreck and destroy lives and entire communities. Think of the French Revolution, the Russian revolution, etc. All utopian dreams are premised upon the perfection of man and they seek to re-create a paradise on earth with their deluded hopes in a prelapsarian man, untainted with original sin, who will be able to run and live in this paradise. But of course such hopes know nothing of the reality of sin, the bondage of man under the flesh and the devil, and the necessity of redemption in Christ. It is often said in church circles that if you find a perfect church, don't join it because you'll render it imperfect, the same logic can be applied to any utopian community or society, if it exists anywhere on earth, don't join it, because you'll bring hell to paradise! Ultimately utopian dreams are the most tyrannical of all, for they are seized by delusions of divinity and seek to bring redemption upon earth, and in their zeal for their anointed mission, they run roughshod over enemies and crush mercilessly all who would oppose their divine mandate. But sin and the fall of man cannot be resolved by perfect systems or any human effort, but only by the divine miracle wrought in Christ.

It is only when we understand this world in the light of the next will we be able to live properly in this world. When we no longer find our dignity and worth in worldly wealth, status or experiences, can we learn to be content with what we are given and what we have, whether it be much or little, whether we be great or humble, whether we be parochial or world wise.

When we do not attempt to extract every last pleasure and happiness from this life, to seek after exotic experiences or lust after romanticised lives, will we be able to do our duty to God and to man, to live out "mundane" lives to raising families, caring for our children and making the lives of the next generation better. When people pass on to their children, not only their material wealth by working and saving for them, but their very lives and their youth in caring and loving their children, instead narcissitically trying to "maximise" their youth in individualistic experience and then giving their children the "left over" bits of their old age, only then will the lot of the next generation be improved because of the sacrifices of the previous one, and this process of sacrifice is a continous one, because we live in a fallen world which is constantly decaying, and only the will of God as revealed in the commandments prevents the total annihiliation of humanity. But yet in the light of the hope to come, can we joyfully live as such, and not be disappointed or frustrated that we do not have as much pleasure and happiness as the rest of the world do who live dissolutely and live at the expanse of the next generation, for we know, that we shall receive our reward and find true joy and happiness in heaven.

This is also particularly pertinent to marriages and romantic love which has been infinitely burdened by the world. We dream of the "perfect one" and true love and marriages where we shall be happy forever. But this is nothing more than to turn marriages into heaven and our partners into gods. No human being or worldly institution can possibly bear this utterly unrealistic expectation which we have loaded upon it. Thus the whole melodrama of heart breaks and frustrated love when they don't meet our expectations, the whole reactionary cynicism about marriage and romantic love, which is merely swinginly to the direct opposite end of the trend to invest romance and marriage with infinite worth to condemning it with no worth or value.

Only when we recognise the limits of the significant of worldly activities, especially marriage, can we live in it properly, and not burden these worldly and human activities with infinite and unrealistic expectations, as sources of total meaning, worth or happiness or joy, seeking them where they can truly be found, in the life of the world to come. And only in this light, can we live content in all our worldly and human situations.

Conclusion

St Augustine in his "City of God" argued that this world is not the place of perfect happiness, but neither is it the place of utter despair for what matters to God is ultimately eternal life. Thus, God gives enough to materially sustain the Christian in this life and continue to hope in the next, but not too much lest we replace the next world with this world. And therefore he has left the fortunes of this world uncertain, the fallness of this world reminds us that redemption is not yet come and is to be found only in the next life, to keep us watching and waiting for it to come, and to not presume upon God's grace and goodness, but the good things of this world teaches us not to despair of God's grace and mercy and to always hope in God's mercy which is always available and possible in every situation in this world, not matter how bleak or hopeless it may seem to human eyes.

And it is only an ungodly unbelief in the hope of the life of the world to come, which would seek to render this life certain and secure from all unhappiness and troubles, and to seize the fortunes of our lives and of this world from God's hands into our own hands, whether it is via worldly politics or wealth. But be not deceived, God is not mocked, and his vengeance does come upon those who would presume to find redemption in mere human creatures or societies rather than in God alone, to whom all glory, honour and dominion belongs, now and forever.

Amen.

Some Considerations on Faith and Marriage; Might the Evangelicals have a Point?

2011-12-12T11:40:00.001-08:00

...it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.

Westminster Confession of Faith

Know therefore that marriage is an outward, bodily thing, like any other worldly undertaking. Just as I may eat, drink, sleep, walk, ride with, buy from, speak to, and deal with a heathen, Jew, Turk, or heretic, so I may also marry and continue in wedlock with him. Pay no attention to the precepts of those fools who forbid it.

Martin Luther, 'The Estate of Marriage' (1552)

I recently had a conversation with a friend regarding the above said topic, decided to recorded some of my thoughts here.

The Dilemma of Christian Marriages to Non-Christians

I have previously speculated upon the possibility of Christian marriages to non-Christians in a previous note, but I haven't written upon some of the pastoral questions which such an arrangement could throw up, considerations which I would now record here.

The dilemma which a Christian would find oneself with a non-Christian can be formulated in a very simple manner, it is based upon two premises:

(1) Marriage is the state of a shared life between two persons

(2) The Christian Faith is a vital and essential element of the life of the Christian

Now, it is clear that in a marriage with a Christian to a non-Christian, the two premises are fundamentally contradictory. Let me phrase the dilemma this way

(a) Either one's Christian faith is not an important aspect of one's person and is not considered significant enough to be shared in life and practice with one's non-Christian spouse. In this case, this is apostasy and a blasphemous rebellion against Christ's command to love God with all of one's heart, mind, strength, etc.

(b) Or one's marriage is not significant enough aspect of one's life to need to share everything, in fact, not such an important aspect of one's life as to need to share something as vital as one's Christian faith with one's spouse. This would actually be closer to St Paul and Christ's view, but it is a view which is not widely shared in today's world.

Thus, it seems to me that the Evangelical instinct against Christian marriages to non-Christians are premised upon the (a) side of the dilemma, and like Solomon, such marriages will eventually lead to apostasy as the non-Christian spouse leads the Christian's heart away from Christ. Whereas Luther and I have pointed out before, St Paul and Christ's view would be closer to (b), the claim that marriage is merely an "an outward, bodily thing, like any other worldly undertaking". Just as a Christian can enter into a business contract or deal with non-Christians, and just as we can trade with non-Christians and engage in "worldly affairs" with non-Christians, so likewise can we enter into a marriage contract with non-Christians since marriage is merely a bodily and worldly undertaking of no greater significance than that. (Evidenced further by St Paul counsel to simply allow marriages to non-Christians to break off peacefully without much further ado, since it is a mere worldly undertaking, in exactly the same way that we can simply break contracts and pay the appropriate penalty).

What is clear is that it cannot be both that marriage is a significant aspect of one's life and the Christian faith also a significant fact of one's life. They are mutually contradictory premises with regards to marriages to non-Christians. Either one rebels against God, or one "de-romanticise" marriage.

Naturally, this is a historically contingent question, depending upon our culture and prevailing social environment. However, given the extreme romanticism which has been infused into marriage, the Evangelicals might be right in seeing that what happens more often than not, is not (b), but (a), and there is some wisdom in their regulative prohibition of marriages to non-Christians.

Some Practical Questions

The most practical question which must be asked in this context then is simply whether or not it is possible for the Christian party within a marriage to a non-Christian to do their duty to God and fulfil their roles as Christian husbands/wives.

For the Christian husband, he is the head of the house (Ephesians 5:23), and as Christ is head of the husband, so by extension Christ is the head of the house. Would a non-Christian wife be amendable to live in a Christian home, even if she were to personally not practice the faith? She would either have to be very tolerant, or she would resent this, which in turn will either lead to the Christian husband abandoning his duty to God which is apostasy, or in perpetual conflict with his wife, which is obviously not a good thing.

For the Christian wife, she is to submit herself to her husband (Ephesians 5:22), but would there not arise cases in which her non-Christian husband might require of her deeds which would conflict with her conscience in Christ and her obedience to God's will? Again, there would arise the potential of perpetual strife and conflict. Again, all one can hope for is that the husband is generally accommodating towards her wife's faith and would not place her in an impossible position.

Finally there is the question of children. Obviously the parents will have the duty of raising their children and "bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." (Ephesians 6:4) Would a non-Christian spouse be open to having his/her children baptized and raised as Christians?

Some Concluding Thoughts

The Roman Catholic Church is probably the lone denomination here to permit mixed marriages, but this permission, which requires express permission of the clerical authority, "presupposes that both parties know and do not exclude the essential ends and properties of marriage and the obligations assumed by the Catholic party concerning the baptism and education of the children in the Catholic Church." (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Thus, the Catholic Church permits mixed marriages only with the understanding that the non-Catholic party understands the obligations of the Catholic party, presumably with regards to one's Christian obligations, especially the baptism and education of children in the Catholic Church. I've demonstrated before that there isn't a clear Scriptural prohibition against Christians marrying non-Christians, but yet the fears of the Evangelical are rightly founded, that a Christian marrying a non-Christian might potentially lead to apostasy and would become an occasion of sin as the Christian party has to negotiate between accommodating one's spouse and obeying God. But this potential need not become actual as long as the proper precautions, which the Catholic Church prescribes, are taken with regards to Christians marrying non-Christians.

Some Earthly Considerations why Heterosexual only Marriage is not Discrimination

2011-12-07T21:46:00.001-08:00

I actually intended to write something about a theology of the afterlife, but when news of a Varsity Christian Fellowship in America being suspended for "discriminating" against homosexuality pending investigations appeared, I decided that this issue requires my attention much more urgently. But compared to my other notes which are often theoretical or speculative in nature, this one will be a little more down to earth and rigorous and exacting of the logic. Let's begin.

The Point of the Law is to Discriminate

The first point we need to note is that equality always means equality under the law. The point of the law is to group people under the categories of the law and treat each of them according to the categories, or to put it simpler, to discriminate according to the categories of the law. Our tax laws discriminate people into categories of their income groups, their family status, etc, and applies a different tax rate according to each category. We have elaborate legal procedures to discriminate between the innocent and the guilty with regards to a charge, and then we discriminate between them by putting the latter in jail and setting the former loose.

This principle of discriminating under the law is often known as "formal justice" or equality under the law, but because of the contentious meaning of "equality", I prefer to call this the "consistency of the law". Now, a violation of legal consistency would occur if say, there is a law which says that all companies with net profits of over a million would be required to pay a 20% corporate tax, but yet somehow the IRAS doesn't make Apple pay that tax. Now that would be a "discrimination", because the law is equally applicable to all, and if the Apple corporation does have net profits of over a million, then they fall under this law and ought to conform to it. This is the consistent application of the law.

So when a question of "discrimination" comes up, the question is always with regards to, (1) The group or people category involved and (2) The action pertaining to that group/people category.

Sexual Identity and Marriage Laws

Once we've considered this, there is something curious about marriage laws. The law which does not permit gay marriages does not pertain to group or people category but to the action involved. It just says that no one is allowed to contract a marriage with a person of the same sex. This law is equally applicable to ALL persons, heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, etc. This law doesn't discriminate against homosexuals simply because it is a law which is equally applicable to heterosexuals and bisexuals as well, those sexual orientation groups or people category fall equally under the law and are not allowed to contract a marriage with a person of the same sex as well.

Now on the surface, it seems as if I've just pulled off some linguistic trick. (Yay for training in analytic philosophy!) One might argue, it is like saying that the law which prohibits the celebration of the Eucharist doesn't discriminate against Christians but is equally applicable to Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs as well. But common sense tells us that although this law technically doesn't violate formal justice, but it clearly does "discriminate" (in some substantive sense) against Christians and is a substantive discrimination, beyond mere formal legality.

Fair enough. Equality under the law or discrimination according to legal categories isn't always a "just" discrimination in some substantive sense. (Although one might want to ask what is "true" justice. In the words of Alasdair Macintyre, whose justice? which rationality?) Maybe, as staunch libertarians and hard core free market advocates argues, tax laws which discriminate people according to their income groups is an unjust discrimination and we should have just one uniform flat tax rate across all income group, an equal tax rate for all, what could be fairer? But I suspect many wouldn't buy this argument.

Still, there is therefore the question as to whether preventing a same-sex contract of marriage is a substantive unjust discrimination, although technically it wouldn't be a formal discrimination against homosexuals since the law is equally applicable across all people groups.

Free Contract of Marriage for All and to Anyone?

However it is very hard to see how exactly is the law preventing a same-sex marital contract substantively discriminatory. Perhaps one might argue that there is a more general principle, say, everyone should be allowed to contract a marriage with anyone, preventing a contract of marriage to someone of the same sex therefore a discrimination against this principle.

Unfortunately, nobody and I mean, not even LGBT groups, believes in this principle (okay, maybe nobody is too strong and absolute, a better qualifier would be, very very few people). Very few people, for example, believes that children should be allowed to contract a marriage, nor that adults should be allowed to contract a marriage to children. Nor does even homosexual lobby groups believe that we should be allowed to contract a marraige with someone within the bounds of incest.

It is interesting to observe with regards to this rule that when Britain was debating the civil union bill, it was constantly repeated that this was not a marriage, so a conservative MP said, okay, if this is not a marriage, I will propose an amendment to remove the incestuous limit upon civil unions. Now this is important because of heavy inheritance tax which the Western nations generally have but which civilly united couples are exempt. So if say I am living alone with my father after my mother has died, why should I not enter into a civil union with my father to avoid inheritance taxation? But strangely enough, this amendment was rejected outright by the House, and one can't help wonder, if homosexual groups, somewhat inconsistently, want to retain as much of the "magic" of heterosexual marriage as possible.

So given these other limitations which exists within marital laws, which not even the LGBT groups want to remove, then clearly there cannot possibly be an appeal to the more general principle that anyone should be allowed to contract a marriage with anyone, because we most certainly do not believe that daughters should be allowed to marry their fathers, etc.

Conclusion

Given these cursory considerations, it is hard to see exactly why a law prohibiting the same-sex marriage is substantively discriminatory. But then again, as I've argued and explain for a long time, what we understand by marriage today, is a distinctly Christian invention (or gift of God!). Monogamy, life-long union, heterosexuality, etc, are all products of Western Christendom and my many other notes explain them in greater detail which I shall put the link at the bottom.

In particular, the law against infant marriages is fundamentally based upon the Catholic conception of marriage that consent makes a marriage and therefore one needs to be sufficiently "rational" to give such a consent, for incest, it is clear one of the fundamental ends of marriage is child bearing, which an incestuous couple cannot do so responsibly without deformities.

At the end, it is not so easy to see why the prohibition of same-sex marriage is discriminatory, but it would be no easy task to unwind an institution which has taken the Church and Western Christendom to develop over the centuries, and not have it collapse completely to pieces.

In fact, I think it is impossible. Still, revolutionaries love to experiment and play around with the fate of entire human communities no?

http://logos-pistis.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-would-gays-want-right-to-be-married_18.html

The Eucharistic Sacrifice and Making Present the Death of Christ; Some Theological Musings from the Church Fathers and Scripture

2011-12-04T07:54:00.001-08:00

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

1 Corinthians 11:26

WHEREFORE, O Lord and heavenly father, according to the Institution of thy dearly beloved son, our saviour Jesu Christ, we thy humble servants do celebrate, and make here before thy divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, the memorial which thy son hath willed us to make, having in remembrance his blessed passion, mighty resurrection, and glorious ascension, rendering unto thee most hearty thanks, for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same, entirely desire thy fatherly goodness, mercifully to accept this our Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving...

Book of Common Prayer 1549, Holy Communion

The word "Eucharist" is simply the Greek for "giving thanks" and has been used to describe the event of the Lord's Supper whereby Christ himself gave thanks over the elements. (Luke 22:19) But even from the earliest times of the Church, it has been usual to call the Eucharist a "sacrifice" which the Church offers unto God. But the key question is, what exactly is this "sacrifice" which the Church is supposed to offer at the Lord's Supper? Let us first look into the early Church Father's discussion and explanation of this concept and practice.

Eucharist in the Church Fathers: Justin Martyr and the Sacrifice of Prayer and Thanksgiving

We have to address the first question, which is what was being offered at the Lord's Supper? And here we have Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Tryphro the Jew,

“And the offering of fine flour, sirs,” I said, “which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will. Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord: but ye profane it.’ [So] He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, af-firming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it]...

Chapter XLI.—The oblation of fine flour was a figure of the Eucharist

So it seems that in this passage Justin Martyr refers specifically to the "bread of the Eucharist" and the "cup of the Eucharist" as what is offered in sacrifice to God. It could be said that Justin is essentially conflating two things together, (1) the thanksgiving and (2) the bread and the wine. But evidently to the Fathers they were both one and the same, the Church gave its thanks to God with the bread and the wine. The closest analogy to our own culture is a toast. We raise our glasses and toast to someone's good health or whatever. But in the case of the Eucharist, we offer up the bread and wine to toast to God or more precisely, to thank him for what he has done for us.

This should be made even clearer in this next passage from Justin in the very same work,

“Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him. But He utterly rejects those presented by you and by those priests of yours, saying, ‘And I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles (He says); but ye profane it.’ Yet even now, in your love of contention, you assert that God does not accept the sacrifices of those who dwelt then in Jerusalem, and were called Israelites; but says that He is pleased with the prayers of the individuals of that nation then dispersed, and calls their prayers sacrifices. Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind, whose name the high priests of your nation and your teachers have caused to be profaned and blasphemed over all the earth...

Chapter CXVII.—Malachi’s prophecy concerning the sacrifices of the Christians. It cannot be taken as referring to the prayers of Jews of the dispersion.

Thus, it seems that at the heart of the "Eucharistic Sacrifice" of the Lord's Supper is the "prayer and giving of thanks", which "are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifice to God". Thus, in so far that the Lord's Supper is a "sacrifice" unto God, it is a "sacrifice" in that it is a prayer and giving of thanks. And we have to remember that Justin Martyr "admits" to this in the context of agreeing with his Jewish conversation partner concerning the pleasure which God takes with the prayers of individuals and with agreeing that it is also a "sacrifice".

Eucharist in the Church Fathers: Irenaeus and Spiritual Sacrifices of Prayer, Praise and Service and Bread and Wine

Irenaeus would also emphasize the sacrifices of prayer, praise, service, thanks, but with the additional explication that these are spiritual sacrifices, according to the Spirit. There is still mention of the sacrifice of the bread and wine, the "oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing".

Those who have become acquainted with the secondary (i.e., under Christ) constitutions of the apostles, are aware that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant, according to [the declaration of] Malachi the prophet. For, “from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice;” as John also declares in the Apocalypse: “The incense is the prayers of the saints.” Then again, Paul exhorts us “to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” And again, “Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips.” Now those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst
by cancelling it; but they are according to the Spirit, for we must worship God “in spirit and in truth.” And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those persons, then, who perform these oblations in remembrance of the Lord, do not fall in with Jewish views, but, performing the service after a spiritual
manner, they shall be called sons of wisdom.

Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, XXXVII

But in Against Heresies, Irenaeus would place more emphasis on the offering of the bread and wine, but this was in opposition to the gnostic heretics who were claiming that the Creator of the earth is a different God from the Father of Jesus Christ and that the earth was corrupt, etc. Thus he had to re-emphasize the offering of created bread in the Eucharist which is then united to the "spiritual" part of the Eucharist, the prayer, praise, thanksgiving, collected under the label of "invocation of God."

Inasmuch, then, as the Church offers with single-mindedness, her gift is justly reckoned a pure sacrifice with God. As Paul also says to the Philippians, “I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things that were sent from you, the odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, pleasing to God.” For it behoves us to make an oblation to God, and in all things to be found grateful to God our Maker, in a pure mind, and in faith without hypocrisy, in well-grounded hope, in fervent love, offering the first-fruits of His own created things. And the Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, offering to Him, with giving of thanks, [the things taken] from His creation. But the Jews do not offer thus: for their hands are full of blood; for they have not received the Word, through whom it is offered to God. Nor, again, do any of the conventicles (synagogæ) of the heretics [offer this]. For some, by maintaining that the Father is different from the Creator, do, when they offer to Him what belongs to this creation of ours, set Him forth as being covetous of another’s property, and desirous of what is not His own... how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.

Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", Book IV, Chapter XVIII.—Concerning sacrifices and oblations, and those who truly offer

them.

But what is interesting is that in the next passage he disclaims the need of God for our offerings and sacrifices, but instead, that what God requires is good works and services and that therefore the offering of the Eucharist trains the people of God in service and good works, for our benefit and not his.

6. Now we make offering to Him, not as though He stood in need of it, but rendering thanks for His gift, and thus sanctifying what has been created. For even as God does not need our possessions, so do we need to offer something to God; as Solomon says: “He that hath pity upon the poor, lendeth unto the Lord.” For God, who stands in need of nothing, takes our good works to Himself for this purpose, that He may grant us a recompense of His own good things, as our Lord says: “Come, ye blessed of My Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you. For I was an hungered, and ye gave Me to eat: I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took Me in: naked, and ye clothed Me; sick, and ye visited Me; in prison, and ye came to Me.” As, therefore, He does not stand in need of these [services], yet does desire that we should render them for our own benefit, lest we be unfruitful; so did the Word give to the people that very precept as to the making of oblations, although He stood in no need of them, that they might learn to serve God: thus is it, therefore, also His will that we, too, should offer a gift at the altar, frequently and without intermission. The altar, then, is in heaven (for towards that place are our prayers and
oblations directed); the temple likewise [is there], as John says in the Apocalypse, “And the temple of God was opened: ”the tabernacle also: “For, behold,” He says, “the tabernacle of God, in which He will dwell with men.”

The Sacrifice of the Mass: Propitiatory or Eucharistic Sacrifice?

During the Reformation, the Protestant's battle cry of ad fontes or back to the sources did not merely apply to going back to the Scriptures but also to going back to the Church Fathers or in the phrase of Anglican theologians, the primitive fathers. Thus Philip Melanchthon in his Apology of the Augsburg Confession in his defence of the Lutheran Mass against the accusations of the Roman Church that they had abandoned the practice of the Church Catholic had to define clearly what they mean by "sacrifice" and why the Roman idea of the "Sacrifice of the Mass" whereby the priest re-presents the Sacrifice of Christ at Calvary and offers that sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead is both unscriptural and against the Church Fathers.

Philip Melanchthon would distinguish two types of sacrifices,

One is the propitiatory sacrifice, i.e., a work which makes satisfaction for guilt and punishment, i.e., one that reconciles God, or appeases God's wrath, or which merits the remission of sins for others. The other species is the eucharistic sacrifice, which does not merit the remission of sins or reconciliation, but is rendered by those who have been reconciled, in order that we may give thanks or return gratitude for the remission of sins that has been received, or for other benefits received.

Melanchthon would proceed to argue there has only ever been one propitiatory sacrifice and that is the death of Christ. Only his death atones for sins and was offered by himself for the sins of the world. There is no other propitiatory sacrifice. On the other hand, there are many acts which maybe considered to be "eucharistic sacrifices", as Melanchthon explains,

Now the rest are eucharistic sacrifices, which are called sacrifices of praise, Lev. 3:1f.; 7:11f.; Ps. 56:12f., namely, the preaching of the Gospel, faith, prayer, thanksgiving, confession, the afflictions of saints, yea, all good works of saints.

He would go on to call these types of sacrifices as "spiritual sacrifices" (1 Peter 2:5), made by those who are already reconciled to God and through faith in Christ, etc. He then points out that the Church Fathers do speak of the Lord's Supper as a "sacrifice", but clearly they meant "Eucharistic Sacrifices", prayer, praise, thanksgiving, even service and good works, as I've shown from the writings of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, and Melanchthon does go on to note that in the beginning of the Church they did bring forth the bread and wine in the service, etc.

Therefore throughout the Apology, Melanchthon insists that nowhere within the Fathers or the Scriptures is there an understanding of the offering of the Sacrifice of Christ at Calvary for the remission of sins for both the living and the dead, and that whenever they do speak of sacrifice it is definitely in the sense of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, not a propitiatory sacrifice, the sacrifice of praise, thanksgiving, prayer and service and good works, as Irenaeus himself explicitly points out in his writings that the purpose of the Eucharistic offerings unto God is not for his benefit but for ours, to train us in service. And also, it is not the Body and Blood of Christ which is offered up to God, but the bread and the wine which is.

The Development of the Teaching of the Sacrifice of the Mass

It is easy to see how these various elements of the Lord's Supper and Eucharistic Sacrifice started to fuse together and develop into a "Sacrifice of the Mass" over time.

(1) The Eucharist involves prayer, therefore there is the element of praying for the benefit of others, both the living and the dead. Melanchthon himself explicitly does not object to prayers for the dead.

(2) The Eucharist involves thanksgiving and praise for the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross in remembrance; this idea is intimately related to the idea of giving thanks in memory of that great event.

(3) The Eucharistic offers up the bread and the wine with the spiritual parts of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, e.g. the prayers, praise, etc. And the spiritual parts of the Eucharistic Sacrifices or the "invocation of God", consecrates the bread and the wine to be the Body and Blood of Christ. Even a rather late liturgy, the Eucharist of Hippolytus, composed towards the end of the fourth century, and which have been incorporated into the Roman Mass as Eucharist II, offers, not the Body and Blood of Christ, but "the bread and the chalice".

So, imagine mixing all these elements together. You can speak of "offering sacrifices for the living and the dead", which technically isn't wrong. We do offer up prayers to God for the benefit of other people, and if prayers are sacrifices which we offer to God, then we do offer the sacrifice of prayer for the benefit of other people. You can also speak of "offering the sacrifice of the Cross", which is actually a little misleading, but again, not technically wrong, as long as we mean, offering the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving for the Cross. And then imagine speaking of offering the bread and wine, which is to be the body and blood of Christ.

So the first stage of the evolution of the Roman doctrine is that the "Sacrifice of the Mass" is something offered for benefit of the living and the dead from (1), then came the idea that we are actually offering the Sacrifice of Christ at Calvary, not just thanks for that event in memory of it, but that event itself which is "re-presented" to God, this is from (2). Finally, we offer up, not just the bread and the wine, but the Body and Blood of Christ itself, or in other words, we offer up Christ itself, this is from (3). Thus put all these in the mix, and you can easily see where the idea that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Christ at Calvary by offering Christ's body and blood itself, made for benefit of the living and the dead, came about.

In many of the early Eastern liturgy, the language of (1) could already be seen, where there is much talk of offering the "bloodless sacrifice for the people", although no mention of offering the Sacrifice of Christ at Calvary or the Body and Blood of Christ, a fact noted by Melanchthon in his discussion of the Greek canon. But even this language is still consistent with the understanding that his sacrifice is spiritual, a bloodless sacrifice of prayer for others. From the early medieval period came the development of (2), as we can see from the 12th century scholastic Peter Lombard who says,

...that which is offered and consecrated by the priest is called a Sacrifice and oblation, because it is a memory and representation of the true Sacrifice and holy oblation made on the altar of the cross. Also CHRIST died once on the cross, and there was He offered Himself, but He is offered daily in a sacrament, because in the sacrament there is a remembrance of that which was done once.

Now this is still not quite the same as saying that they offered up the Sacrifice of Calvary, but there is a growing identification of the Eucharistic Sacrifice with the "memory and representation of the true Sacrifice... made on the altar of the Cross", which is actually not quite wrong as I shall explain later, but then there begins an ambiguous confusion when Lombard speaks of Christ being "offered daily in a sacrament". Yes, in a sense that is correct, but Christ is being offered, not to God, but to the people, to be received and eaten. But from here we can see how the development of (2) worked hand in hand with the development of (3), soon enough, in later medieval liturgies, there soon came the idea that the offering of Christ is not an offer to the people but an offer to God for the people, as can be seen in this Sarum Missal whereby the priest offer to God "a pure offering, a holy offering, a spotless offering". And finally today the Roman Canon officially translates the "offering" as "victim", that there might be no questions as to what is being offered.

Before the Council of Trent, there were many various theories as to what was happening in the Sacrifice of the Mass. A famous scholastic doctor, John Duns Scotus in the 13th century actually could be interpreted as arguing for a different and distinct sacrifice of Christ at each Mass, but the question was only finally settled and formalised at the Council of Trent itself and it is from there were we get the contemporary doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass as a re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Christ at calvary via the offering of the Body and Blood of Christ for the benefit of the living and the dead.

Therefore it is clear that the early Protestant Reformers were right to reject this doctrine as a very late innovation which can't possibly be found in the early Fathers and which development into it's present confusion can be traced through various fusion (and conflation!) of various aspects of the Eucharist. But yet even as I say this, I did point out that there is a truth to the idea of the Eucharistic Sacrifice as representing or even "making present" the Sacrifice of Christ at Calvary, and which is actually quite a biblical idea even. To this we now turn.

"Making" the Sacrifice of Christ Present

Given the fact that in the Eucharist, we do not offer the Body and Blood of Christ to God, but only the bread and the wine (which when consecrated to be the Body and Blood of Christ, is offered to the people, not God), and that therefore there is no "re-enactment" as it were, by the priest of the sacrifice of Christ by the offering of Christ to God, how is the Sacrifice of the Cross therefore made present?

If we remember that Melanchthon includes as part of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the preaching of the Gospel, we that the Sacrifice of Christ at Calvary is made "present" to us via preaching or it's proclamation. As 1 Corinthians 11:26 says which I quoted at the start, whenever we celebrate the Lord's Supper, we proclaim the Lord's death until he comes again. Because the KJV translates this as "shew", I went to check up the Greek and in the majority of it's use, it does indeed refer to it's use as proclamation of a message. Thus, as part of the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Lord's Supper, is included the preaching or proclamation of Christ's death to the people, although it is a service for the people, but it is rendered ultimately in obedience and service unto God, a sacrifice of good works, a proper Eucharistic Sacrifice.

I guess in a sense, it could be said that there might be an analogous sort of Calvinistic "spiritual" presence of the Sacrifice of the Cross, as opposed to the Catholic's "real presence" of the Sacrifice of the Cross, in that the proclamation of Christ's death is made present to the congregation's subjective faith; it is not objectively "present" at the time of the celebration of the Eucharist, but it is merely made present to the ears and into the minds of the hearers and which causes them to recall or remember Christ's death, inspire faith and prepares them to receive the benefits of the Body and Blood of Christ and his New Testament when they remember that the testator for that Testament has died that the Testament might go into effect for their benefit. And it is also for this reason whereby the later Lutheran confessional formulas insist that the Words of the Institution be said aloud for the congregation's benefit, as a proclamation to them that "This is my body which is given for you", to inspire faith and to consecrate the elements.

Conclusion

Since this "proclamation" of Christ's death until he returns has a biblical mandate, therefore this sort of "making present" Christ's death through proclamation or preaching during the Eucharist is entirely right and proper, and ought to be offered in sacrifice to God. And therefore to conclude with the Book of Common Prayer's Eucharistic "proclamation" of the Cross for Holy Communion,

O God heavenly father, which of thy tender mercy didst give thine only son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption, who made there (by his oblation once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world, and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, to celebrate a perpetual memory of that his precious death, until his coming again: Hear us (0 merciful father) we beseech thee; and with thy holy spirit and word, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy gifts, and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be unto us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved son Jesus Christ. Who in the same night that he was betrayed: took bread, and when he had blessed, and given thanks, he brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying: Take, eat, this is my body which is given for you, do this in remembrance of me.
Likewise after supper he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying: drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the new Testament, which is shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins: do this, as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me.

David Hume's Argument for Miracles

2011-11-30T07:52:00.001-08:00

I was talking with a friend earlier about David Hume and we brought up my formulation of an argument for miracles derived from David Hume. That's right. David Hume, the famous scottish skeptic. When I presented his argument for my philosophy of religion tutorial, they had a fit. Arts tutorials with me are always interesting and happening. :P Regardless, I decided to formally write down my argument here for future reference.

The Problem with Induction

In order to understand Hume's "argument" for miracles, one needs to first understand one of Hume's very famous argument against inductive reasoning, for the objection against miracles rest upon inductive reasoning (in fact, it is Hume's very own objection, but then again, no one is always consistent. :P )

Here is a crude form of the argument against induction. Induction operates on the following logic: Suppose you want to prove the following statement,

(A) All humans who die stay dead after three days

So you reason by observing that this person remained dead after three days, that person remained dead after three days, so on and so forth. And after you've collected a "large" enough sample, then you infer that all humans remain dead after three days.

Now according to Hume, the problem with this reasoning is that there is no connection between past events and future events. There is only a series of various independent and particular events, i.e. this person remaining dead, that person remaining dead, etc, etc. Why should a collection of many particular and independent events prove or say anything about other occurrences? Say, this person who just died a day ago? What's the connection? And Hume's argument is that there is no connection at all! So no matter how large your sample size, you can make absolutely no inferences about the future or any other occurrences. To use an analogy, it is like trying to prove that John will lie by pointing out that Mary lie a lot of times, that Jonathan lie a lot of times, that Bill lie a lot of time, etc. What do they all have to do with John lying? They are all distinct persons from John and have nothing to do with whether John will lie.

To come back to our case, one way we can generalise the argument is by saying that the principle of induction assumes that the future resembles the past. This means that future events will resemble past events such that the future will simply repeat the past, so if you can gather a sufficiently large amount of samples from the past, you can infer what is going to happen in the future. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no reason to believe this. Sure, it maybe pragmatic to believe this, but that isn't the same thing as saying that it is rational to do so. To come back to our analogy, you may say that we can "prove" that John will lie by pointing out that John did lie at this occasion, and that occasion in the past, etc. But this wouldn't do. What does John's past have to do with his present or future? It is as if all the various past Johns are all disjoint particular events which have no relation whatsoever with his present or future. Likewise is it with all these vast past recorded events will tell you absolutely nothing about the future. (There is actually an even more philosophically generalised form of this argument, the infamous "grue" argument which says that not only do events not resemble across time but across space and historical circumstance as well, but we won't need to get into that.)

One very common mistake which people make when reading this argument (a mistaken which even my philosophy professor made, horrors of horrors!), is that they simply think that this proves that we simply cannot be certain about the future or make sure inferences from finite samples collected, but we still have very strong probability of believing that it is so. But turn back to the example of John will lie. No matter how many people you or how large your sample size of people who have lied may be, you can't infer anything, not even the probability or possibility of John lying. Why? Because they all have absolutely nothing to do with John. Simply apply this reasoning between various distinct and independent past events, and the logic is the same. All these events have absolutely nothing to do with one another, and the massive cumulation of all these events doesn't say or increase one whit the probability of the event occurring for the future.

I will present a slightly more mathematically rigorous formulation of this argument to make it clearer, but for those who "get it" or can't stand maths, you can simply skip to the next section.

The Mathematics of Hume's Argument

Now, there is a simple example of how probability works. Say, you have a jar, containing 100 beads, and I tell you that 20 of them are red. So if I ask you, what is the probability of you picking a red bead when you take one bead from the jar, you answer has to be 20% or one out of five.

Now, let's turn to the universe. Say you want to measure the probability of a person remaining dead after three days. Now what corresponds to the "100 beads" in my example would be the total number of people who had, have and will die. What will correspond to the "red beads" is the total number of people whom we have observed to have remained dead after three days. Thus to illustrate this more graphically

Total no. of red beads_ = Probability of picking a red bead

Total no. of beads

Total no. of people observed in the past remaining dead after 3 days = Probability

Total no. of dead people in the past, present and future

Now, this is where Hume comes in. He would say that the numerator of our formula is finite. We can only observe a finite number of people who have died in the past, if for no other reason then only a finite number of people have ever existed in the past. But our denominator, or sample space, is infinite. It is supposed to encompass not only the past, but all and every possible human being. When you divide a finite number by an infinite number, no matter how large you finite number, your probability is zero. Well, actually, no, not quite zero, the more mathematically precise answer is that it tends towards zero or shrinks towards zero but never quite reaching it.

But the point still is, no matter how many samples of the numerator you gather, you shall never be able increase one whit or even a tiniest bit, the probability of your claim, as long as your denominator is infinitely large. Therefore, the induction samples of the past is absolutely no proof as to what is going to happen in the future, nor can you make any inference from it.

Evidence Against Miracles?

So now that we understand Hume's arguments against induction, we can turn to Hume's arguments against miracles. Hume's arguments against miracles oddly enough, depends on induction. He claims that because there is an overwhelming number of instances where people who die remain dead after three days, therefore it is very unlikely Jesus Christ rose from the dead. But if we apply Hume's arguments against induction to this case, we can legitimately pose to Hume his own argument, what does past instances of people who die remain dead after three days have anything to do with Jesus Christ remaining dead after three days? No matter how large the samples collected, they don't increase one bit the probability of that Jesus Christ would remain dead after three days.

And we can apply pretty much apply the same argument to almost every miracle of the Scriptures. And there you have it. David Hume's argument for miracles. Well, actually not quite. It is more of an argument against the argument against miracles.

Conclusion

When I pointed this out in my tutorial which was discussing Hume's argument against miracles, that Hume had effectively shot himself, it was quite amusing to see the tutor dumbfounded and some of the students have a fit. hahahaha... Arts tutorials were always fun. :P

Still, one can argue that if we accept Hume's argument against induction, all of science will go to the dogs because all of the hard sciences (except mathematics) is premised upon induction. Well, true. But then again, no one ever said that science had any coherent metaphysical foundation anyway. It is pragmatic, as I said, to assume induction, but rational, is another thing.

Although of course as a Christian, I always have faith in the stability, order and uniformity of nature. But this isn't an argument of reason, only an article of faith. :)

What Makes the Scriptures the Word of God? Or Why the Historical Context and the Original Language is Not that Important

2011-11-28T01:35:00.001-08:00

You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

John 5:39-40

I’ve been closely following the pistis christou debates, and I can’t tell you how relieved I am that, according to some scholars, I am justified by an objective genitive. I’d been getting so worried that I might need some complex periphrastic or optative construction to get saved that I’ve been brushing up on my Metzger and Moule.

Kim Fabricius, "Faith and Theology" blog

In this note I want to do a theological exposition on the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, God's Word. I will be fleshing out in detail the following loaded but rarely clarified theological terms: Revelation, Inspiration, Witness/Testimony, Prophetic and Apostolic message. Finally after developing this neo-orthodox theology of Scripture (neo-orthodox because it is a theology largely based upon that of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Hermann Sasse and Karl Barth in reaction to the liberalism of the 19th century), I will explain why I think it is not that important to know the intricate historical context, circumstance or background of the Scriptures nor need a too intimate understanding of the original languages, authorial intent, etc.

Say No to Purely Formal Conceptions of Scripture

But first, I shall need to quickly debunk one very widespread (mis)understanding of the Scriptures as God's Word simply because it is written in a certain canonical document. The problem with this conception of course is that it is a purely formal conception of the Word of God. Something is the Word of God simply because it is written in this very special set of documents or manuscripts. But a very simple consideration will show that such a conception will lead to absurd contradictions. Now, is 1 Corinthians 7:12-14 the Word of the Lord? On a purely "formal" conception of the Word of God, the answer has to be yes because that set of verses is found in a set of document/manuscript, i.e. 1 Corinthians, which we consider canonical, and therefore those set of verses has to be canonical too.

But unfortunately, 1 Corinthians 7:12 actually says, "To the rest I say (I, not the Lord)..."

Opps. What happens when the text itself says that other parts of this text isn't the Word of the Lord? That it isn't "thus saith the Lord"? A purely formal definition of the Scriptures will trap us in such hopeless contradictions and more which I shall not go through here in detail since I am more interested in developing my neo-orthodox alternative account. (I will place the link for my more substantive critique and early vague theory of Scripture at the bottom).

So what is needed is an understanding of how are the canonical Scriptures the Word of God?

Scriptures as Witness to Saving Events

Let me just shoot off a highly loaded thesis statement before breaking it down and going through it term by term.

The Holy Scriptures are the Word of God because it is the Inspired Prophetic and Apostolic Witness to God's Gracious Life-Giving Activity.

Okay, let's start from the back. "Witness to God's Gracious Life-Giving Activity". Thus firstly, the Scriptures are the Word of God because of it's subject matter, because of what it is about, what it refers to, and what it is a witness to. Thus, this is a material and not a formal conception of the Scriptures. As a common saying goes, when you point at the moon, don't confuse your finger with the moon. The Scriptures simply as a collection of texts do not make the Word of God, it is ultimately what the Scriptures talk about, it's subject matter, which makes it the Word of God. It testifies and witnesses to God's gracious life-giving activity, with the person, life and action of Jesus Christ at it's centre and as the unifying thread of all the Scriptures.

The gracious activity of God in historical time to give us life and salvation is revelation. As the Bethel Confession puts it,

God reveals himself by history, that is, by his non-recurring and non-repeatable action that is complete in itself and affects all eternity. It begins with the creation of man and with the promise for man become guilty. It receives its temporal consummation when the elect from every nation enter into the glory of God’s Son. The church proclaims this history as God’s revelatory act that is valid for us. By witnessing these acts, Scripture is God’s word to us, and the church is able to do God’s will only in obedience to the command of Scripture.

Thus, "revelation" refers to those gracious life-giving acts of God in time, by acting as such, God reveals himself for us in those historical events. These series of historical events which reveals God's gracious life-giving activity is known as salvation history. To quote again from the Bethel Confession,

The history attested to in Holy Scripture is salvation history, that is, it is the work of God’s grace that bestows on the world the life from God and for God. Not the holiness of men, but the salvation granted them in their unworthiness, guilt, and plight of death through their call to his knowledge is what makes Holy Scripture to be God’s word. A fully valid understanding of this history is first possible from the New Testament that attests to the consummation of the divine plan of salvation in the incarnation, in the words and deeds (Luke 24:19), in death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and in the institution of the church. The Old Testament is God’s word because in it the living God bears witness to himself, as he makes Israel into his people, judges its unbelief, and makes those called from it into bearers of his word for humanity.

Thus, what makes the Scriptures the Word of God is it's testimony or witness to revelation or salvation history. In Lutheran language, we can say that the essence of salvation history is God justifying sinful man by grace through faith, and this is activity is consummated in the person, life and action of Jesus Christ.

To summarise this section, the Holy Scriptures is the Word of God because it is the witness to revelation or salvation history. Thus we have here a text referring to external realities conception, so far so good. But as N.T. Wright once pointed out in his critique of this conception of Scripture,

Supposing we actually dug up Pilate’s court records, and supposing we were able to agree that they gave a fair transcript of Jesus’ trial. Would they be authoritative in any of the normal senses in which Christians have claimed that the Bible is authoritative? I think not.

To put it in other words, whilst being a witness to divine revelation is a necessary condition for being the Word of God, it is not a sufficient condition, otherwise as Wright rightly points out, any document which witness to divine revelation would simply become God's Word by default! Thus, there must be something else about the Scriptures which makes it God's Word. And here we turn to the concept of inspiration.

Inspired Scriptures, Saving Words

My main thesis states that not only are the Scriptures witness to divine revelation, but it is an inspired witness to divine revelation. But what do I mean by inspired? It might be best to cite the well quoted verses from 2 Timothy 3:14-17,

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

First, we have to note that whilst we are used to speak of people being "inspired", but this passage is interesting in that it speaks of the Scriptures itself or the text itself as "inspired" by God. But what does an "inspired" Scriptures do? An inspired artist paints beautiful paintings, an inspired musician composes beautiful music, an inspired author writes an excellent story, but an inspired Scripture... narrates a thriller? No, an inspired Scripture gives instructions unto salvation, teaches, reproofs and corrects errors, trains in righteousness, completes the man of God and equips him for every good work. In short, an inspired Scripture gives life and salvation.

But as I've quoted from the Gospel of St John at the start, how can the Scriptures give life? The scribes search the Scriptures for eternal life, thinking that it can be found there, but yet they do not find it because it can only be found in Jesus Christ. The solution to this should be quite simple by now:The Scriptures gives life because it witnesses and points to Jesus Christ and by testifying about Christ, brings Christ to us and it is he who gives us life and salvation. Thus, the Scriptures as a set of text don't do anything, but as an inspired text, written about Jesus Christ and salvation history and written for our salvation, that is how it can give us life and salvation.

Thus to elaborate on a previous point, the reality to which the Scriptures witness to is the life-giving act of God in Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is the heart, the unity and the foundation of this reality to which all of Scripture witnesses to. Because of the unity of salvation history in Jesus Christ, therefore it is as a whole, not merely in parts, by which the Scriptures witnesses, by which the Scriptures speaks. Scripture must be read in the light of the whole in Jesus Christ, not merely in parts in individual books or epistles. As the Bethel Confession puts it,

Holy Scripture is a whole. Its unity is Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen one. He speaks through all of Scripture... We reject the false doctrine that tears apart the unity of Holy Scripture by rejecting the Old Testament or by even replacing it through non-Christian documents from the pagan early history of another nation. Holy Scripture is an indivisible unity because it is in its entirety a testimony of and about Christ... The Holy Spirit who speaks to us through one word of Holy Scripture is always the Spirit of all of Holy Scripture... it is important to promote the Lord of Scripture, Christ, where Scripture runs the risk of being promoted against Christ. Yet our judgment in the use of Scripture remains true only when it emerges from the willingness to hear the entire word of Scripture.

As the Gospels puts it, "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, [Christ] expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." Luke 24:27. But if we remember our previous problem, the Scriptures cannot just be a record or testimony about Christ, otherwise other secular writings which record Christ would also become the Word of God, but it must be an inspired testimony or witness, namely it must be a witness or testimony written for the sake of salvation and giving eternal life. That's what the inspiration is for, not to write creative stories with sophisticated literary ornaments, but to write for salvation and giving eternal life. As the Gospel of St John puts it,

but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name...

John 20:31

and for the Old Testament, as St Paul puts it in 1 Corinthians 10:11-12, speaking of events in the Old Testament,

Now these things happened to them as a warning, but they were written down for our instruction, upon whom the end of the ages has come. Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall...

The Old Testament events in salvation history were written down for our instruction. That is what it means to speak of the inspiration of these sacred texts, inspired for our instruction towards eternal life. To sum up, the Scriptures is not only witness to salvation history in Christ, it is also witness for salvation by presenting those events of salvation history to us for our salvation.

But it seems here that we run into another kind of problem. If today some pious Christian writes about the events of salvation history with the intent of presenting a saving message to us, we wouldn't thereby accept this writing, no matter how excellent it maybe and no matter how many people such writings may have brought to salvation. (Otherwise certain tracts or, horrors of horrors, the "Four Spiritual Laws" would become the Word of God!)

Thus we turn now to our final criteria which would also close the circle of exposition on the theology of the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Scriptures is the Word of God because it is inspired prophetic and apostolic witness.

Prophetic and Apostolic Message Concerning Salvation History

Let's do a brief recap. In the beginning, was the Word, and the Word spoke and acted in time. That is salvation history. But how did salvation history get recorded? This section will answer that question.

First salvation history isn't simply God acting in a vacuum. God acts to give life to people. God acts upon people through various salvic events, supremely in Christ's life, death and resurrection. But Christ didn't just rise from the dead and then nothing more happened, he appeared to certain people, namely the apostles and explained to them the significance of his death and resurrection. The fact that Christ did die can be noted by anyone, not just the apostles, in fact secular roman and Jewish historians have noted that as well. But to be a witness to the bare event of Christ's death doesn't say anything interesting. We need the interpretation of this event as well. It is one thing to be a witness to Christ's death, it is quite another thing to know that his death is for us and for our salvation. That this death is a propitiation to God, a ransom for our sins, a cancellation of our debts, etc. That Christ rising from the dead is not just a one off miracle, but is also a promise of resurrection for all the rest of us who believe in his name, etc.

Thus, in order for salvation history to be "life" and relevant to us also, we need the interpretation of salvation history, the meaning of the events of salvation history, it's saving significance for all mankind, or to put it simply, we need the saving message concerning salvation history. Thus the apostles were first and foremost, eyewitnesses to Christ, including St Paul in his special Damacus road experience. But then again, there were a lot of eyewitnesses to Christ, a lot of secular eyewitnesses to the deeds of Christ, even the scribes and pharisees confess the miracles of Christ, although they did not interpret the as the works of God for our salvation but the the works of the devil instead. Thus, the apostles, in addition to being eyewitnesses to Christ, were also personally entrusted by Christ with the message of salvation concerning himself, in other words, the Gospel, the good news, not just news of certain events, but good news, news which spells good tidings for us. Thus, not only did they witness to Christ's life and deeds, they were also given the meaning and message of those deeds.

So, we have the missing link between salvation history and saving inspired texts, namely the apostolic interpretation or Gospel, good news, concerning the events of salvation history. Now, it must be clearly understood that the apostles received the apostolic message, they did not formulate or invent it. Thus, the apostolic message or Gospel message is independent of the apostles. It does not derive it's meaning or truth or integrity from the apostle's person, but from Christ who delivered the message to them, and it is an apostolic message only because it has been entrusted to the apostles, who are it's guardians, not authors. Thus, St Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-3,

Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures...

Thus, the ground of the Gospel is Christ which St Paul received and delivered to the Corinthians. And to emphasize the independence of the Gospel message from the person of the apostles, St Paul in his epistle to the Galatians of whom he had heard that they had departed from the apostolic message which they have received thundered the following,

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel -- not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

Galatians 1:6-9 (bold mine)

Later on he goes on to argue that although he had the other apostle's confirmation of his message, but he did not need it, especially when St Peter himself sinned against the Gospel message by not sharing table fellowship with the Gentiles, the Gospel message stands on its own, independent of the person of the apostles. Thus, St Paul himself declares that even though he is an apostle, but not even he can preach a different gospel to the one which he had preached to them before, that is simply because the one which he preached before was received of Christ, and anything else would therefore be excluded.

Now, the Scriptures of the New Testament are canonical because they were either written by the apostles themselves, (i.e. St Paul, St Peter), who directly received the gospel message from Christ himself, namely, the interpretation and saving meaning of salvation history for us, or they were written by "apostolic men", person or persons who have received and heard the Gospel message from the apostle's own mouth and preaching. As the Gospel of St Luke puts it at the opening,

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph'ilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

Luke 1:1-4

Thus the "us" to whom were delivered the narrative originated from "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word". Therefore when we speak of the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church", we mean the Church which is grounded upon the message of the apostles, not their persons and this can be found solely and normatively in the Holy Scriptures. This is the Protestant doctrine.

We have to constantly emphasize the independence of the apostle's message from the apostle's person. We have to remember that it is not their persons who were inspired, but their writings which were inspired. It is their writings whereby salvation history is recorded, the interpretation of that salvation history explained, and salvation offered to all mankind. The persons are quite frankly inconsequential. This is why it is not important for us to know exactly who wrote certain Gospels or who wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, etc, as long as it is someone who received the message from the lips of the apostles themselves. To take the example of Hebrews, most scholars, even the most conservative ones, admit that they do not know who wrote it, but that doesn't matter, because even if St Paul didn't write it, it is clear that it was written by someone who had contact with one of the apostles or direct disciple of Christ, namely, an apostolic men, as this part puts it,

Therefore we must pay the closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For if the message declared by angels was valid and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his own will.

Hebrews 2:1-4

"...it was attested to us by those who heard [Christ]". Thus, the writer(s) of Hebrews was someone who received it from someone of apostolic office.

So, to emphasize again the independence of the Gospel message from the persons, we only need to turn towards the second epistle of St Peter who said,

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased," we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

2 Peter 1:16-21

Thus, the prophetic word did not come by "one's own interpretation", but they simply spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Therefore, the Gospel message, the prophecy, it's meaning/interpretation, etc, does not come from the author or the writer's own mind or person, but "directly" as it were, from the Holy Ghost in the case of Old Testament prophecies, and directly from Christ or the Apostles, in the case of the New Testament, but always under the guidance of the Holy Ghost of course.

I confess that I am not too familiar with the canonisation process of the Old Testament Scriptures, how did they decide what writings were "prophetic" and what were not. (Actually, I think the Old Testament is a bit more complicated in that it does not only include prophetic writings but also the "Laws" and the "Psalms", etc.) But whatever the difficulties, the same outline for accepting those books are the same, there is some internal relationship between the inspired Old Testament writings to the saving events of the Old Testament, just as the New Testament writings by apostles or apostolic men, are related to the saving events of Christ.

The Not-so-Terribly Important Significance of Historical Context and Original Languages

With the theory in place, I can now justify the relative mild important of understanding the historical circumstance of each book of the Bible. First, it is the texts, not the writers, who are inspired. Therefore, there is no point going round looking for authorial intentions or the writer's interpretation when they don't have any. Therefore, there isn't much need to know the historical background of the writer of the book because his psychology quite frankly doesn't really matter. Secondly, the texts are not records of the writer's intentions or thoughts, but the texts are records or witnesses or refer to external events and realities, namely, salvation history. As an Anglican theologian puts it,

What we do have are texts. Unless we are going to concede that once an author is dead, his or her meaning is lost forever, we have to affirm that texts, as texts, have an inherent intelligibility, and can be understood in themselves. Moreover, the purpose of texts is not normally to point to the intentions of authors, unless the texts are confessional. Rather, texts are referential. They point beyond themselves to external realities, and it is these external realities to which the text bears witness. So one assesses the intelligibility of a text not by trying to get inside the intentions of its author (whether dead or alive), but by referring to the subject matter to which it bears witness. In the case of Scripture, these referential realities are such things as God’s triune revelation in the history of Israel, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, the presence of the Spirit in the church.

Therefore, the point of texts is to point to realities beyond themselves, to witness to salvation history and its interpretation. As such, The meaning of the words is in what it refers to, not in it's minuscule little semantic nuances in the original languages which doesn't really change the reporting of the external event. They maybe important in those parts of the Scriptures which deals with theological argument or interpretation of salvation history, the saving theological message, but otherwise, one shouldn't really waste too much time upon them.

And finally, to go back to the sarcastic remark made at the start, the Scripture's saving message and task cannot possibly be dependent upon such contingent and uncertain empirical details like historical circumstances. Even conservative scholars have difficulty locating the audience of the New Testament writers, the time of writing and the location of writing, etc. (The epistle to the Ephesians for example, has some ancient manuscripts missing the "to the Ephesians" in Ephesians 1:1, so what is going to happen to an interpretation which builds up upon the socio-historical background of Ephesus?) Therefore the saving message of the Scriptures is fundamentally grounded upon the texts itself, not upon all these extraneous empirical details which are uncertain and speculative. I admit that a certain degree or broad historical-cultural understanding of the setting to the writings are necessary, but it cannot possibly be dependent upon too specific detail. Because those we cannot establish with any certainty and are based upon much theory and speculation.

Rowan Atkinson on the Right to Insult and Blaspheme Against Religions

2011-11-23T21:07:00.001-08:00

I posted this up some time ago during the Pastor Rony Tan Buddhist incident, in the light of the recent questions about the Sedition Act being invoked against those criticise Islam, I thought it would be good to revisit this post.

Although Rowan Atkinson is well known for his role in Mr. Bean, Blackadder and other standup satires, some of which are against religions, he is also an Oxford graduate and below reproduced is his speech defending the freedom to insult religions to the House of the Lords, made in the context of new legislations against religious hatred.

My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Those of us who have opposed this measure since its introduction in 2001 have never had a problem with its alleged intent, viz. to counter the expression of racial hatred under the disguise of religious hatred. Rather, our problem was always the legislation’s breathtaking scope and reach far beyond that intent.

The prime motivating energy for the Bill seemed to come not from communities seeking protection from bullying by the British National Party but from individuals with a more aggressive, fundamentalist agenda. Those who have sought, from the very day of the publication in 1989 of Salman Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses, to immunise religions against criticism and ridicule – or at least to promote legislation that is so sinister and intimidating, it can provide that immunity without even the need to prosecute anyone. In other words, to impose self-censorship.

The starting point for my objections to this Bill is to argue with its supposedly inarguable premise: the ‘ooh Yes Religious Hatred, that sounds like a bad thing, let’s have a law against that’. As hatred is defined as intense dislike, what is wrong with inciting intense dislike of a religion, if the activities or teachings of that religion are so outrageous, irrational or abusive of human rights that they deserve to be intensely disliked?

The Government has often spoken of how under existing legislation, Jews and Sikhs are protected from religious hatred on the basis of their race and that this Bill seeks merely to extend that protection to others. The problem that that ignores is that race and religion are fundamentally different concepts – you cannot choose your race, you can choose your religion – and even if for many the line dividing their race from their religion is blurred in the eyes of the law. A sharp line can and should be drawn.

If Jews and Sikhs are protected from criticism of their religious beliefs or religious activities, then that is a wrong and the idea of extending that to other religions is also a wrong. To criticise people for their race is manifestly irrational but to criticise their religion, that is a right.

The freedom to criticise or ridicule ideas – even if they are sincerely held beliefs – is a fundamental freedom and a law which says that you can ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas, is a very odd law indeed. It promotes the idea that there should be a right not to be offended, when I think that the right to offend is far more important than a right not to be offended.

The only moderating influence on this legislation will be the Attorney General, who can veto prosecutions. Yet how can the Office of the Attorney General, an instrument of government, be expected to take only a judicial view of cases brought before him and not be influenced by the political ambitions of his employer?

The ease with which one religious group or another could be favoured or disfavoured is clear. You many not know that there is an Anti-Vilification law in a state in Australia, where a Witch successfully brought a prosecution against a Christian pastor for vilification of her religion. Now the government has assured us that our Attorney General would veto such a frivolous prosecution.

However, you can imagine that if, one day, electoral research by the party in government revealed that there were a surprising number of witches living in a number of marginal constituencies whose votes could be of considerable benefit to the party at the next general election, then such a prosecution might suddenly seem a more attractive and less frivolous idea to the Attorney General than it had previously. The potential for abuse is manifest.

It is time for the Government to listen. It has made no attempt to address any of these concerns – other than to deflect the criticism with the most anodyne rebuttals.
The Government says you will continue to be able to criticise or ridicule religion. Where in the Bill does it say that? Where is the clause that even implies that kind of freedom of expression? How can such bland reassurances carry any authority when there is no wording in the bill to support them and the chief promoters and supporters of this legislation, in consultation with whom the thing was drafted, have always taken the opposite view. They don’t think that religions should be ridiculed. They don’t think that religions should be criticised or insulted. That is why they have lobbied for this legislation for so many years and unlike the government are not blind to its potential to achieve those aims.

The problem with this Bill is its imbalance. It represents the relentless pursuit of the interests of a tiny minority of the population with, so far, no consideration or quarter being given to the concerns of the baffled majority. This is not to belittle the concerns of the minority which can be and should be accommodated but good government is also about doing everything in your power to accommodate the concerns of those most affected by your legislative ambitions. And this is simply not happening.

That is what these amendments are about. They do not affect the essence of the Bill – they seek only to provide reassurance and above all to protect freedom of speech, from which not just a minority will benefit, nor just a majority, but every single one of us.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article580686.ece

As with every field of human activity, be it the sciences or philosophy or religion, this rule holds true,

"Unquestioning agreement and lack of argumentativeness are always sure signs that a tradition has stagnated."

Buddhists must start learning to accept and receive caricature, to answer the false ones and to accept the true ones, as Christians always had through the centuries. For the minute a tradition starts to invoke the law to protect itself against criticism and caricature, it is a slippery slope down to stagnation

Is the Church a Community, a Society or an Assembly?

2011-11-22T21:58:00.001-08:00

I believe one Holy, Catholick and Apostolick Church.

Nicene Creed

...The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.

Augsburg Confession, Article VII: Of the Church

The following reflections are based upon a lecture on the doctrine of the church by the Lutheran theologian Steven Paulson entitled, "The Frenzy for Ecclesiology".

Community?

Recently there have been a lot of talk about "community" in churches, especially Evangelical circles have been using this term almost endlessly causing it to suffer from hyperinflation into utter meaninglessness. However I want to here present a very distinctly Protestant understanding of the church which is rooted firmly within the Reformation, and to that end, it would be interesting to study this topic via the lenses of anthropology which has categorised human associations under the German category of gemeinschaft and gesellschaft, often translated respectively as "community" and "society". And after we have considered these anthropological phenomenon, we will move on to Luther's own conception of the Church which the closest approximation would be assembly.

To put it simply, a gemeinschaft or community understanding of a human association could be summarised as community before self (don't we Singaporeans know this term all too well). The communal bonds, kinship, etc, define we who are and gives us a sense of belonging, identity, etc. The family has traditionally been considered the main exemplification of this type of human association, the ties of family is something which we are born into and which we receive. The virtues of such a community are loyalty, obedience to elders, etc.

It is very clear the advantages of such a human association: Because of the bonds and ties available in such a system, you can always depend upon the community to help you out and you can depend on them. Also, since you receive your identity from the communal bonds, you know who your friends are (and corresponding, you know who your enemies, or at least, strangers are, those outside of the community). But along with this deep trust and bond which exists in such a system of human association, comes also responsibilities and obligations to maintain and live under this community.

But in today's postmodern world, such a community understanding has fallen on hard times (note for example the derision and condescension we greet our gahment's slogan of community before self). We find such such intimate and tightly bound ties intolerable, stifling, restrictive. Thus, we no longer seek the ties of "community" and we turn instead to society.

Society?

Gesellschaft or "society" have often been used to refer to a unit of human association formed by voluntary union or cooperation, often based on common interests. Thus, there is the "Society of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals", the "Society for the Propagation of the Gospel", etc. On this understanding the "focus of unity" is not so much the society itself, as it is for "community" conception, but is instead constituted by the common interests which binds them together. Thus, a Star Trek convention or society would be bound together by the individual's interests in Star Trek, if you're interested in say, a certain football club, you join that football club and you find yourself a society joined together by a common interest.

It is clear that on a "society" understanding, the origin of the society is founded upon our own individual's interests. We form these societies based upon our interests and the society exists to advance and embody these interests, the society has no intrinsic value in itself, whatever value or ties which are formed in it are derived primarily from those interests. It is clear that on this conception, the social bonds are weaker, less significant, centred around an interest which doesn't have the same all-encompassing coverage of a "community" understanding of human association.

Traditionally, Catholicism with it's "higher" doctrine of the church, with a stronger consciousness of the church as a theological unit and with it's hierarchy and social regulation, tend to be more "communal", more gemeinschaft, whilst Reformed and Evangelical churches, with it's emphasis on doctrine, personal faith, belief, personal confession and conversion, sola scriptura, reading the Bible by your own, tend towards a more "societal", more gesellschaft conception of the church. The church is simply a gathering of like-minded individuals with a "common interest", i.e. the faith, etc. The faith flows from the individual inside to outwards. Individual confession and belief leads to outward association and gathering with like-minded people.

From Community to Society and Back Again

But as I've noted, a "society" conception of association tends to produce weaker bonds and ties, and as a result, what happens is alienation, loneliness, the lost of the "homeliness", group identity, and sense of belonging, which a more "communal" human association provides. So what has happened in today's world is what I call "tribalism". With the loss of a broader "communal" world which traditional Christendom used to provide in our secular environment, people resort to more and more "local" communities; primarily, local friendships. Buddies from school, friends from your local church, etc. And these ties of friendship tend to be very strong, the loyalty demanded can be as fierce and as exacting as any gemeinschaft community. It is within these localised friendship whereby one finds the comforts and reliance which the community used to provide.

From the point of view of the development of the Evangelical church in Singapore, this is exactly what has happened. The traditional "society" conception of the Church, as centred around sound doctrine and preaching, is found to be increasingly inadequate at keeping the younger members in church. The church is suffering from heavy attrition, also there are more and more complains of "individualism" and all that. Thus, in reaction to these trends, the Evangelical church started to try to shift the church from a "society" view towards a "community" view of the church. Now, the church has "small groups" which are supposed to function like mini-communities, the church as a "community" is constantly drummed from the pulpit, there is much talk about the need to do things together, to form stronger ties with each other, etc and all that.

The problem is, as I've noted before many times, this "tribalistic" reaction have produced mini-communities which become even more tyrannical than the Roman Church. The communal pressures in these small groups and in the church are intense, communal sanctions for "disapproved" behaviour (i.e. no hanging out with non-Christians) becomes a very heavy mental burden, and the urge to conformity becomes oppressive as the small groups becomes effectively a mini-police state within the church.

Church as Assembly

Although the "society" conception of human association did not exist at the time of Luther, but in his larger catechism, he actually does discuss the "community" conception of human association, as to whether it is an appropriate concept to characterise the Church, and, this might surprise most Evangelicals, he actually rejected "community" as a proper translation of the "communion of saints" in the Apostle's Creed and argued instead for gemeinde or assembly.

Now the reason which he choose this concept or term is primarily theological. Think back to our days in secondary school during morning assembly. What did we do? The answer is that we didn't actually do anything. All we did was to sit around and listen to the announcement or the teachers and principals. Granted, sometimes it is quite tedious to listen to them, but the essence of an "assembly" which Luther wanted to capture to characterise the Church is that an assembly is passive. The assembly is simply a gathering of people around the Word which speaks forgiveness to them, and their role in the assembly, is simply to listen and receive that forgiveness.

This corresponds exactly to the Protestant's doctrine of justification as the reception of "passive righteousness" the full and complete righteousness of Christ which is given to us in baptism whole and complete, which we do not have to do anything to maintain or keep, thus, passive. Thus while in a community, we have to work and comply with the community demands to maintain our relationship with the community, in an assembly, you don't do anything, you simply listen to the preaching and the words of absolution and the Gospel promise administered in the sacraments for you for the forgiveness of sins.

An assembly is also very different from a society, because the Word whereby the people are assembled around is external to the assembly. The Word and the Sacraments are objective, external, divine means of salvation which derive their power and being from God, and not from our own interests or desires. Whereas a society is a voluntary union or cooperation of like-minded individuals who, on their own initiative, unite themselves to the focus of interest of that society, an assembly's source of unity and bonds are external to the assembly itself, it focused entirely upon the Word and the Sacraments, which maintains their objective life over and above the assembly and is the one who gives the assembly it's life.

Another vital aspect of the "passiveness" of the assembly is that this assembly is therefore not a worldly power. The Lutheran tradition have always warned against any conception of the church as a social power, a source of social change, social progress or whatever, because it's righteousness is an imputed forensic (external) righteousness purely of Christ which is simply received via the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments, and is never one which is achieved or worked, therefore the church's only "power", is weakness. Thus, the church can never become a society for the advancement of any social agenda or social justice or whatever, because anyway, we will always lose to the world in terms of such social power and muscle. To emphasize again, the Church is an assembly, it is passive, it's primary role is simply to listen and receive the Gospel and it's forgiveness. It is not a gathering centered around some social interest or agenda whereby people are identified and defined by their activity in such things. Luther himself when asked about the marks of the church replied that the church is identified by suffering, by affliction, not by power or victory.

I have to make a disclaimer here, I don't mean to say that these activities or agendas are outright wrong. They are not, and they certainly have their place in God's creation, but their place is in the world, and not in the church. The Church's center is the Word and Sacraments, and the Church's primary office is the pronouncement of the Word of forgiveness and the administration of the Gospel in the sacraments. But once who have received our life and salvation from God, we go back into God's world and creation and lived as creatures of God and participate in the order of the world as God hath ordained it. And in the world naturally such societies and even family communities have their proper place and role there. But those "worldly offices" or vocations as it were, must never be confused as Christian duties or the offices of the church.

Conclusion: The Word Going After People

If indeed the Church is simply an assembly of people gathered around the Word to listen and receive it's saving words, and if the Church isn't a social power but simply the speaking Word in preaching and absolution, then that should re-orient the focus of the Church, from itself as a community, or even a society, but simply as the Word going after people.

Steven Paulson illustrates this in a very concrete way with a personal example. He was once called to pastor to a very small congregation which had fallen below the church minimum membership requirement to be considered a church. Thus, he knew everyone in this congregation of about 10+ members. When he got there, he learnt that there was this couple who had stopped going to the church, and so he went down to their house to ask why, and the couple answered that because of a recent dispute in the church, they were so tired of the squabbling that they left and joined a square dancing society and they found that there is better fellowship there, friendier people and all that.

Now, if we buy into the idea of the church as a community, meant to provide friendship and communal bonds, then the pastor would technically have nothing to say. But the pastor instead replied, well, if you don't come to church, then that means that you will be seperated from the ministry of the Church and the preaching, therefore, I will have to go to you instead, to your own house and arrange with you when I can come and minister the Word to you.

This exemplifies the ministry of the Church at it's finest. It is not about gathering social power or capital or building up a powerful community, it is simply all about bringing God's word and the ministry of the Word to the sheep. Contrary to conventional ideas of the minister as a "leader" with power to herd people, the minister is first and foremost a shepherd, whose role is to track down the lost sheep and bring salvation to the sheep. The Church is the Word ministering to the assembly, not social power or some self-contained community.

And that, is the essence of the Church, not a community unto itself, deriving it's reality from itself, not a society of shared individual interest, but simply a people assembled around the Word and being ministered to by the Word.

"This is My Body Which is Given for you"; An Exposition and Defence of the Doctrine of the Real Presence

2011-11-22T21:56:00.001-08:00

WE do not presume to come to this thy table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies: we are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table: but thou art the same Lord whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood in these holy Mysteries, that we may continually dwell in him, and he in us, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood. Amen.

Collect of Humble Access, Book of Common Prayer 1549

Spiritual Eating?

The Protestant doctrine of the "real presence" of the Eucharist, that in the Lord's Supper we eat and drink the true body and blood of our Lord, was formalised and clarified in reaction to the Reformed party revision of this doctrine, in particular, Calvin's own unique "via media" or middle way between Zwingli and Luther.

As most of us knows, the early Reformer Zwingli is the first major figure of the Reformation to deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, teaching the extreme doctrine of the "real absence" of Eucharist. Zwingli taught that the bread and the wine are merely symbols or representations of the absent body and blood of our Lord who, being located in heaven, cannot possibly be present in the bread and the wine. Then of course there is the famous Marburg Colloquy where Luther and Zwingli debated the issue and couldn't come to an agreement and the Protestant movement from then split between the Lutherans and the Reformed party.

Calvin tried to bridge the gap between the two factions by postulating a spiritual presence, namely that in the bread and the wine, Christ is spiritually present to faith. Thus, the person coming to the sacraments in faith, will in their faith perceive Christ's body and blood spiritually present in the Eucharist and when they partake of it in faith, which faith lifts up their minds towards heaven and there they spiritually commune with Christ's risen body through and in their faith. Thus with this formulation, the Reformed started boasting that they believe as much as the Lutherans that they eat and drink Christ's body and blood, and believe in Christ's presence in the Eucharist, etc.

When the Reformed Calvinist started to spread their "reconciliation" on the Lord's Supper amongst the Lutheran churches, the Lutherans were suspicious at once and condemned the Lutherans who taught the Reformed doctrine under the guise of Lutheran language as 'crypto-calvinists'. In reaction to this controversy and many others, the Lutherans or the "Augsburg Churches", came together to settle once and for all the issue regarding the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper and thus the Formula of Concord was produced, the doctrine of the real presence and it's relation to the Gospel clarified, and the Reformed errors circumscribed.

Basically, the Lutherans imposed two "boundary conditions" upon the doctrine of the real presence,

We believe, teach, and confess that the body and blood of Christ are received with the bread and wine, not only spiritually by faith, but also orally...

and

We believe, teach, and confess that not only the true believers [in Christ] and the worthy, but also the unworthy and unbelievers, receive the true body and blood of Christ; however, not for life and consolation, but for judgment and condemnation, if they are not converted and do not repent, 1 Cor. 11:27-29.

Epitome of the Formula of Concord

The first boundary condition is simply that we receive Christ's body and blood not only spiritually by faith, but also orally, that is, with our mouths and our tongues. Thus, a "real presence" requires a "real eating" as well! The second boundary condition is that unbelievers do eat the true body and blood of Christ in the sacrament, but they do not eat to their salvation but to their condemnation.

The boundary conditions are placed there to emphasize the vital Gospel issue at stake in the question of the real presence, namely that the Gospel promise of Christ's body and blood, given for us for salvation, is a true, external and objective reality independent of our subjective state or status. In other words, it is not faith that makes a sacrament, it is the Word of God, speaking and administering the Gospel promise, which makes the sacrament. The truth and Gospel promise administered in the sacrament is not based upon our subjective faith but upon the sure Word of God, and upon this foundation we place our faith and confidence in. The faith does not make present Christ's promised body and blood, rather, Christ's promised body and blood presents us the Gospel to put our faith in. That is why the Lutherans imposed the two boundary conditions, to emphasize that Christ's body and blood are truly present even when the ungodly unbelievers eat it, because the bread and the wine is Christ's body and blood by virtue of the Words of Institution, not by virtue of our faith, and that this eating must first and foremost be an oral eating before it can be a spiritual eating.

However, notice that the formula which the Lutheran gave does not deny a spiritual eating, it says "not only spiritually by faith..." Thus, the Lutherans recognised and acknowledge that there is a spiritually eating by faith, but this spiritual eating by faith is grounded upon an oral eating by our mouths. But what exactly is the relationship between the spiritual eating by faith and the oral eating by our mouths? To this we now turn.

Faith and the Sacraments

The most common objection to the doctrine of the real presence and the idea that we receive eternal life by eating the sacraments is that it seems to go against the doctrine of justification by faith alone. How can we be saved by faith if we are saved by eating the Lord's Supper as well? In answering this question, I will also be answering the relationship between eating by faith and the oral eating.

We must first note that we are not saved by just any faith. We are not justified by faith in the prophet Mohammed for example. Thus, whilst it is true that we are justified by faith alone, but this answer is incomplete and the vital question is, faith in what? Or rather, in whom? Whilst the answer that we are saved by faith in Christ is correct, but again we encounter the same problem, we are not going to be saved by faith in the Christ of the Koran for example who is a mere prophet and not the Son of God and didn't actually die on the cross for our sins but had someone else take his place. Nor will we be saved by an Arian Christ who maybe a very exalted creature but still a creature nonetheless and not the Creator and God. Thus the formula "saved by faith in Christ" is actually somewhat meaningless if we do not specify exactly what is this "Christ" which we are talking about and whom we are supposed to put our faith in.

It should be apparently by now that we are supposed to put our faith in Christ who acted, spoke, promised and thought as the Scriptures have revealed. Therefore we are saved by putting our faith in Christ's person, character, words and deeds as it is recorded in the Scriptures, that is how we are justified. In particular, it is precisely in the Words of the Institution, the words whereby Christ gives us his body and his blood of the New Testament for the remission of our sins, which we are supposed to put our faith in for our salvation. Remember, the sacraments receive their efficacy and their power by virtue of the Word of God, by the promise of Christ whereby he declares that "This is my Body which is given for you" and "this is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins", and upon these words which Christ speaks to us, we place our faith and confidence and believe Christ and eat the bread and the drink the cup, believing that the bread IS his body given for us and that this wine IS his blood of the New Testament shed for us for the remission of our sins.

Thus to recap, the Word of God, Christ, is the foundation of the sacrament of the Eucharist, it is his almighty Word and his infallible promise whereby the bread and the wine is consecrated and blessed to be the Body and Blood of Christ. And upon this Word, whereby Christ annexes salvation and remission of sins to his body and blood, which we receive by the eating and drinking of the consecrated bread and wine, we place our faith, trust and confidence, and we believe in the words of Christ and and receive in faith the body and blood of Christ to our salvation.

Therefore, whoever refuses to believe in Christ's clear and explicit words and tries to get around him and reinterpret him to suit their own whims, do not have faith in the Christ as he is revealed in Scripture but instead believes in a Christ of their own invention, and in their unbelief in the true Christ, rejects the Gospel promise which he has annexed to the sacrament, deny the salvation offered therein, thereby refusing God's grace and throwing themselves out to the mercies of God's judgement.

In summary, the Lutheran teaching concerning the faith and sacraments is this: The sacrament is founded upon the Word of Christ as revealed in Scripture, and the bread and the wine are the true body and blood of Christ, wherein is offered salvation, the New Testament and remission of sins. The salvation offered in the sacrament does not depend for it's efficacy upon the subject's faith but upon the sure Word of Christ. But we can only receive the benefits of offered therein when we eat the body and blood of Christ in faith, by believing in the Words of Christ, "This is my body, which is given for you" and "This is my blood of the New Testament, etc." Thus, the bread and the wine do not cease to be the Gospel offer of the body and blood of Christ, whatever our subjective state, but it can only truly benefit us and save us and cleanse us from our sins, when we eat and drink them by faith, believing in the Words of the Institution. If we eat and drink disbelievingly, the bread and the wine do not cease to be Christ's body and blood, but they do not benefit us but instead condemn us for eating without discerning the Lord's body (1 Corinthians 11:29). To put it simply, the Word makes the Sacrament, not our faith, but our faith receives it's benefits for ourselves by believing in the Word.

Not to be taken Literally?

One of the most common objections to the taking the "This is my body" literally is simply to point out that Christ said that he is the vine or the door, are we to take that "literally"? So likewise we must not take the "This is my body" literally but take it as "This represents my body", which is in heaven, etc. But a little thought into some literally analysis will show that, far from disproving the Lutheran's case, it strengthens it instead.

This objection primarily rest on a confusion between representation and the metaphorical use of words. Let's put the two statements side by side.

(1) This [the bread] is my Body

(2) I am the door

Now, when Christ said that he is the door, he obviously doesn't mean it "literally", but it is clear that what he meant to say is that the door is a metaphor for something else, i.e. the way to God, the access to God, etc. Thus the "switch", if you will, is upon the word "door". The door stands for something else, namely, the way to God and the access to God, and Christ is really saying that he is the way and access to God. He is identifying himself with what the word "door" is supposed to stand in for, namely, the way to God. So far so good.

But here is where the problems begin. Is Christ saying that he represents the door? The confusion should be quite clear now, it is the word "door" which stands in for something else, not Christ! Christ doesn't merely represent the door or the way to God, he IS the door and the way to God! He isn't saying that the way to God is something beyond or behind him, as if he were a mere representation of something or someone else who would really be the way to God, he is saying that he is the way and he is identifying the way with himself. Therefore, there is a world of difference between the metaphorical use of the word "door" or "true vine", etc, whereby those words stand in for something else which Christ is then identified with, and with saying that Christ merely represents the door, the vine, etc, which implies that Christ is merely a stand in for something else which is really the door and the true vine.

Therefore in the light of this consideration, we can apply it back to the "This is my body". By comparing the phrase, "I am the door" with "This is my body", are they suggesting that the word "body" is merely a metaphor for something else? What could it be? The Church? Is he saying that this bread is the church? But the bread obviously isn't the church, since we aren't in the bread. Then what could it be? And what the "blood" in "this is my blood" be a metaphor for? The whole objection is incoherent, unintelligible and is simply a fudge and attempt to dodge the plain and clear meaning of Christ's own words. And if they want to insist that it means "represent", from which part of the context and upon what basis do they suddenly pull out this interpretation of "is" as "represents"?

Conclusion

Of course this isn't the end of it as the Lutherans also gave an extensive treatment upon Christology and how the body of Christ can be at so many places at once, and the communication of the divine and human attributes and all that. But this ought to do for resolving and answering the major objections to this vital doctrine of the Gospel, and to end with the words of the distribution from the Book of Common Prayer,

The body of our Lorde Jesus Christe whiche was geven for thee, preserve thy bodye and soule unto everlasting lyfe.

Amen.

On Not Baptising Doubt; Or Why There Cannot Possibly be Any Intellectual Doubt Concerning Christianity

2011-11-20T21:47:00.001-08:00

... let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways, will receive anything from the Lord.

James 1:6-8

People try to persuade us that the objections against Christianity spring from doubt. That is a complete misunderstanding. The objections against Christianity spring from insubordination, the dislike of obedience, rebellion against all authority. As a result people have hitherto been beating the air in their struggle against objections, because they have fought intellectually with doubt instead of fighting morally with rebellion.

Søren Kierkegaard

It has become fashionable nowadays to not discourage or denounce doubt as a sin which one needs to repent of, but rather as something acceptable and legitimate in the Christian faith, almost like an intellectual virtue for respectable and sophisticated modern Christians for whom conviction without doubt would simply be silly.

Whilst there is in some sense in which the church must "suffer" it's doubters, the sense of which I shall clarify later, but strictly speaking, the Catholic church has always condemned despair of God as a sin and by extension, doubt. But before I elaborate, it would be necessary to demonstrate on a priori grounds why the very nature of the Christian faith makes intellectual doubt impossible; there can only be obedience to the Gospel or rebellion, but no supposedly "disinterested" third person objective and neutral doubt.

"Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?" (Luke 12:14)

The reason why there cannot possibly be any intellectual doubt about Christianity is that subject matter of the Christian faith and claims makes neutral, disinterested, intellectual study impossible. I will elaborate using an example from our legal processes.

It is the principle of the courts that no one may be a judge of his own cause. This means that no one can be a judge in a case where he is personally involved in the dispute or is personally involved with any of the parties in the disputes. This is for the obvious reason that there will be a "conflict of interest" if a judge can decide a case where his own interest are involved.

In the case of Christianity however, it is a "suit" or claim which the church makes against *everybody*. The Christian claim is that because Christ has died and risen from the dead, therefore he is revealed to be God and Lord and this claim calls forth the confession and repentance of all those who do not believe the claim. So in essence, the claim by it's own *universal* nature already implicates everyone. Everyone is personally involved in this suit, which Christian makes against all non-believers. If the Christian "wins" the suit, then all non-believers will have to submit to the Gospel and repents, but if the non-Christian "loses" the suit, then non-believers can ignore the Christian's claims.

So, given that everyone is personally involved in this suit, there isn't any "neutral third party" whom we can find to adjudicate between the disputants because everyone's interest is already implicated. The non-believer is by definition already someone who rejects the claims or suit of the Christian church and does not submit to the Gospel. The Christian is by definition someone who is making the claim or suit. The nature of the Christian Gospel has exhausted all possible individuals, there is no one who is neutral party and over and above the claims which is able to adjudicate between the disputants (I think in set theory we call this a binary partition of the set, can't quite remember). To put it simply, you can't ask someone who does not accept the claims to judge between those who don't accept the claims and those who do. And of course directly parallel to this, you can't ask those who accept the claims to judge the suit either.

Therefore because of the universal and personal implication of the Christian claims, neutral and objective evidence gathering and interpretation is impossible, because the outcome of this judgement involves the interest of everyone, therefore there can be no neutral and objective judge in this case. And so in conclusion, so-called intellectual doubts or the lack of evidence or unreliable claims, etc, are impossible, because our interpretation of data is already filtered through our interest concerning the submission or denial of the Church's Gospel claims upon our entire lives. The most you can say is that you refuse to believe it or that you reject it's claim, but it is dishonest to say that you don't have enough evidence or reasons, because there cannot be such evidence or reasons which have not been filtered or interpreted by our interests in whether to submit or reject the Gospel.

Why an Objective Reporter of the Christian Faith is an Impossible Fiction

Here is another more concrete way of looking at it. Is it possible to have an objective, unbiased, neutral reporter of the Christian faith which would be acceptable to the so-called objective and neutral judge? Obviously given the infinite and universal and absolute weight of the Christian claims, it is impossible to have an unbiased and neutral reporter of those claims. To put it simply, it is the very character of the Christian claims to instantly provoke bias, for or against!

Let's try to imagine what such a "reporter" would look like. Now, he has to report a lot of miraculous facts, voices from heaven declaring that he is well-pleased with Christ, images of dove descending upon Christ, Christ's healings and feeding of five thousand people, Christ's transfiguration and revealing his glory as he speaks with Elijah and Moses, Christ's resurrection and the empty tomb, him appearing to his disciples after his crucifixion, watching Christ ascend into heaven in glory, etc.

Now how can someone be a witness to all these events, and at the same time remain neutral, objective and disinterested in his reports towards the Christian faith in a way acceptable to a so-called "neutral judge"? Or, to put it in other words, how can someone be a witness to all these events, believe that they happened and are true events, and yet not be a Christian? Can you imagine such a person saying, "Yar, you know, I saw Christ ascend into heaven and he came back from the dead and spoke to us, but you know, I don't really care and I'm don't really believe in what the Church is preaching and claiming and I still don't want to repent and be a Christian, I'm just here to report that this guy rose from the dead, revealed his glory and spoke to Moses and Elijah and stuff. But you know, I am above and beyond the preaching and claims of this Christ, although I saw him rise from the dead and do all these miraculous stuff."

What are we to make of such a person? We would either suspect that this person is insane, schizophrenic, or, at best, is merely being dishonest about his claims not to be a Christian. How can anyone believe that these events occurred and yet not be affected into becoming a Christian? The very substance or or events of the Christian faith is such that makes a disinterested and unbiased attitude towards it impossible! It is impossible to be a neutral and objective witness to these events. Anyone who is a witness to events of such a magnitude will be provoked into bias, either one will become a Christian, and therefore obviously will be "biased" towards the Christian faith, or one will deny the significance of the events and will instantly re-interpret those events to contradict the claims, thereby becoming biased against the Christian faith. But either way, both reporters of the events of the Christian faith will be "unacceptable" to the so-called neutral judge. And a person who is a witness to such events and reports them as true without being a Christian would in turn also be dismissed for being a lunatic schizophrenic! Therefore, the limitations which neutral objective third-person reporting places upon the Christian faith already rules against the Christian faith a priori and is merely question begging.

Therefore in conclusion, there cannot be any intellectual doubts concerning the Christian faith, for the universal and infinite claims which the Christian faith makes takes it out of the sphere of neutral objective evidence gathering and determination and right into an existential crisis of decision regarding the proclamation of the Christian Gospel.

Suffering Doubters

Now that we see why intellectual doubts concerning Christianity is impossible, we can understand the nature of doubt better. At the start I said that there is a sense in which we ought to "suffer" doubters. If my account regarding the true nature of "doubt" of the Christian faith is correct, that it is not a question of evidence or reasons but a question of decision, of submission and obedience to the faith, then doubts concerning the Christian faith is simply rebellion and a sin, as Kierkegaard rightly observes.

Therefore the proper Christian response to doubt is repentance and faith towards Jesus Christ and his Gospel. And it is in this sense in which we must suffer doubters, for as long as we remain in the flesh, we remain in sin, and as long as we remain in sin, we will have doubts. Therefore to the sin of doubt, we command repentance and we remove by absolution and by the ministry of the sacrament whereby faith is strengthened and doubts removed. Doubt is not removed by endless poring into historical data and evidence and boundless debates but by the grace of the Gospel administered in the sacraments which removes all sin, even the sin of doubt.

So because we will always remain in sin as long as we are in the flesh, therefore we will always doubt, but just as we do not reject sinners from the church, neither do we reject doubters from the church but instead offer doubters the Gospel and the sacraments. This is the correct sense in which the church suffers, nay, must suffer it's doubters.

But what is not the Christian response is to say that doubt is legitimate and that it is acceptable to indulge in it and remain in it. Since doubt is a sin, and since sin is never legitimate nor must we ever teach that it is acceptable to indulge in sin and remain in it, so likewise must doubt never be legitimised as a Christian virtue but unambigiously denounced as a Christian vice and sin instead, and repetance command and grace for redeeming from doubt offered by the sacraments.

Grandiose philosophical thesis for the day: Why there is a limit to human progress

2011-11-20T00:45:00.001-08:00

Just as in geography there is a "carrying capacity" or a limit to the amount of resources a piece of land can produce; likewise is there a "carrying capacity" or limit to the ability of humans to unite, co-ordinate and cooperate with other people.

The efficacy, substance and success of union exists in inverse relation to the distance to the individual, I.e. Family, friends, working colleagues, society, nation, etc. The explanation for this correlation is that a relationship which exists at increasing distance from the individual must be mediated with increasingly abstract concepts which significance decreases for each individual with increasing abstraction, thereby reducing the substance, meaning and efficacy of such unions.

Any attempt to bring closer a universal abstract relation to one's immediate local experience is known in Hegalism as "picture-thinking", the attempt to capture the whole universal in one shot or picture as it where. Such attempts are an inherently religious quest, supremely exemplified by Christianity where a transcendent universal God is united to a personal and local Jewish flesh.

The "carrying capacity" for union may be simply a neurological limitation of the human brain to be able to process and live by abstract relations instead of concrete, immediate and experienced loyalties.

In order for this "carrying capacity" to be transcended, one must in effect, redesign the human species at the genetic or neurological level. But barring such a radical change to humanity, this carrying capacity accounts for the rise and dissolution of grand unification projects which when it exceeds the limit, collapses into a reactionary tribalistic local dissolution

Someone Should Say this to Our Parliament One Day...

2011-11-20T00:41:00.001-08:00

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!

Oliver Cromwell to Parliament