Partisanship in the Church

An old friend of called on Christmas Eve and we talked for about half an hour.  The gist of our call involved comparing notes on political news and current events.  I can always count on C—and he can count on me—to see issues in exactly the same way.  Everyone needs at least one friend like this.  We grew up in Florida but went our separate ways not long after high school; C eventually landed in North Carolina while I settled in the Midwest.

In our lengthy tri-annual calls we usually commiserate on the folly of the political and media establishments.  Both of us have been pleased with Trump’s first year in office and disdainful of continual liberal-progressive hypocrisy and deceit.

C mentioned that he was recently upset with his church’s pastor.  He liked the sermons and respected the man—thought he was a straight shooter.  That was, until he read a newsletter article the clergyman wrote that was highly critical of the president.  C was outraged and wanted to transfer to another church.  We commiserated—wonderful word!  I too have been disgusted with the politically motivated efforts of some of our church members, including those on Session. 

Around this time last year, immediately following the November election, members of Session, (the governing council of a Presbyterian Church), almost passed a resolution condemning those who had voted for Trump.  As a result of the election “…the message that Christians are accepting of racism, xenophobia, misogyny, Islamophobia and other forms of hate against others has been pronounced loudly.”   To be fair, emotions were inflamed—about half the country did not get what it wanted with its votes.

Like C, I was outraged by flagrant partisanship in the church. I immediately contacted the pastor and Clerk of Session.  I indicated that I was not sure how voting against a candidate under FBI investigation for fraud, government corruption and endangering national security made me or anyone else a racist, xenophobe, misogynist, or whatever other name liberals wanted to call people who disagree with them.  I wrote the pastor: 

At this troubled time, shouldn’t our church focus on encouraging reconciliation, unity and respectful communication among those who differ in world view or political perspective?  This so-called “Motion against Racism” accomplishes the opposite.  Sad!

I would like to say that I would take a similar stance if the church had instead sided with my political party—but to be honest I cannot imagine I would have done so as enthusiastically.  I have since calmed down quite a bit, as has most—though not all—of the country.  It took about a year.  I suggested to C that he take a broader perspective about his pastor's views.  I offered that being a conservative in a liberal mainstream congregation had the benefit of providing numerous opportunities to practice patience and forgiveness.  C said that he would reconsider.

John Calvin had much to say about church and state relationships.  Though he insisted the two be assigned separate and critical roles in society, he placed both under the sovereignty of God.  In 1558 he made these remarks that seem generally applicable to human organizations, whether secular or sectarian:

Were the judgments of mankind correct, custom would be regulated by the good. But it is often far otherwise in point of fact; for, whatever the many are seen to do, forthwith obtains the force of custom. But human affairs have scarcely ever been so happily constituted as that the better course pleased the greater number. Hence the private vices of the multitude have generally resulted in public error, or rather that common consent in vice which these worthy men would have to be law.

(From Calvin’s The Institutes of the Christian Religion)

Thinking of U

If you believe in heaven, or care to get there, what can you do?  Earn your way with a sufficient number of sufficiently good works?  Endure religious rituals carried out with great attention to detail and tradition?  Can you petition a kind, motherly God to reward you for making the right choices?  Or will a stern, fatherly God pick you—of all people—as if for a team, as if for a job—and for no other reason than “His sovereign good pleasure”?  These are ancient questions, with no comforting answers.  And heaven is not the only destination in view. Similar questions can be asked in this life about the desire for health, prosperity, peace, justice. 

Some answers can be found in the New and Old Testaments, but they are troublesome.  In his letter to the Ephesians, (1: 4-7), Paul writes these words:

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.  In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.

It is clear throughout the Bible that not all will be selected—not for grace, not for the team, not for the job.  Here is clarification in Paul’s letter to the Romans, (9: 14-18) which recalls passages in the Old Testament:

What then shall we say?  Is God unjust?  Not at all!  For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”  It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.  For the Scripture says to Pharaoh:  “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”  Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.”

An earthier expression of this idea is in Isaiah 45: 9-10:

“Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground.  Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’ 

These scriptural observations support a concept known to Calvinists as unconditional election, the U in the famous acronym T.U.L.I.P.  This was Calvin’s five point response to the Arminians, thought to express key points of his theology of salvation.  Unconditional election is the idea that God elects from among the mass of depraved humanity—all of us, that is—a subset who will receive the grace of faith in Jesus Christ, and so be saved.  Charles H. Spurgeon summarizes the implications of unconditional election in this way:

“I believe the doctrine of election, because I am quite sure that if God had not chosen me I would never have chosen him; and I am sure he chose me before I was born, or else he never would have chosen me afterward.”  

While the total depravity of humankind is easy to demonstrate, the concept of unconditional election, along with its corollary of predestination, is offensive to many because of its current political incorrectness.  Doesn’t everyone get a prize in this superficially egalitarian society?  Doesn’t everyone go to heaven if they are reasonably moral and follow procedure?

It may be that ideas like election and predestination are universal, with expression in other religions besides Christianity.  (It would be interesting to hear from people of other faith traditions whether this is true.)  Though the conflict between late 16^th century Calvinists and Arminians seems obscure now, the basic debate—whether personal salvation is solely at God’s discretion or a product of our own efforts—remains a root cause of our culture wars.

Xmas

A couple weeks ago the president kicked off the annual War Against Christmas in St. Louis by repeating his campaign promise to a boisterous crowd of supporters: “I told you that we would be saying ‘Merry Christmas’ again.”  He rebranded the annual “holiday party” for the media a Christmas Party.  The Trumps’ holiday cards boldly wish all a ‘Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year’.  

This blasphemous departure from generic civil religion upset many people, among them even some Christian leaders.  The general concern is that in a multi-cultural society like America, expressions of religious sentiment must be watered down and rendered indistinct to avoid riling sectarian zealots.  But the only people too zealous to abide an open celebration of Christmas or any religious holiday are usually atheists.

And Puritans.  

Philip Stubbes, in his The Anatomie of Abuses (1580s) exemplifies the Puritan view of the holiday centuries ago in England:   

That more mischief is that time committed than in all the year besides, what masking and mumming, whereby robbery whoredom, murder and what not is committed? What dicing and carding, what eating and drinking, what banqueting and feasting is then used, more than in all the year besides, to the great dishonour of God and impoverishing of the realm.

Calvin’s view of Christmas had been a bit more ambivalent.  He condemned the ‘reason for the season’ in a sermon he preached on Christmas day in 1551:

“…It matters not whether we recall our Lord’s nativity on a Wednesday, Thursday, or some other day. But when we insist on establishing a service of worship based on our whim, we blaspheme God, and create an idol, though we have done it all in the name of God. And when you worship God in the idleness of a holiday spirit, that is a heavy sin to bear, and one which attracts others about it, until we reach the height of iniquity…”

But he was more acquiescent in a letter he wrote four years later:  

As to festival days, they were abolished at Geneva before I left France; and those who had procured their abolition, were actuated by no spirit of contention or spite, but solely by the desire of abolishing the superstition which had been so prevalent in Popery…my writings bear witness to my sentiments on these points, for in them I declare that a church is not to be despised or condemned, because it observes more festival days than the others. From this recent abolition of feast days, here is what has resulted.  Not a year has passed without some quarrel and bickering, because the people were divided, and to such a degree as to draw their swords.

Meanwhile we have done what we ought, to appease these troubles. The most feasible means that could be devised for that purpose, seemed to be to keep the holy day in the morning, and open the shops in the afternoon, though this plan did not much remedy the evil…when we believe that we are serving God in observing certain days, we are chargeable with a superstition contrary to his word; and yet this belief has taken such root among the people, that they can scarcely be turned from it. 

Then as now Christmas was more than a sentimental religious celebration.  Its clandestine observance and official condemnation in mid-17^th Century England were symbolic of the deep political and religious forces that ignited the English Civil war.*  The Puritan revolt against Charles I in the 1640s was due in part to fears that he would outlaw traditional Calvinist beliefs and attempt to reunite the Church of England with Rome.  Popular Christmas rituals seemed to exemplify the corruption and immorality of Roman Catholic customs of the time, which an ascendant Protestant theocracy struggled to suppress. 

As in Calvin’s writings, Puritans criticized the celebration for several reasons: there was no scriptural basis for the ritual celebration of Christ’s birth, the holiday was an idolatrous human invention, and the various trappings of Christmas harkened back to pagan rites and festivals.  After taking control of the government in the mid-1640s, the Puritans made a strong effort to abolish Christmas, but were unsuccessful.  

The prohibition of the holiday often led to violence, as in London in 1647, when a Christmas mob fought with law enforcement over the removal Christmas decorations.  Celebrations of Christmas were also associated with the Royalist cause, and so had political connotations; when the monarchy was restored in 1660, Christmas was openly celebrated again.   The English Civil war determined the power structure of the government, in particular, the relative powers of parliament and the monarchy, but the conflict over Christmas was one conspicuous expression of deeper political and religious conflicts in English society. 

Christmas divided the Puritans and Royalists of 17^th Century England and divides us today.  Which side one takes in the so-called “War on Christmas” is likely predictive of political, economic, and ethnic interests, aside from the religious ones.  For atheists and secular humanists, who may want freedom from religion more than they want freedom of religion, it is not so much the vulgarity, excess and criminality of the Christmas season that is upsetting as its insistent theology.  

The celebration of Christmas remains a divisive issue, and perhaps will always be so.  Yet it seems possible that atheists and Puritans could find common cause in advocating for a quieter, more restrained, less materialistic holiday. 

********************

*Much of this interesting history is detailed in a fascinating article by Chris Durston that appeared in the December 1985 issue of History Today, (“The Puritan War on Christmas”).  Other sources for this article include “John Calvin’s Christmas Observance” posted at rbVincent.com. and “Calvin’s Response to Being Forced to Observe Christmas” posted at Heidelblog.net 9/10/15 by R. Scott Clark.

T is for Total

Of the five points of Calvinism that form the famous acronym T.U.L.I.P., my favorite is the first.  “T” is the least challenging of Calvin’s fivefold response to the Arminian saboteurs of the late 16^th century.  It is the easiest to demonstrate scientifically.  T.U.L.I.P. is not the whole of Calvinism, nor of the Reformed faith.  But the acronym makes a useful mnemonic for remembering Calvin’s principle arguments against the followers of Arminius, also known as the Remonstrants

T is for Total Depravity, that is, of the human race, a condition wrought by our original parents millennia ago, and carried forward by every generation since.  Over the next decade scientists will likely unravel that section of the human chromosome that codes for pervasive and primordial evil, for original sin.  Or they may locate its center somewhere in the labyrinth of human brain tissue, perhaps in the hippocampus, deep inside the medial temporal lobe.  This is where memories are formed—and later denied, repurposed, or lost by our diminished souls.

T is for no damned good.

The most recent and compelling evidence of Total Depravity, if such were needed, is surely the daily report of sexual misconduct and abuse among our leaders in government, media, the entertainment industry and elsewhere.  Every week, women continue to come forward, reporting incidents of abuse, exploitation, and violence that began years, even decades ago.  Insofar as the allegations are true, the mostly male perpetrators must be held accountable and receive justice for their acts.  This is unfolding now in headlines about famous men who have resigned or been fired in disgrace.  A few face criminal prosecution. 

However, is it too impolitic to wonder why women—especially those pursuing careers in Hollywood—were surprised or shocked by any of this sordid behavior, or did not report it sooner? Several of them acknowledged remaining silent or accepting payments for their silence in order to further their careers, in entertainment as well as business and politics.  By doing so, they lent their support to a corrupt system of oppression and exploitation.  

Like the rest of us, the women involved in these particular scandals were victims, but also willing opportunists.  In the case of Judge Moore, it is especially poignant, if unedifying, that the principle accuser conspired with her high profile attorney to alter “evidence” in advance of a high stakes election in Alabama. This double-heartedness, this mixing of motives, of which some are just and some unsavory, is at the core of total depravity, our sin-ridden incapacity to do the right thing for the right reasons.  This is what makes the structural evil now revealed in our institutions such an equal opportunity employer.  

But for the grace of God, men, women, and everyone in between are deserving of eternal damnation.  As the shameful behavior of our leaders in politics, business, entertainment—and the church—comes to light, is it too much to hope there might now be a desire for repentance, reformation, revival?

**********

“For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me.  Against you, you only have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge.”  (Psalm 51: 3-4)

Revenue and New Blood

My wife and I decided to skip church this morning.  It’s a beautiful day, sunny and mild, a rarity in our locale this time of year.  (We are grateful for global climate change, at least in December.)  We will probably spend the afternoon hiking in the woods or puttering in the yard.  

We skipped church to avoid the bi-annual “Youth Led Worship” service.  Though heartfelt, the event is often tiresome.  It resembles an elementary school play, a show for the grandparents among us, which is most of us.  But it’s the same five kids—all we have left in the congregation.  When each one graduates high school we expect they will blow away on gossamer strands of ever diminishing connection, just as baby spiders do.  Like vampires and revenants, our remaining church membership seeks the blood of young people to stay revived and energetic.  (Another interest of mine is horror literature.)

For all its efforts—save scheduling the Sunday service to a more family-friendly time—our church has not been able to attract young families for several years.  The nursery is down to one infant who comes every other week when he can fit it into his schedule.  

To generate revenue and interest, we are taking some of the same steps as some other shrinking denominations. Like the “mega-churches” we are reconfiguring ourselves as a civic center, a community hub with space to rent, ample parking—because the lot is mostly empty now—free coffee, wi-fi, and exercise equipment, among other amenities.  Our church hosts a secular daycare center, various 12-step groups, and private music lessons.  We have opened our sanctuary temporarily to a liberal Jewish congregation that meets here twice a month.

We’ve sent several of our agents to a nearby mega-church for reconnaissance.  They report that our largest, fastest growing competitor offers an indoor turf field, auditorium, “foam pit”, rental space and swag:  T-shirts bearing the denomination logo starting at $15.00 and fleece shirts at $35.00.  Agents “Caleb” and “Joshua” described loud music, crowds of people of all ages, (including some of our previous members), a plethora of small fellowship groups, and a vibrant education program from kindergarten to community college.  A co-worker of mine told me that there is a lot to do there for single professionals, too.

Several in our church have received fliers from this operation.  These advertise everything their building offers in the way of amenities and rental space—but without a single mention of church, gospel, scripture, worship, or needless to say, Jesus Christ.  To be fair, enumerating such quaint notions to younger prospective church members could be a deal breaker these days.

This approach—turning “church” into “community center”—makes practical sense as a way to fill an increasingly empty building with revenue generating activities.  Perhaps it will also attract curious seekers of religious truth.  One can appreciate the creativity involved.  It’s vital to welcome diverse groups of people.  But some of the glitz seems symptomatic of a church that lacks focus and coherency, a church entering a period of decadence and decline.   Especially if the emphasis is on a desire merely to accommodate potential customers.  No church building can contain God, but we hope that his Word to us is still mentioned occasionally within its walls.