THE AMISH OPTION?

What to do?  What to do?  Christians of all stripes are faced with an uncomfortable decision of either voting for (depending on your point of view) a racist demagogue or a lying crook November 8.  Of course, it is not just Christians.  The entire American public shares this dilemma—a truly catch-22 if there ever was one.  But it is for Christians we will focus our present comments.

Not that either candidate lack for enthusiastic Christians who will vote will for them without reservations.  These breakdown into the usual predictable partisan actors we have all come to know and love.  It is fair to say, however, it is more out of devotion to Trump or Clinton’s respective policy positions than any actual love for either one.   The fact is lending support to either candidate often means turning a willful blind eye to Trump or Clinton’s grim culpabilities. 

At this point, the Clinton insiders are so confident of eminent victory that they are measuring the White House for drapes.  Indeed, it seems those reporting and commenting on the election believe it is all but over and are preparing to celebrate the inauguration of this nation’s first woman President.  It is also true that Trump is stealthily cutting into Clinton’s lead with some predicting an upset of the likes of the recent Brexit vote in England.

Many prominent and many not-so ditinguished Christians have made the argument that a Christian cannot vote for Trump without seriously compromising their Christian witness.  More to the point, they make the allegation that supporting Trump involves totally abandoning (if only temporarily) one’s Christian values.  These Christian anti-Trumper’s can be quite persuasive.  The problem is that, if supporting Trump damages one’s Christian witness, the very same contention can be made for supporting Clinton.  While unsavory revelations of Trump’s mistreatment of women roll out daily, nasty exposures of Clinton’s duplicity and criminal activity continue to mount everyday as well.

The usual actors dependably assert that those on the right embrace the devil in all his works and ways.  Likewise, other actors, as surely as the sun rises in the east, assert that those on the left are in an unholy marriage with the approaching Anti-Christ.  In part, Trump will bring a hostility and diabolical “inhospitality” toward illegal immigrants (or “undocumented workers”, “unauthorized persons”, etc. whatever is the current euphemism for people who cross America’s national borders in violation its immigration laws).  He will also ensconce Wall Street in the very heart of Washington.  Clinton will bring a coercive animus using the power of government toward second amendment rights.  She will also institutionalize a more serious animosity toward religious liberty.  (She may not attack religious liberties personally it is said; but she will not stand in the way of those who seek to undermine religious liberties in order to advance some secular agenda.)  Of no slight concern is the sort of judges each would nominate to the Supreme and Federal courts.

Some Christian writers have assumed a “pox on both houses” stance—declaring genuine Christians cannot support either Trump or Clinton.  “We must bring an authentic Christian witness to the political process”.  Exactly what they mean by this is somewhat vague.  More to the point, what is the “genuine Christian” to do in the voting booth November 8^th?  Vote Libertarian or Green?  Neither one by their own design bring a Christian witness to the nation.  At best, both Libertarians and Greens harbor deep suspicions of any Christian political activism.  Are we to write-in some figure on the ballot who will “bring an authentic Christian witness” to our troubled nation?  And just who would that be?

These same “pox on both houses” Christian divines object the suggestion that they are advancing some version of Christian quietism—in effect, withdrawing from the main stage of political debate.  But, using a poker image, how does one engage in the game if you refuse to play by the cards that are dealt?  Again, these divines offer little practical advice of what the Christian is to do in the voting booth.

Some, like Rod Dreher, on the other hand, declare that the game is up.  The culture wars are over and orthodox Christianity has lost.  The abortion regime is thoroughly entrenched.  It won’t change because we can’t change.  We can’t “compromise”.  We can’t seek a “middle ground”.  The Supreme Court has all but totally foreclosed any political deliberation on abortion—even the most extreme abortion procedures such as partial birth terminations are protected.  Same-sex marriages are a fiat accompli by judicial injunction and its long march through both public and private institutions continue apace toward total victory.  (The ELCA not only allows sex-same marriages; but has produced its own SSM liturgy.)  Christianity in America has ceased to be a conveyance of subversive transformation of a secular and materialistic America.  It is only when the Church carries the water for secular causes that it finds any measure of acceptance.

Dreher has predicted that a dark night of hostility and persecution is about to descend on churches and organizations faithful to orthodox Christianity.  Indeed, that dark night has already arrived.  Dreher and others advocate orthodox Christians who want to maintain their faith should separate themselves to some degree from mainstream society and try to live in intentional communities or other subcultures.  He refers to this as the “Benedict option”.  I don’t think Dreher himself would say this; but it would seem the Amish would be a model that comes to mind.

Two weeks out, incriminations and the long knives are being drawn within each candidate’s respective parties.  If Clinton should lose, fault will be laid at the feet of those who insisted on putting forth who is largely unlikable as a person.  These will be relegated into the political wilderness for time—some perhaps permanently.

Of more profound repercussions will be what happens to the Republican Party if Trump should lose.  Many Republicans in Washington assume matters will settle back to business as usual once the party finally gets Trump out of its system.  However, much of the blame will be set of the feet of the party’s Never-Trumpers—especially those who made a point of voicing their support for Clinton in the national media.  

It is to be remembered that several prominent conservatives came out support of Obama in 2008.  One thinks of the likes of Colin Powell, Christopher Buckley, and Peggy Noonan.  While each continue to publish, they are no longer welcome nor taken seriously in most conservative circles.  Obama has been a disaster for conservative causes and the promised improvement in race relations failed to materialize—indeed, one could straightforwardly argue race relations are the worst they have been in years.  We have gone backward…not forward. 

 Those who support Clinton in this round are likely to seen as Benedict Arnolds for failing to support the choice of the majority of Republican voters.  Such demonstrations of bad faith will not be seen as an “I told you so” vindication in the election’s aftermath.  As a Clinton administration advances its agenda, the bitter divisions within the Republican Party will be exacerbated.  This may please many to no end.  A reduction in the opposition to the progressive agenda will be most welcome.  But, if one believes in the principles of limited government, one will have a rough go of it. 

What do I myself say to you?  The short of it is that I am in deathly fear of what Hillary Clinton will do to the Republic.  My liberal friends are shocked that, given all my grave misgivings and distaste for Donald Trump, I will not eagerly pull the level for her.   They are genuinely befuddled that I really believe we will lose some rights and constitutional protections in a Clinton administration.  Right or wrong, those are my settled conclusions.

Many have advanced that viewpoint that there is no guarantee Trump will abide by his professed conservative principles once in office.  That may be.  But, as Thomas Sowell has put it, voting for Trump may be like playing Russian roulette.  With one bullet loaded in one of the six chambers, one has a fair chance that one will not blow one’s head off when he pulls the trigger.  With Hillary, it is like putting the muzzle of a loaded double barrel shotgun in your mouth and then pulling the trigger.   We may not know what Trump will do.  But, with Hillary Clinton, we have no doubt what she will do.

ACCOUNTABILTY AS BUZZWORD. MERE BOILERPLATE OR SIGN OF THINGS TO COME?

Those of us who have worked in the corporate world are familiar with statements issued from the boardrooms and the top executive offices concerning company goals and “philosophy” of purpose.  For a time, these exercises were all the rage on the advice of highly paid consulting firms.  

Many believe that, because money is at stake, business is by necessity more rational and practical minded than the otherwise typical pursuits.  This is widely believed but it is true only to a limited degree.   The truth is, precisely money is involved, business leaders are given to fads, superstitions, and whatever is the current views among experts in the improvement of the bottom line.  Often positive results have been either as best temporary or, more typically, negligible—leaving business titans susceptible to the next enthusiasm to come down the pike.

Middle management flesh out and implement these Olympian visions the best they can because that’s what they do.  Those down the ladder are left to tolerate, listen to this stuff, participate in the prescribed group exercises and then go about their jobs the same as the day before—that is, as long as the visionaries stay out of the way.

Sometimes, however, the results are disastrous.  Speaking metaphorically, higher-ups have been known to take aim, shoot themselves precisely in the foot, and then stumble around for the next six months wondering why it hurts so much.  For the regular employees, the consequences may be the loss of their jobs, or the piling on more responsibilities without the corresponding authority to carry them out-- which compels many to seek other employment. 

The churches, unfortunately, have their own versions of these processes.     The ELCA (which is our main focus) has been swift to adopt whatever enthusiasms which emanate from the political left.   They deny this, of course.  Nevertheless, these enthusiasms are dressed up in religious window dressing.  To be fair, most do not see themselves succumbing to the vapors of the zeitgeist.  They patiently explain to whoever will listen that “X” is not due to the influence of partisan politics but is rather “a matter of the gospel”—perhaps they may even say they are dutifully responding to the movement of the Spirit.   Nevertheless, in view of the chronicles in the larger culture, many doubt the Holy Ghost has much to do with it:  more “spirit” than “Spirit”.

(The more conservative churches themselves are similarly susceptible to the influences from the political right; but that is a subject for another day.)

Which brings us to the Presiding Bishop’s recent column in the August issue of The Living Lutheran magazine (formerly “The Lutheran”).   Entitled “A Proclivity For Paradox”, Bishop Eaton notes that that the Lutheran faith is filled polarities of opposites.  She first illustrates this fact by quoting from Luther’s “Freedom of a Christian”: 

 A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject of all, subject to all.

Out of such Lutheran “Proclivity For Paradox “,  Bishop Eaton explains the recent resolutions to come out the deliberations by “synod assemblies, synod councils, the Conference of Bishops, the ELCA Church Council, ELCA ethnic associations, churchwide staff, the Faith Formation Network, individuals, agencies and institutions” after prayer and “considering together” what might be our Lord’s will for the ELCA.  All in the framework of law and gospel, saint and sinner, free and bound, Eaton observes that the Lutheran Church is a “both and” church in an “either or world.”

Which brings us up to the real subject of Eaton’s article:

Spoiler alert: I’m going to lift up two of the themes now. First, in describing what it means to be an ELCA Lutheran or in answering the question “What is God calling the ELCA to become?” we overwhelmingly answered “a diverse, inclusive, multicultural church.” In the settings where I led the conversation, I gently admonished pastors to let the laypeople speak so all of the baptized could be heard. Diversity was understood to be ethnic, economic and generational. We said congregations should reflect the communities in which they are planted. Marvelous!

The second theme I will raise now is that the ELCA is constituted so there is very little enforceable accountability. ELCA members can decide to participate in the life of their congregation or not. Congregations can decide to participate in the life of the synod or greater church or not. Pastors can decide to be engaged beyond their congregations or not. Even synods and bishops are often caught between their specific contexts and participation in churchwide decisions.

 Eaton believes this lack of accountability stems from the congregational structure favored historically by American Christians, the American belief in the autonomy of the individual, and the absent trust among the ELCA members in their relatively new Church.  

(As an addendum, it should be noted that decisions from church assemblies and the various churchwide organizations, councils and associations may have undermined trust for many average Lutherans in the pews is not mentioned.)

Before concluding her article with Luther’s observation that the Christian faith is always personal but never private, Eaton writes:

Our conversations in the Called Forward Together in Christ process show that we believe God is calling us to be a diverse and inclusive church. We need to be clear about our motivation. If it is a desire, no matter how well-intentioned or noble, to diversify the church, I don’t believe God will bless our efforts. But, if it’s our earnest desire to share the intimate and liberating love of Jesus, then we will have to hold each other accountable as we take the hard but holy steps to open up a 94 percent white church.

 (I don’t know where Bishop Eaton gets the 94% number for white Lutherans.  According to the Pew Research Center, 96% of ELCA Lutherans are white while only 2% belong to one of the many minority groups.  One assumes the remaining 2% either refuse to associate themselves with a particular race out of principle or are children of bi-racial marriages.)

At first glance, we can give a full “amen” to Eaton’s assertion that, if our concern is the numbers, God will not bless our efforts to reflect the makeup of the communities the individual local parishes are in nor the makeup of the nation at large.  But on further reflection there are a few troubling thoughts:

[1] Eaton and other ELCA leadership operate from the assumption that, in a free and just society, the various ethnic and racial groups will voluntarily distribute themselves evenly across its assorted institutions and associations.   But economists, sociologists and anthropologists tell us there is little reason to assume that in such a hypothetical ideal culture we would necessarily find individuals choosing to spread themselves out equally across society’s endeavors.   As far as it goes for the Lutheran Church, its theology its appeal.  For the church-shopping folk, most Protestant churches are interchangeable with each other.  Such “attractions” such as engaging preaching, choirs, and children’s programs as decisive in choosing to join a church.  Theology comes in way down the list of essential criteria in joining a particular congregation—somewhere below driving distance.   But the Lutheran Church is not interchangeable with other Protestant churches.  It has a particular “favor” with a particular appeal.  A congregation’s choirs and children’s programs may be nice, but at some time pretty quickly one has to come to terms with its theology.  Compared to other Protestant evangelization, Luther is challenging and demanding.   It is so demanding that sola fide, sola gratia, and Solus Christus come up front and center in nearly everything it does.  More importantly, I can tell you from experience, other Protestants find Lutheran theology impossible to be true.  Other Protestants may shout “by faith alone” to the roof tops, but they are positively allergic to what it actually means.   (In technical terms, Lutherans hold to a divine mongeristic view of justification while most Christians take a synergistic viewpoint.)   Thus for historical, specific, and concrete reasons, one shouldn’t expect every ethnic or racial group to find Lutheran evangelism appealing.

[2] Statements the ELCA leadership have made reflecting their passion in expanding the composition of our membership have led many with the unfortunate impression that the Church our leaders have is not the Church they want.  This has a damaging effect on the cohesiveness within the ELCA its leaders bemoan so much.  This perceived failure of the ELCA’s leadership to accept the church they have only contributes to many in its membership of a sense of alienation from the larger churchwide ELCA.

[3.] “Accountability” is one of those buzzwords one finds in a lot of corporate statements of company values.   Much of the time, it is a mere element of business boilerplate.  But what does it mean here?  Is it also mere boilerplate or it is a sign of things to come?  How would the ELCA enforce such accountability?   Does it mean the ELCA will stick its nose into the operations of each otherwise “independent” congregation?    Who knows?  It could be nothing or it could be nothing.

[4.] As much as we may want a diverse and inclusive church, does God have His own purposes?  By no means is a multicultural/multigenerational congregation a bad thing.  Perhaps having one would even be ideal.  But is it really so easy to see the movement of God around us?   Lincoln noted that churches both in the North and South prayed to the same God, each asking for victory; but God’s providential work transcended the intersessions of both.   In spite of our conviction that a multicultural denomination is a Gospel imperative, nowhere is it promised we will be.  Undoubtedly racism and prejudice plays a large role in how the various races and ethnicities separate themselves into the churches which look most like themselves.   We are a sinful people.  Racism has no excuse and the Church should teach to resist it—beginning first with ourselves.   But even at our best, nowhere is it promised we will have a diverse and inclusive church.  We only think our commendable intentions, earnest outreach, and open hearts will lead to one.   The reality is we often sit back in frustration at the fact that some congregations with weak or even compromised theologies have more diversity without even trying.   How do we account for such things?  This side of the Lord’s return, there is no accounting.  God has his own purposes.  Perhaps, God is more concerned that we proclaim the gospel.

[5.] Has anyone actually gone out to each of the minorities and asked them what they want in a church?  If so, I haven’t read or heard about it.  A search through the web says nothing about it.  However, a 2009 Pew Research Center portrait of African-American religious beliefs show that Black Americans favor mainline Protestant Churches by only 2%.  (Catholic by 5%).  59% overwhelmingly prefer historically Black churches.  Among Blacks who attend church services once a week or more, they are far more likely to believe in the existence of God, miracles, and the existence of angels and demons.  Far more ELCA members entertain doubts or unbelief in each of these.  Moreover, observant Blacks tend to read the Bible literally.    This high degree of Biblical literalism would make ELCA leadership and academia significantly uncomfortable.   Somehow, I don’t think offering a cup of coffee, a cookie, and a warm handshake will obviate these differences.

THE SOUND AND FURY OF "CLINTON SKATES"

To my chagrin, it appears the many who months ago said that the fix was in and Hillary Clinton would never be indicted were correct.   

The day after Independence Day, FBI Director James Comey gave a long address concerning his agency’s findings on Clinton’s handling of classified materials in which she sent and received Secret and Top Secret information from her unclassified, unsecured e-mail account.   For several minutes, it seemed that the Director was building a case for a criminal prosecution to the Justice Department.   But at the end of his comments, Comey stated that the FBI could not find indication of “intent to harm the United States”.   Thus, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations.

While the substantial unlikelihood that the Justice Department would pursue prosecution was good news for Hillary Clinton, it was not all good.   Contrary to the assertions coming from the Hillary camp, Clinton was far from being exonerated.  In brief, Comey meticulously outlined Hillary Clinton’s wrongdoing and falsehoods:

• ·        With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust.

• ·        Former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.
• ·        Of the 30,000 e-mails Clinton turned over to the State Department in 2014, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains contained information that was classified at the time the message was sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was “Top Secret,” and seven contained “Special Access” intelligence (the most sensitive classification available). These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters.   Any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

• ·        That many of the e-mails may or may not have been “marked” classified when they were received by Secretary Clinton is immaterial:   “Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked ‘classified’ in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

• ·        Messages containing classified information were also found among thousands of e-mails not provided by Clinton’s lawyers — who, Comey reports, deleted e-mails that were not in fact “personal” and “cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”

• ·   
       Clinton set up not just one but “several” personal servers during her time at State.   She used several administrators for those servers and used not two (as Clinton claimed) but several personal devices in her communications.  None of these servers or devices were supported by full-time security staff.

Andrew C. McCarthy, currently a columnist for the National Review and Commentary, served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.  He is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks.  He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.   He is no longer in government service; nevertheless, McCarthy makes a number of arresting remarks on Comey’s conclusions as a matter of law.

He writes:

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust.

McCarthy continues:

Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.

It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged.

It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information.

I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me.

Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

I am not an attorney so I no way of evaluating McCartney’s points.   Indeed, Clinton has plenty of advocates (legal and otherwise) defending Comey’s resolution against prosecution.    Still, one has the sick feeling that Clinton “got away” with it.   Comey’s additional comment that only contributes to that unease:

 “To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.”

Is the cynic, who says this is a case of one law for the little people and another for the powerful, right?  A substantial portion of the American public will think he is.   Several legal authorities contend that many in government have been fined, demoted, imprisoned or fired for less under the same law which befouled Clinton.

A majority of Americans already think Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy and corrupt—that she is a part of an elite who uses the system to her own personal advantage and enrichment.   In other words, they believe she is a liar and a crook.  One may think they are wrong about that; but the perception is there and Comey’s findings will only augment those views.   To many, just on its face, there is only one reason she would have set up a personal server in the basement of her home and that was to evade governmental scrutiny and the legal demands for documents by civic organizations under the Freedom of Information Act.  

Unlike many in the media, I don’t think Comey’s decision not recommend prosecution puts Clinton’s e-mail calamity behind her.     The body of Comey’s remarks provides the rich stuff of opposition political ads.  On the other hand, the Republican Party’s penchant for failing to take up on an opportunity to advance its cause may come through for Hillary Clinton once again.

But the past is prologue.   Controversy, scandals, charges of conflicts of interest, accusations of criminal activity, and apparent lying have followed both Bill and Hillary from the very beginning of their entrance into public life.   Expect no change in that in another Clinton presidency.   There are more than a few rumors that the FBI is investigating possible connections between foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation and actions Hillary undertook in her capacity as Secretary of State.

Nothing may come of that either.   But, as one attorney told me with a wick of his eye, a finding of “not guilty” only means there wasn’t enough evidence or drive to convict.   “Not guilty” doesn’t mean the same thing as “innocent”. 

THE NEW YORK TIMES CITES THE BIBLE

It is a commonplace observation that Biblical literacy among the American populace is…well…somewhat woeful these days.  There was a time when one could count on a thorough knowledge of the Christian scriptures and allusions to the Bible in the literature of the time and public addresses made by politicians and others.  Biblical literacy was so widespread that even atheists knew there Bible.

Perhaps the most well-known example of such discourse is Lincoln’s address at his second inaugural.   Lincoln used his Second Inaugural Address to touch on the question of Divine providence. Lincoln wondered what God's will might have been in allowing the war to come, and why it had resulted in the appalling magnitudes it had taken. He attempted to speak to some of these quandaries, using allusions taken from the Bible.

Although it is the second shortest inaugural address in American history, Lincoln’s speech is probably the most striking in language and substance. Despite its succinctness, it addresses the nation’s relationship to God at pronounced seriousness.  Within 701 words Lincoln referenced God fourteen times, quotes the Bible four times and invokes prayer three times.”  Later, Supreme Court Chief Justice Chase gave the Bible to Mrs. Lincoln, marking the pages from Isaiah 5:27-28 which the President kissed.   In part:

“One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war, while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the seat of other men’s faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.

‘Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!’ If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope–fervently do we pray–that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.”

“With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan – to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.”

Whatever you believe about Lincoln (a skeptic to the very end or an incipient believer) or his theology (some are positively allergic to any suggestion of a loving God having and dispensing His wrath), one has to note the sophistication in his reflections.    This was a very public meditation made during an auspicious national event.  What is more, the public understood his message and recognized its Biblical roots.

Fast forward to today.  

In the June 15^th issue of the New York Times, reporters Jeremy W. Peters and Lizette Alvarez write an assessment of the then current split among legislators over the civil rights of the LBGT population of the United States entitled “After Orlando, a Political Divide on Gay Rights Still Stands”.     They pen in part:

For a fleeting moment this week, it seemed as if the massacre in Orlando, Fla., was having the unlikely and unintended impact of helping to bridge the chasm between Republicans and many in the gay community.

Mitt Romney offered “a special prayer for the L.G.B.T. community” after he learned of the attack. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida granted an interview to The Advocate, the gay news magazine, and expressed outrage at the Islamic State’s persecution of gays. And Donald J. Trump repeatedly expressed solidarity with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, declaring, “I will fight for you” — an unprecedented show of support from a presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

But the deep divide over gay rights remains one of the most contentious in American politics. And the murder of 49 people in an Orlando gay club has, in many cases, only exacerbated the anger from Democrats and supporters of gay causes, who are insisting that no amount of warm words or reassuring Twitter posts change the fact that Republicans continue to pursue policies that would limit legal protections for gays and lesbians.

In the weeks leading up to the killings, they pointed out, issues involving gays were boiling over in Congress and in Republican-controlled states around the country. More than 150 pieces of legislation were pending in state legislatures that would restrict rights or legal protections for sexual minorities. A Republican congressman read his colleagues a Bible verse from Romans that calls for the execution of gays.  (Emphasis mine) Congress was considering a bill that would allow individuals and businesses to refuse service to gay and lesbian couples.

We won’t get into the main thrust of the article.  I certainly don’t want to get into the vagaries of Republican politics.  Instead, I want to focus on the reference to St. Paul’s letter to the Romans.

The article does not provide any context relating how the congressman used Romans in his banter.  One supposes that such use of an archaic ancient text justifying the constraint of LBGT legal protections is damning in and of itself.   The problem is that, after two thousand years of reading and commentary on Romans, it is startling to be told there is a new textual discovery which discloses that Paul commands capital punishment for homosexuals.  

A fair guess is that Peters and Alvarez had Romans 1: 26-27 in mind:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.  For their women exchanged natural relations for those contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. (ESV)

Even if one accepts the assumption in your reading that “dishonorable passions” refers to all gay sex, these two verses fall way short of calling for killing gays.   Far more likely “due penalty” would refer to God’s judgement.

To get to the assertion that Romans calls for the execution of gays, one would have to abridge verses 26 through 32 to something like “their women exchanged natural relations for those contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another….those who practice such things deserve to die”.   But such a condensation totally obliterates the point Paul makes and anyone actually familiar with Romans knows this. 

To get Paul’s argument, one has to read verses 28-32 in their entirety: 

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.   They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice.  They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness.  They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.   Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (ESV)

Without getting into too much detail, what we have here is Paul’s notorious trap.   Verses 26-27 plays to the Roman smug belief that the Greek empire fell because the populace practiced “unnatural relations”.    In other words, Greece fell because it deserved to.   The Romans did not do such things and it is only fitting that God also didn’t approve.  Thus, Greece’s collapse came about through God’s judgement.  And the Romans took pride in the “fact” God took their far more superior side.

But then Paul list other evils debased minds practiced.   These evils are common in all nations and their peoples.   Not just in a people at large; but in each and every individual.  We all fall under God’s judgement.  WE ALL DESERVE TO DIE.

Paul’s actual message is lightyears away from what Peters and Alvarez believe it to be. 

Perhaps it is not realistic to expect contemporary journalists to be conversant in the Christian Scriptures much less the historic theology of the Church.  Nevertheless, it is incumbent on all journalists to investigate and strive to get it right—even if it is only a minor detail in a much longer piece.  As it stands, Peters and Alvarez support, if only unintentionally, the prejudice that “orthodox” Christians take their backward positions from the worst, most odious parts of their religion.  

ANOTHER ADVENTURE IN THE ESCHATON

Blaise Pascal (1623–1662).  Thoughts.

Section IV

OF THE MEANS OF BELIEF

242

PREFACE to the second part.—To speak of those who have treated of this matter.     

  I admire the boldness with which these persons undertake to speak of God. In addressing their argument to infidels, their first chapter is to prove Divinity from the works of nature. I should not be astonished at their enterprise, if they were addressing their argument to the faithful; for it is certain that those who have the living faith in their heart see at once that all existence is none other than the work of the God whom they adore. But for those in whom this light is extinguished, and in whom we purpose to rekindle it, persons destitute of faith and grace, who, seeking with all their light whatever they see in nature that can bring them to this knowledge, find only obscurity and darkness; to tell them that they have only to look at the smallest things which surround them, and they will see God openly, to give them, as a complete proof of this great and important matter, the course of the moon and planets, and to claim to have concluded the proof with such an argument, is to give them ground for believing that the proofs of our religion are very weak. And I see by reason and experience that nothing is more calculated to arouse their contempt.  

 

It is not after this manner that Scripture speaks, which has a better knowledge of the things that are of God. It says, on the contrary, that God is a hidden God, and that, since the corruption of nature, He has left men in a darkness from which they can escape only through Jesus Christ, without whom all communion with God is cut off. Nemo novit Patrem, nisi Filius, et cui voluerit Filius revelare.   [No one knows the Father except the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him  Matthew 11:27]

 

 

 This is what Scripture points out to us, when it says in so many places that those who seek God find Him. It is not of that light, “like the noonday sun,” that this is said. We do not say that those who seek the noonday sun, or water in the sea, shall find them; and hence the evidence of God must not be of this nature. So it tells us elsewhere: Vere tu es Deus absconditus.   [Truly you are a God who hides…  Isaiah 45:15]

243

It is an astounding fact that no canonical writer has ever made use of nature to prove God. They all strive to make us believe in Him. David, Solomon, &c., have never said, “There is no void, therefore there is a God.” They must have had more knowledge than the most learned people who came after them, and who have all made use of this argument. This is worthy of attention.

           

244

 “Why! Do you not say yourself that the heavens and birds prove God?” No. “And does your religion not say so?” No. For although it is true in a sense for some souls to whom God gives this light, yet it is false with respect to the majority of men.

Recently, I read an article in The Federalist in which the author stated that Pascal’s Wager was a proof of the existence of God.  Pascal’s Wager is no such thing.  In fact, as one can see above, Pascal took a dim view of the “proof of God” project.  Not that numerous people haven’t tried.   Many philosophers have labored valiantly to prove the existence of a Supreme Being by means of reason.   Each one, however, have been found to have essential flaws by other philosophers.

 Roman Catholics are fond of St. Thomas’ Quinque viæ (five ways).  But, as Richard Swinburne noted, St Thomas’ five arguments are only strong when collected together, and that individually each of them is weak.   In other words, it is in the overlapping of the five the argument finds success.   The problem with such arrangement is that, if one or several these arguments are shown as false, the overall proof falls apart.  And defeating each of these arguments (often time with unseemly glee) has been pretty much standard stuff in the philosophical conversation at least since the end of the thirteenth century.  Thomists have insisted all the critics of Quinque viæ misunderstand Thomas—that the comprehension of Thomas begins in the context of Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Thomas’ other writings.   Nevertheless, for the most part, St. Thomas and much of Aristotle himself have been left behind in the philosophical conversation.   One may think these developments are unfortunate; but this is the state of the modern world.

In any event, I pretty much take Pascal’s reflections to heart.   As a one time Philosophy major, it seemed to me that the logical “proofs” of the existence of a Supreme Being hit a dead end long ago.  As Pascal himself notes, nothing provokes the derision of agnostics and atheists as the faithful trying to convince them that there is a God.  More importantly, such an attempt does nothing toward pronouncing the Gospel.

 

All the above merely sets the stage behind my reply to the article in which I tried the correct the author’s assumption that Pascal’s Wager was a proof of God:

 

Mick Lee:

If you actually read Pascal's Pensées, you would note in Section IV that Pascal wrote that attempts to prove God are set to be impossible and doomed the fail. Scripture teaches us that God is a hidden God. He is not discoverable by human reason. Scripture never bothers to "prove the existence of God". Instead, it is only in hearing the Proclamation of the Gospel that one may ENCOUNTER the living God.

Very soon, a person only identified as “Jim” attacked Pascal’s teaching; and not so subtly me.

Jim: 

Wrong. According to Scripture, the existence of God is "proven" (to "children of God") by His indwelling Holy Spirit and the "new birth" of regeneration. And the existence of God is "proven" (to "children of Satan") also... Clearly you need to consider 1 John and Romans 1 before claiming that Scripture "never bothers to prove the existence of God".... In fact, Scripture insists the existence of God is "proven" to all men.

Mick Lee:

Scripture makes no attempt to prove the existence of God. It speaks of God as a fact—not a proposition. It speaks toward weightier matters.

The glory of God is made manifest throughout His creation and is obvious to people of faith. But the “natural man” lives in darkness and is deaf and blind to the things of God because he is in bondage to sin. The natural man’s blindness is not an excuse. Instead, it is his condemnation.

1 John actually makes my point: that it is through the Proclamation of the Gospel that men may encounter the Living God.

Romans 10:17 “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”

Jim:

You are constructing a straw-man. I never said that Scripture attempts to prove the existence of God.
Instead, I said that Scripture declares that all men have the ability to know that God exists.
----
Mick... you prove NOTHING when you create
a straw-man.
-----
If you want to be taken seriously you will need to (a) address what was actually SAID instead of some straw-man that you want to disprove and (b) try to REFUTE what was actually said. I cited Romans 1 and 1 John as Biblical validation of what I SAID.... address the Scripture instead of simply express your "feelings" or your "opinion".  Can you do that? 

I must admit that, even at this remove, I still don’t know what “straw-man” it was that I supposedly constructed.   It is very clear to me that Romans says that sin distorts what is usually referred to as “general revelation” into something(s) it is not.   If one accepts the reality that sinful nature is both inherited by an individual and actively committed by him at the same time, this is not hard to understand.   Being that as it is, one has to remember that wide swathes of Christian persuasions reject the entire notion of Original Sin.   So I was prepared to let it go at that.  But “Jim” would have none of it.

Mick Lee:

Interpretation of the texts depends on how seriously one takes the doctrine of Original Sin--or rejection thereof.

Jim:

Wrong again son... the (correct) "interpretation" of Scripture depends on ONE THING... harmony of all related Scripture. If your "interpretation" contradicts even ONE VERSE of Scripture - it is proven incorrect.  There is only ONE measure of Biblical Truth and that is the harmony of all relevant Scriptures.
----
This is Christian Theology 101...
why is it "news" to you son?

Mick Lee:

"Scripture Interprets Scripture" is a principle that goes back to a theological tradition it appears you otherwise ignore.

  

Jim:

Son... the phrase "harmony of Scripture" and the phrase "Scripture interprets Scripture" mean the EXACT same thing...why is that "news" to you son?

Jim obviously missed the point I was making.   What I found confusing at this point was Jim’s display of contempt.

Mick Lee:

I am puzzled by the condescending tone in your responses. Usually, I get this tenor only from atheists and (oddly enough) some Catholics. “Son”? Really? It is quite possible I am old enough to be your grandfather. In any event, no one is old enough nor wise enough to so belittle a fellow believer. It displays a lack of the respect and gentleness 1Peter recommends.

“Scriptura Sacra Sui Ipsius Interpres”, “Scripture Interprets Scripture”, or “harmony of Scripture"” all roughly mean the same thing. In doing so, in the gathering of Biblical passages, we should cast a wide net. Perhaps, in this particular matter, we should also consider John 1: 17-18.

¹⁷ God gave the Law through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. ¹⁸ No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is the same as God and is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

Jim :

Son... what make you think you are a "fellow believer"?  What makes you think you are a "wheat" instead of a "tare"?
----
Are you aware that the Bible PROMISES the Saints "shall understand" the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies?  [Dan 12:8-10] I understand those "unsealed" mysteries son...do you? Can you NAME what Daniel's Four Kingdoms represented in history (I can)? And, before you pretend, be sure your "theory" harmonizes with Dan 7:11-12
----
You see son... your position is BASED on the notion that real Saints will NOT "understand" what the Bible insists they "shall understand".
----
Gee... I wonder whether the Bible is wrong...of if YOU are wrong. Which do you think it is son?  Remember... if the Bible is not wrong, then YOU are not demonstrating the "understanding" that the Bible PROMISES from the Saints.-----BTW... since you are so clueless... let me show youwhat the Bible COMMANDS the real Saints to do during this current "Season and Time" on earth:
-----
Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and SLAY THEM before me.

I have been told I was not a Christian several times in my life—once by a Lutheran minister to boot.   I found it hopeless to try to “prove” I am a Christian to those who doubt it.   They generally have already answered the question to their own satisfaction already.    So I leave it as an open question.

How Daniel comes into this was not immediately obvious.   One thing apparent out of this was that Jim was not too delicately saying that, if I were a true Christian, all Scripture would be readily fathomable to me.   Since he was sure I would not be able to pass his Bible quiz, he was certain I couldn’t be a Christian.   Oh, well.  Can’t win ‘em all.   This smacked a bit like some form of Gnosticism; but I let that go.   Nevertheless, it was evident what Jim was talking about was not Luther’s perspicuity of Scripture.

The part about “since you are so clueless... let me show you what the Bible COMMANDS the real Saints to do during this current "Season and Time" on earth”, at first (like the whole subject of Daniel) seemed to be beside the point.   Meaningless.  “…bring hither, and SLAY THEM before me” even less so.

I returned to my objection to Jim’s  contempt.

Mick Lee:

If, as you indicate, you believe I am an unbeliever, then I commend the following Scripture for your meditation:

Be wise in the way you act toward those who are not believers, making good use of every opportunity you have. Your speech should always be pleasant and interesting, and you should know how to give the right answer to everyone.   Colossians 4:5-6

It is at this point Jim gives the game away.

Jim:

Son... what part of Luke 19:27 did you NOT understand?  As I told you, we are currently living in the period the Bible calls the "Season and Time". The verses you cited are past, just like verses about animal sacrifices.
----
Son, you must understand the CONTEXT of a verse before you can even PRETEND to understand the meaning.   The time for Colossians 4:5-6 is past and you were left-behind in the fulfillment of THIS event in Mat 25:1-2.
----
Mat 25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.   Mat 25:2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.
----
Son, do not gloss over the words "Kingdom of Heaven".  Those words are very important because it is talking about the time also described as (a) Daniel's FOURTH Beast and (b) the 7-Headed Revelations Beast and (c) the Reign of the person called the "Anti-Crist" and (d) the period known
as the "Great Tribulation" and (e) Satan's "Little Season".
----
Son.... there is SO MUCH about the Bible that you have no CLUE about... and yet you pretend that you actually know something. That is hilarious.
---
You see son... the Bible speaks of a time when the Saints go forth preaching the "Great Commission" ... Colossians is speaking about THAT time. However, the Bible also has much to say about the period AFTER that time and Luke 19:11-27 is about THAT period.
----
Son... you can hardly handle the "milk" of the Gospel so do not be surprised when you do not understand the "meat".  You read the Bible and you see it declare that the Saints "shall understand" what you DO NOT understand...and yet you actually want to argue that YOU are correct.  That is just pathetically sad... total denial and delusion.
----
No son... you can file Colossians 4:5 away with all of the verses commanding animal sacrifices and you can get a clue about the CONTEXT of passages before you pretend to understand something.
----
But thanks for the laugh son.  Your profound darkness and delusion is AMUSING to me - does that HELP YOU to better understand the meaning of Luke 19:27 (it should).

Jim evidently subscribes to some form of dispensationalism.   The time of preaching the Gospel is over and a season of the saints rendering judgment over the rest of humanity is at hand.   I’ve heard something like this explained several ways about as many time by a few Charismatics and evangelicals in our church many years ago—except the “season of the saints” was always a future event.

Classic Lutheranism rejected dispensationalism long ago.   Lutheran teaching concerning the end of days is much simpler and essentially can be summed up in the Nicene Creed:   “From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead”.  No division of time between Jesus’ ascension and return into separate ages.   The apocalyptic visions related in Daniel and Revelation are not to be read literally.   Life on earth continues with all its joys, pains, and sorrows until one day Jesus abruptly returns.   Lutheranism is strictly amillennial. 

How Jim came to believe that the time for the Church to proclaim the Gospel is over he does not explain.   Spreading the message of Christ teachings to all the nations of the world baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, according to Jim, is no longer the Church’s mission.  This is appalling theology and its implications are horrifying; but it accounts for Jim’s hostility toward anyone who does not believe as he does.  Moreover, the overt threat of violence toward unbelievers reinforces the worst stereotypes many outside the Church have about Christians and Christianity itself.

In my experience, you cannot talk someone out of their goofy notions about the end of days.  At least I can’t.  Usually, such a person is heavily invested in these teachings in thought and emotion to the degree it is impossible to engage them in reasonable, respectful dialog.

I ended our conversation with a confession of faith and a warning:

Mick Lee:

I trust in Christ and the Cross. Jesus stands as my advocate before the Father. It is Him I place my hope.

You have forsaken the Great Commission. For this, you will have to answer on the day of Christ's return.  May God have mercy for you.