Whenever I go to Barnes & Noble, I spend time at the “Bargain Book” shelves. There I frequently find some of my best reads – sometimes a discontinued hardback book cheaper than the newly issued paperback – often books I never got around to reading or books I have never heard of.
A while ago I came across a book in that last category that caught my attention: Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers by Brooke Allen. What really grabbed me was the jacket illustration, a caricature of six of America’s most well-known founding fathers. The book was originally published in 2006, but its thesis is always relevant.
The author tells us in her preface that she writes in reaction to claims made during the 2004 election campaign “asserting that this nation was founded on Christian principles.” She goes on to say, “This seemed to me so demonstrably untrue that a strong refutation was called for” (page xi). “Most Americans seem to be under an erroneous impression, given by teachers, preachers, textbooks, and pundits, that the Founding Fathers were pious bores.” “The eighteenth century was not an age of faith but an age of science and skepticism. And the American Founding Fathers were in its vanguard” (page xiii).
Pretty bold and heavy claims! She says that her “primary motive was to tell some personal stories about the Founding Fathers and their attitudes toward religion in general, and Christianity in particular” (page xv).
Ms. Allen’s presentation impressed me as being fairly objective. It is difficult at first to determine where her actual sympathies lie, though by the time we reach the end, it becomes clear that her strongest sympathies are with the Enlightenment thinking of these men.
The stories given, present (it would appear to me) irrefutable evidence to back up her thesis. They are reinforced by numerous quotes, many from the private writings of these men. (Politicians then, though not as much as now, said many things publicly which were more “religious” than their own private thoughts, although these men said and wrote many of these thoughts publicly.) Also included are two Appendices which verify her thesis.
The six men of whom she wrote (among whom are our first four presidents): Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton all said things disparaging of Christianity, and none but Hamilton would come close to fitting the definition of Christian that is held by modern evangelicals. Though not all claimed to be such, the label “Deist” would seem to be the one that best fit them. A Deist was one who believed in one god who had created all, but had little or nothing to do with the affairs of mankind – “Nature’s God,” as he is called in the Declaration of Independence. The universe and the world are left to run by natural law.
Benjamin Franklin spent most of the period of the American Revolution as the American Minister to France. There he rubbed shoulders with thinkers and skeptics of the French Enlightenment. Though he was sometimes even accused of being an atheist, he denied that label. He came from a devout Protestant (Huguenot) family, but began early to have doubts about divine revelation, not only of that in the Bible but even of its possibility. “I soon became a thorough Deist,” he claims (page 9). Franklin held to an ethical and moral code which the author claims, owed more to the Stoics and Epicureans than to Christianity (page 18). He felt that Jesus of Nazareth had a “system of morals … the best the world ever saw or is likely to see,” but had “some doubts about his divinity” (page 29).
George Washington spoke and wrote very little compared to the others and so left much room for speculation by believers and unbelievers alike. Jefferson wrote that it was said of him “that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion” (page 26). The author tells us, “Jesus himself is not named in any of his correspondence” (page 35). He did not apparently, as many of the others did, even hold Jesus as a great moral teacher.
Because of Washington’s heroism and virtuous life as well as that he was our first president; he is regarded as “the Father of our Country.” This coupled with his silence made for the growth of much mythology. Pious artwork and mythical tales after his death gave him almost a god-like status. It is ironic that tales of his honesty and virtue were invented in order to teach these virtues. (“I cannot tell a lie.”)
John Adams, though raised in a strict Calvinist upbringing said, “… I cannot class myself under that denomination” (page 49). Unlike the others, though he rejected the doctrines of Calvinism, he maintained a Puritan ethic. He apparently did not hold to the optimism of other Enlightenment thinkers, but regarded mankind as fallen. In his later correspondence with Jefferson, he expressed views basically in agreement with that man. Though unlike the others he believed in the immortality of the soul, he seemed uncertain as to what form that would take.
Thomas Jefferson was the great champion of religious liberty. He was always suspicious, often hostile, toward organized religion and this drove his thinking in that direction. He felt that the establishment of any sect was dangerous and that the various sects counterbalanced one another. His opinion of Jesus was that he was simply a great moral philosopher and Jefferson took scissors and paste to the Gospels to purge them of Jesus’ miracles and claims to Deity.
James Madison, like Jefferson was a champion of religious liberty. Though he early held to orthodox religious beliefs, his opposition to the excesses of church and clergy led to what in later life our author could describe as agnostic.
Madison was the most prominent former of our Constitution and its secular tone reflects his thinking. “Religion and government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together” (page 113).
During his presidency and the War of 1812, Madison proclaimed several days of prayer, which he claimed later to have done under constraint. He said that such proclamations “seem to imply and certainly nourish the erroneous idea of a national religion” (page 115).
The author notes that “Madison was noticing what was becoming a peculiarly American phenomenon: namely, that full religious freedom, protected by the Constitution, seemed actually to foster religious and fan its flames rather than to spread atheism, as its opponents had feared” (page 121).
Alexander Hamilton was, of the six discussed, probably the most difficult to analyze. He was, as the author tells us, “Pious at certain moments of his life, he was at other times thoroughly irreligious and was never a churchgoer except during his youth” (page 125). He was involved in sexual affairs for years. He did not fit the high standards he often professed.
In fact, Hamilton was one of the first prominent political leaders to use religion in politics. He was the one who inserted religious jargon into Washington’s well-known Farewell Address. He believed that pious talk could be used to political advantage. In recommending that then President Adams call for a day of fasting and prayer, he commented, “On religious ground this is very proper – on political, it is very expedient” (page 131). (Does this sound like one of our modern “values” politicians?)
The author, however, believes that shortly before his death, Hamilton may have been genuinely converted. This would seem to make him the only one of the six who could really be called a Christian, though it had little effect on his political actions.
I believe that the author’s real purpose in writing this book is not simply to show that our nation was not founded as a Christian nation by Christian Founding Fathers, but that one of our great freedoms, the freedom of religion enshrined in the First Amendment was put there because our Founding Fathers were not Christians. These men had seen what the established churches had done in “Christian Europe” and even in the American Colonies. Their hostility to organized Christianity was based, not only on their lack of faith in Christ and the Scriptures, but on their experiences and witness of the oppression that the church could inflict.
There were perhaps many other motives for their advocating religious freedom, some even contradictory. One reason was that they felt that the numerous opposing sects could keep a sort of “balance of power” with no particular sect in ascendancy. This could (at least they may have hoped) lead to religion’s weakening and eventual disappearance. If so, that didn’t work. The United States is today the most religious nation in the Western World.
And that is the great irony. Religious liberty’s great opponents in the days of our Founding Fathers were the members and leaders of the established and powerful churches. Yet ultimately Christians became the greatest recipients of its benefits. In a free society the truths of the gospel can be argued on their own merits. They don’t have to be forced.
Those of my fellow Evangelicals who want to rewrite history to make America a Christian nation are working to our own detriment. Though I know it can’t happen, I would dread the day that it actually did occur.
As Jefferson himself said (Notes on the State of Virginia), “It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself” (page 89).
Or as he said in his 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State” (page 73).
I suppose those Baptists – a minority sect in that day – took comfort in Jefferson’s words. I wonder how many Baptists or their fellow Evangelicals would take comfort in them today?
Bill Ball
6/26/2010
Bill's Thoughts on the Bible, Theology and American Culture
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
AND IT WASN’T ON COMEDY CENTRAL
The other evening, a bit bored, I flipped on the TV and began surfing the channels. I came across a silver-haired, silver-tongued orator, who was expounding on current events and things to come. I recognized him as one of my late mother-in-law’s favorite preachers. (Please forgive me; the following narrative is reproduced from memory.)
He referred to many articles (flashed on the screen), gleaned from TV news, blogs and news magazines. Most seemed to have little connection with each other except that they had to do with some actions or sayings of President Obama or Henry Kissinger. He talked of one-world government, of the Club of Rome, the Illuminati, the New Age, the New World Order and many other frightening conspiratorial entities, all signs that we are approaching the horrors of the end times when the Antichrist will reign. Although it wasn’t said in so many words, our President is apparently the Antichrist.
“Our president,” says the preacher “has surrounded himself with evil men, all of whom give evil advice.” The president’s and their anti-religious actions were listed, the worst being that the President had visited Billy Graham to have coffee with him in order to deceive us.
All of this is, of course, in fulfillment of biblical prophecy. “It’s all right there in Daniel, chapter 7 and the book of Revelation,” insisted the preacher again and again. I felt so ignorant, as I had read and studied these Scriptures many times, but had failed to see what was plainly there.
Every so often the scene would shift to the preacher’s beautifully Botoxed wife. “Oooh,” she would say with a sweet smile, “that means that Jesus is coming soon!” Then she would turn to her husband with a look of awe, “Tell me more.” This happened quite a few times, interspersed with promotions of the preacher’s latest books.
The preacher then shifted to a proclamation of the uniqueness of Jesus – that He is the only way of salvation. He gave a reasonably clear presentation of the Gospel.
What are we to make of this seeming anomaly? Well Paul said of some preachers of his day: “Some because of envy and strife, and some because of good intent preach Christ. Some from love … and some from selfish ambition proclaim Christ, not from purity … What of it? Only that in every place, whether in pretext or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and I rejoice in this” (Philippians 1:15-18).
So I can be glad that the Gospel is proclaimed. Some, perhaps many, will be saved.
But does this justify the conspiracy theories, the slander of our President and others? What kind of Christian does this sort of preaching produce? What would most unbelievers think if confronted with this?
Just wondering.
Bill Ball
6/17/2010
He referred to many articles (flashed on the screen), gleaned from TV news, blogs and news magazines. Most seemed to have little connection with each other except that they had to do with some actions or sayings of President Obama or Henry Kissinger. He talked of one-world government, of the Club of Rome, the Illuminati, the New Age, the New World Order and many other frightening conspiratorial entities, all signs that we are approaching the horrors of the end times when the Antichrist will reign. Although it wasn’t said in so many words, our President is apparently the Antichrist.
“Our president,” says the preacher “has surrounded himself with evil men, all of whom give evil advice.” The president’s and their anti-religious actions were listed, the worst being that the President had visited Billy Graham to have coffee with him in order to deceive us.
All of this is, of course, in fulfillment of biblical prophecy. “It’s all right there in Daniel, chapter 7 and the book of Revelation,” insisted the preacher again and again. I felt so ignorant, as I had read and studied these Scriptures many times, but had failed to see what was plainly there.
Every so often the scene would shift to the preacher’s beautifully Botoxed wife. “Oooh,” she would say with a sweet smile, “that means that Jesus is coming soon!” Then she would turn to her husband with a look of awe, “Tell me more.” This happened quite a few times, interspersed with promotions of the preacher’s latest books.
The preacher then shifted to a proclamation of the uniqueness of Jesus – that He is the only way of salvation. He gave a reasonably clear presentation of the Gospel.
What are we to make of this seeming anomaly? Well Paul said of some preachers of his day: “Some because of envy and strife, and some because of good intent preach Christ. Some from love … and some from selfish ambition proclaim Christ, not from purity … What of it? Only that in every place, whether in pretext or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and I rejoice in this” (Philippians 1:15-18).
So I can be glad that the Gospel is proclaimed. Some, perhaps many, will be saved.
But does this justify the conspiracy theories, the slander of our President and others? What kind of Christian does this sort of preaching produce? What would most unbelievers think if confronted with this?
Just wondering.
Bill Ball
6/17/2010
Saturday, May 29, 2010
THE BIG SHORT
I am not very skilled in financial matters. When the nation was plunged into a crisis in ’08, called by some the Big Recession, I had a difficult time grasping what had happened. I listened intently to the news, the testimonials of those involved and the opinions of the talking heads. Though these made some of the details clear, the contradictory views of the crash actually confused me.
But one face kept popping up again and again – on 60 Minutes, the PBS News Hour, the major network news – even The Daily Show: Michael Lewis, author of THE BIG SHORT: Inside the Doomsday Machine. This guy seemed to make sense of some things, and even where he didn’t, he was entertaining to listen to. So I bought his book. I have to confess, however, that after reading it, I’m still confused. But not nearly as confused as I once was.
First, what to me, the very ignorant reader, appear to be the book’s greatest faults: it lacks all those neat little things that a book of this sort needs – an index, so I could keep up with the various players and organizations involved; a glossary, not only of the usual bewildering financial terms, but also of all those acronyms and initialed things; a few more explanatory footnotes or endnotes. I did find, however, at the end of the book, the Acknowledgements, in which the author made reference to his sources (he calls them “subjects”), most of them the very people he was writing about.
Now the good stuff. Michael Lewis is a great story teller! The history he writes is not just cold hard facts, but the stories of people – real people – real characters – people he has talked to. One could almost get the idea that these are his heroes, people that he admires. They are not the ordinary run-of-the-mill Wall Street bankers; they don’t fit the stereotype; they are men who bet against the system and got rich – even when the system came crashing down.
Every time I saw Michael Lewis on TV, he had a smile on his face. He told stories with a childlike enthusiasm I’ve seldom seen in an adult! He seemed to enjoy his topic and to take great pleasure in describing the wins and losses of his “characters” (or “subjects”). The same delight permeates his book. However, I believe that the lightheartedness disguises a sense of moral conviction that pops up throughout the book, often inserted into the descriptions of his subjects.
The book tells the story of how Wall Street bond traders grew filthily rich by selling subprime mortgage bonds and buying default insurance on them and of how certain persons (Lewis’ “subjects”) basically bet against them and cleaned up. (That’s the best I can do to explain.)
The following is my attempt at summarizing what went on as Michael Lewis explained it. May the reader please forgive me, if I misunderstood. I welcome any clarifying comments.
In the years preceding the crash, home mortgages were given out to people who could not afford them. Often the mortgagees were people whose incomes did not justify the size of the mortgages they took out. Lewis tells some horror stories of people being granted mortgages whose values were five or 10 times their income. These people were given low interest payments for the first few years followed by skyrocketing “adjustable rates” afterward, sometimes more than doubling the monthly payments. Often there were second mortgages granted on homes to those who took them out to pay credit card debt.
These bad mortgages were then bundled into bond packages, rated by (complicit or ignorant) rating agencies as AAA bonds and sold on the bond market. Traders grew fabulously rich. Default insurance was sold on these bonds, even though many of them were doomed to fail.
Some false premises underlay these sales. One was the assumption that the housing bubble wouldn’t burst, that housing prices wouldn’t even go down. “Here was a strange but true fact: The closer you were to the market, the harder it was to perceive its folly” (page 91).
“These people believed that the collapse of the subprime mortgage market was unlikely because it would be such a catastrophe. Nothing so terrible could ever actually happen” (page 148).
Another problem, an ethical one, was that the people who bought the mortgages and went broke didn’t count to those who were making money.
In fact, the poor and the financial lower class are seen almost as an object of contempt to the bankers. One incident involving Steve Eisman, one of the main characters, was when he questioned free checking offered by banks and finance companies. It was perceived as “a tax on poor people – in the forms of fines for overdrawing their checking accounts” and was completely unregulated. He says, “That’s when I decided the system was really ‘______ the poor.’ I now realized there was an entire industry called consumer finance, that basically existed to rip people off” (page 20).
Well we all have some knowledge of what eventually happened: the housing bubble burst, housing prices crashed, people were left with higher payments on houses that were not worth what they were mortgaged for, mortgages went into default by the thousands, subprime mortgage bonds were worthless and the big banks and bond sellers went broke. “One trillion dollars in losses had been created by American financiers, out of whole cloth and embedded in the American financial system” (page 225).
But that’s okay. Uncle Sam bailed them out and the people who should have gone to the poorhouse (if not to prison) ended up richer than ever. “By early 2009 risks and losses associated with more than a trillion dollars’ worth of bad investments were transferred from big Wall Street firms to the U.S. taxpayer” (page 261).
“The world’s most powerful and highly paid financiers had been entirely discredited; without government intervention every single one of them would have lost his job; and yet those same financiers were using the government to enrich themselves” (page 262).
Lewis’ “subjects” also grew rich, only it was because they were betting against the system. But they are also portrayed as Cassandras, who saw and warned about the underlying false assumptions of the system, but with very few people actually listening.
I appreciate that the author, though often revealing his moral conviction, does not offer simple solutions. He clearly points out many things that are wrong with the system without offering a cure-all.
It is easy for evangelical Christians to point out many of the sins and moral failures in our society. It is also easy to overlook many. I have to say that I have heard much preaching and many pronouncements on certain ills (usually having to do in some way or other with sex) and very little, if any, preaching on other evils, such as the one this book exposes: greed! But the “subjects” of this book have some things to say about it! Steve Eisman: “The upper classes of this country raped this country … Not once in all these years have I come across a person inside the big Wall Street firm who was having a crisis of conscience. Nobody ever said, ‘This is wrong.’ And no one ever gave a ______ about what I had to say” (page 232).
“Whenever Wall Street people tried to argue – as they often did – that the subprime lending problem was caused by the mendacity and financial irresponsibility of ordinary Americans he’d (Eisman) say ‘What – the entire American population woke up one morning and said, ‘Yeah, I’m going to lie on my loan application?’ Yeah, people lied. They lied because they were told to lie’” (pages 227, 228).
And while greed is a problem for all, the Bible often speaks directly to the problem of greed in the wealthy, and its corollary: the oppression of the poor. Not only in the Old Testament (See: WHAT DID AMOS MEAN, PART 2) but also in the New Testament.
“Go now, you rich, cry and howl over your coming miseries. Your wealth is rotten and your clothes are moth eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted and their rust will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have stored up your treasure for the last days. Look! The wages of the workers who mowed your fields, which were kept back by you, cries out, and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived in luxury on the earth and have lived indulgently; you have fattened your hearts for the day of slaughter!” (James 5:1-5)
That is unless Uncle Sam bails you out!
Bill Ball
5/29/2010
But one face kept popping up again and again – on 60 Minutes, the PBS News Hour, the major network news – even The Daily Show: Michael Lewis, author of THE BIG SHORT: Inside the Doomsday Machine. This guy seemed to make sense of some things, and even where he didn’t, he was entertaining to listen to. So I bought his book. I have to confess, however, that after reading it, I’m still confused. But not nearly as confused as I once was.
First, what to me, the very ignorant reader, appear to be the book’s greatest faults: it lacks all those neat little things that a book of this sort needs – an index, so I could keep up with the various players and organizations involved; a glossary, not only of the usual bewildering financial terms, but also of all those acronyms and initialed things; a few more explanatory footnotes or endnotes. I did find, however, at the end of the book, the Acknowledgements, in which the author made reference to his sources (he calls them “subjects”), most of them the very people he was writing about.
Now the good stuff. Michael Lewis is a great story teller! The history he writes is not just cold hard facts, but the stories of people – real people – real characters – people he has talked to. One could almost get the idea that these are his heroes, people that he admires. They are not the ordinary run-of-the-mill Wall Street bankers; they don’t fit the stereotype; they are men who bet against the system and got rich – even when the system came crashing down.
Every time I saw Michael Lewis on TV, he had a smile on his face. He told stories with a childlike enthusiasm I’ve seldom seen in an adult! He seemed to enjoy his topic and to take great pleasure in describing the wins and losses of his “characters” (or “subjects”). The same delight permeates his book. However, I believe that the lightheartedness disguises a sense of moral conviction that pops up throughout the book, often inserted into the descriptions of his subjects.
The book tells the story of how Wall Street bond traders grew filthily rich by selling subprime mortgage bonds and buying default insurance on them and of how certain persons (Lewis’ “subjects”) basically bet against them and cleaned up. (That’s the best I can do to explain.)
The following is my attempt at summarizing what went on as Michael Lewis explained it. May the reader please forgive me, if I misunderstood. I welcome any clarifying comments.
In the years preceding the crash, home mortgages were given out to people who could not afford them. Often the mortgagees were people whose incomes did not justify the size of the mortgages they took out. Lewis tells some horror stories of people being granted mortgages whose values were five or 10 times their income. These people were given low interest payments for the first few years followed by skyrocketing “adjustable rates” afterward, sometimes more than doubling the monthly payments. Often there were second mortgages granted on homes to those who took them out to pay credit card debt.
These bad mortgages were then bundled into bond packages, rated by (complicit or ignorant) rating agencies as AAA bonds and sold on the bond market. Traders grew fabulously rich. Default insurance was sold on these bonds, even though many of them were doomed to fail.
Some false premises underlay these sales. One was the assumption that the housing bubble wouldn’t burst, that housing prices wouldn’t even go down. “Here was a strange but true fact: The closer you were to the market, the harder it was to perceive its folly” (page 91).
“These people believed that the collapse of the subprime mortgage market was unlikely because it would be such a catastrophe. Nothing so terrible could ever actually happen” (page 148).
Another problem, an ethical one, was that the people who bought the mortgages and went broke didn’t count to those who were making money.
In fact, the poor and the financial lower class are seen almost as an object of contempt to the bankers. One incident involving Steve Eisman, one of the main characters, was when he questioned free checking offered by banks and finance companies. It was perceived as “a tax on poor people – in the forms of fines for overdrawing their checking accounts” and was completely unregulated. He says, “That’s when I decided the system was really ‘______ the poor.’ I now realized there was an entire industry called consumer finance, that basically existed to rip people off” (page 20).
Well we all have some knowledge of what eventually happened: the housing bubble burst, housing prices crashed, people were left with higher payments on houses that were not worth what they were mortgaged for, mortgages went into default by the thousands, subprime mortgage bonds were worthless and the big banks and bond sellers went broke. “One trillion dollars in losses had been created by American financiers, out of whole cloth and embedded in the American financial system” (page 225).
But that’s okay. Uncle Sam bailed them out and the people who should have gone to the poorhouse (if not to prison) ended up richer than ever. “By early 2009 risks and losses associated with more than a trillion dollars’ worth of bad investments were transferred from big Wall Street firms to the U.S. taxpayer” (page 261).
“The world’s most powerful and highly paid financiers had been entirely discredited; without government intervention every single one of them would have lost his job; and yet those same financiers were using the government to enrich themselves” (page 262).
Lewis’ “subjects” also grew rich, only it was because they were betting against the system. But they are also portrayed as Cassandras, who saw and warned about the underlying false assumptions of the system, but with very few people actually listening.
I appreciate that the author, though often revealing his moral conviction, does not offer simple solutions. He clearly points out many things that are wrong with the system without offering a cure-all.
It is easy for evangelical Christians to point out many of the sins and moral failures in our society. It is also easy to overlook many. I have to say that I have heard much preaching and many pronouncements on certain ills (usually having to do in some way or other with sex) and very little, if any, preaching on other evils, such as the one this book exposes: greed! But the “subjects” of this book have some things to say about it! Steve Eisman: “The upper classes of this country raped this country … Not once in all these years have I come across a person inside the big Wall Street firm who was having a crisis of conscience. Nobody ever said, ‘This is wrong.’ And no one ever gave a ______ about what I had to say” (page 232).
“Whenever Wall Street people tried to argue – as they often did – that the subprime lending problem was caused by the mendacity and financial irresponsibility of ordinary Americans he’d (Eisman) say ‘What – the entire American population woke up one morning and said, ‘Yeah, I’m going to lie on my loan application?’ Yeah, people lied. They lied because they were told to lie’” (pages 227, 228).
And while greed is a problem for all, the Bible often speaks directly to the problem of greed in the wealthy, and its corollary: the oppression of the poor. Not only in the Old Testament (See: WHAT DID AMOS MEAN, PART 2) but also in the New Testament.
“Go now, you rich, cry and howl over your coming miseries. Your wealth is rotten and your clothes are moth eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted and their rust will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have stored up your treasure for the last days. Look! The wages of the workers who mowed your fields, which were kept back by you, cries out, and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived in luxury on the earth and have lived indulgently; you have fattened your hearts for the day of slaughter!” (James 5:1-5)
That is unless Uncle Sam bails you out!
Bill Ball
5/29/2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
HOW MUCH DOES IT COST?
For years I have subscribed to a magazine called Christianity Today. Like most magazines, it arrives with those little card inserts between the pages. One of the magazines had an insert with the tempting subscription offer: “Take a taste! Sample Christianity Today at half price!” As I pondered this offer I realized it was one of those sentences whose whole meaning would be changed by how it was punctuated. The intention, I assume, was to place a break (like a dash) between the words “Today” and “at.” But it also would be possible to place the break between “Christianity” and “Today.” I would then be faced with an offer that many would love to take, and I fear, have already taken, the opportunity to “Sample Christianity – today at half price!”
In my previous two posts, I attempted to deal with the issue of commitment to Christ. I looked at the book CRAZY LOVE and felt that though the author’s motives were sincere and I believe, correct, his method was manipulative. In the next post I attempted to explain what COMMITMENT TO CHRIST is from what (I believe) is a biblical perspective, using Luke 14:26-35 and Romans 12:1, 2.
I’d like to say more about this commitment as Jesus described it in the passage in Luke. But first a few warnings. There are some dangerous extremes to avoid when studying a passage like this:
What has been referred to by some as “Lordship salvation,” or “frontloading the gospel.” The idea that my eternal life is conditional on this commitment – that “saving faith” really includes more than belief or trust in Christ – that it includes a commitment to Christ’s Lordship – that if I’m not willing to make the commitment described here, then I have no hope of eternal life. But that’s not what Jesus said. When He speaks of saving faith, He does not make demands. Faith may and should be seen in visible acts but they are not the same thing. In many passages, Jesus comments on the faith of many: it has saved them!
Luke 5:20: “And when He saw their faith, He said, ‘Man your sins are forgiven you!’”
Luke 7:50: “And He said to the woman ‘Your faith has saved you! Go in peace.’”
Luke 8:48: “And He said to her, ‘Daughter, your faith has saved you! Go in peace.’”
Luke 17:19: “And He said to him, ‘Get up and go; your faith has saved you!’”
Luke 18:42: “And Jesus said to him, ‘Receive your sight, your faith has saved you!’”
Another extreme is something like “This is not required for my eternal salvation, therefore it’s optional. Whoa! Jesus didn’t say that. Discipleship, like baptism, a holy life, etc. is not set before us as “pick and choose” or “cafeteria Christianity,” as some would have it. Jesus expects us to count the cost before we make the commitment but He expects us to make it. He does not give us the liberty to not follow.
Another variation on this is to say that this was meant for a particular group in a particular setting. This is true – partially. But the application is true for us.
The whole passage in Luke, referred to in the previous post, is as follows (Luke 14:25-35):
25) “Now many crowds were going along with Him and He turned and said to them,
26) ‘If anyone come to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters and even his own soul, he is not able to be my disciple.
27) Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me is not able to be my disciple.
28-30) For which of you, wanting to build a tower, doesn’t first sit down and count up the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he’s laid a foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees will start to ridicule him saying, ‘This guy started to build and wasn’t able to finish!’
31-32) Or what king when he goes to meet another king in battle, doesn’t first sit down and consider if he is able with 10,000 troops to meet the one coming at him with 20,000? And if not, while the other is far off he sends an embassy to ask the terms of peace.
33) Even so every one of you who does not give up all his own possessions is not able to be my disciple.
34-35) So then, salt is good, but if salt becomes tasteless, what will you salt it with? It’s not fit for the ground or even the manure pile! They throw it out! He who has an ear to hear – listen!’”
There are three negative illustrations here along with the three demands which were discussed in the previous post. I believe that they illustrate three dangers – three potential ways that the would-be disciple can fail. All three are predicated on the possibility of incomplete commitment.
The first danger is the danger of not finishing. The builder in the parable could not complete his project because of a faulty cost-estimate. Most of us are familiar with scenes like the one Jesus illustrates in verses 28-30 – a building half completed, pieces of building materials falling off, the land around it overgrown with weeds, while a large sign with its paint peeling, proclaims a “Coming Soon” with a date long since past.
As I grow older, I often ponder (and fear) this possibility in my own life. We’ve probably all met older men or women who have begun well, but somewhere have failed, through sin, disgrace, or just plain neglect. Why? From this parable, we could infer it’s because they didn’t count, or were unwilling to spend, the cost required. And what is the cost? Everything! Jesus demands our all. If we are not willing to pay that price, we cannot look forward to finishing well.
The same goes for the king in the second parable in verses 31 and 32. He is unwilling to consider going to battle against 2 to 1 odds and seeks terms of peace with his enemy. I believe he illustrates the danger of surrender. He has considered the danger and has decided to drop out of the war, to go to his enemy and agree to his terms. I don’t think this is a passage advocating pacifism. We are at war – spiritual war. And again we’ve met Christians who have given up the fight, surrendered to Satan and fallen deep into a sinful lifestyle. What’s the problem? A failure to commit our all to Jesus Christ.
The third illustration, the salt in verses 34 and 35, is the danger of just going flat. Jesus has told us that we – His disciples – are “the salt of the earth” (Matthew 5:13; Mark 9:50). I’ve read various commentaries that attempt to explain how salt can lose its taste, but I think that they miss the point. You can’t salt salt! Uni and I cook without salt whenever possible; then at the table I salt to taste while she avoids salting. I can imagine sitting down to a meal and shaking the saltshaker, taking a taste of my food and finding it flat. So I shake out more salt with the same results. I repeat. Then I shake some salt in my hand and it’s flat. What do I do? You can’t salt salt. Tasteless salt is useless.
And that’s a danger for the disciples. There are some, not necessarily older, Christians whose Christian life has gone flat. They have no flavor. They do not cause those around them to thirst for the water of life. They’re just blah. They’re useless.
To “be a disciple” is to live life as it is meant to be lived – the “normal” Christian life.
Discipleship – the committed life --is assumed as the goal and purpose of following Christ. It’s the “reasonable service” of every believer. Jesus says I must give up all these to be a disciple (verses 26 27, 33). The warning is against thinking I can be a disciple of Jesus without giving them up.
Jesus is not saying “count the cost and decide whether you want to be a disciple”! He is saying, “count the cost: if you attempt to be a disciple without spending the full price, you’re headed for an incomplete finish, a surrender to sin, or (at best) a useless life.”
The danger is that of thinking we can be involved in these without “saying goodbye”! If we want to live the Christian life on our terms, Jesus tells us we’re going to fail!
And if we do it His way, it works! We’ll find what He tells us in Matthew 11:30 to be true: “My yoke is easy and My load is light.”
Bill Ball
5/18/2010
In my previous two posts, I attempted to deal with the issue of commitment to Christ. I looked at the book CRAZY LOVE and felt that though the author’s motives were sincere and I believe, correct, his method was manipulative. In the next post I attempted to explain what COMMITMENT TO CHRIST is from what (I believe) is a biblical perspective, using Luke 14:26-35 and Romans 12:1, 2.
I’d like to say more about this commitment as Jesus described it in the passage in Luke. But first a few warnings. There are some dangerous extremes to avoid when studying a passage like this:
What has been referred to by some as “Lordship salvation,” or “frontloading the gospel.” The idea that my eternal life is conditional on this commitment – that “saving faith” really includes more than belief or trust in Christ – that it includes a commitment to Christ’s Lordship – that if I’m not willing to make the commitment described here, then I have no hope of eternal life. But that’s not what Jesus said. When He speaks of saving faith, He does not make demands. Faith may and should be seen in visible acts but they are not the same thing. In many passages, Jesus comments on the faith of many: it has saved them!
Luke 5:20: “And when He saw their faith, He said, ‘Man your sins are forgiven you!’”
Luke 7:50: “And He said to the woman ‘Your faith has saved you! Go in peace.’”
Luke 8:48: “And He said to her, ‘Daughter, your faith has saved you! Go in peace.’”
Luke 17:19: “And He said to him, ‘Get up and go; your faith has saved you!’”
Luke 18:42: “And Jesus said to him, ‘Receive your sight, your faith has saved you!’”
Another extreme is something like “This is not required for my eternal salvation, therefore it’s optional. Whoa! Jesus didn’t say that. Discipleship, like baptism, a holy life, etc. is not set before us as “pick and choose” or “cafeteria Christianity,” as some would have it. Jesus expects us to count the cost before we make the commitment but He expects us to make it. He does not give us the liberty to not follow.
Another variation on this is to say that this was meant for a particular group in a particular setting. This is true – partially. But the application is true for us.
Matthew 28:29, 20: Jesus tells His disciples they are to “make disciples … teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”
The whole passage in Luke, referred to in the previous post, is as follows (Luke 14:25-35):
25) “Now many crowds were going along with Him and He turned and said to them,
26) ‘If anyone come to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters and even his own soul, he is not able to be my disciple.
27) Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me is not able to be my disciple.
28-30) For which of you, wanting to build a tower, doesn’t first sit down and count up the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he’s laid a foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees will start to ridicule him saying, ‘This guy started to build and wasn’t able to finish!’
31-32) Or what king when he goes to meet another king in battle, doesn’t first sit down and consider if he is able with 10,000 troops to meet the one coming at him with 20,000? And if not, while the other is far off he sends an embassy to ask the terms of peace.
33) Even so every one of you who does not give up all his own possessions is not able to be my disciple.
34-35) So then, salt is good, but if salt becomes tasteless, what will you salt it with? It’s not fit for the ground or even the manure pile! They throw it out! He who has an ear to hear – listen!’”
There are three negative illustrations here along with the three demands which were discussed in the previous post. I believe that they illustrate three dangers – three potential ways that the would-be disciple can fail. All three are predicated on the possibility of incomplete commitment.
The first danger is the danger of not finishing. The builder in the parable could not complete his project because of a faulty cost-estimate. Most of us are familiar with scenes like the one Jesus illustrates in verses 28-30 – a building half completed, pieces of building materials falling off, the land around it overgrown with weeds, while a large sign with its paint peeling, proclaims a “Coming Soon” with a date long since past.
As I grow older, I often ponder (and fear) this possibility in my own life. We’ve probably all met older men or women who have begun well, but somewhere have failed, through sin, disgrace, or just plain neglect. Why? From this parable, we could infer it’s because they didn’t count, or were unwilling to spend, the cost required. And what is the cost? Everything! Jesus demands our all. If we are not willing to pay that price, we cannot look forward to finishing well.
The same goes for the king in the second parable in verses 31 and 32. He is unwilling to consider going to battle against 2 to 1 odds and seeks terms of peace with his enemy. I believe he illustrates the danger of surrender. He has considered the danger and has decided to drop out of the war, to go to his enemy and agree to his terms. I don’t think this is a passage advocating pacifism. We are at war – spiritual war. And again we’ve met Christians who have given up the fight, surrendered to Satan and fallen deep into a sinful lifestyle. What’s the problem? A failure to commit our all to Jesus Christ.
The third illustration, the salt in verses 34 and 35, is the danger of just going flat. Jesus has told us that we – His disciples – are “the salt of the earth” (Matthew 5:13; Mark 9:50). I’ve read various commentaries that attempt to explain how salt can lose its taste, but I think that they miss the point. You can’t salt salt! Uni and I cook without salt whenever possible; then at the table I salt to taste while she avoids salting. I can imagine sitting down to a meal and shaking the saltshaker, taking a taste of my food and finding it flat. So I shake out more salt with the same results. I repeat. Then I shake some salt in my hand and it’s flat. What do I do? You can’t salt salt. Tasteless salt is useless.
And that’s a danger for the disciples. There are some, not necessarily older, Christians whose Christian life has gone flat. They have no flavor. They do not cause those around them to thirst for the water of life. They’re just blah. They’re useless.
To “be a disciple” is to live life as it is meant to be lived – the “normal” Christian life.
Discipleship – the committed life --is assumed as the goal and purpose of following Christ. It’s the “reasonable service” of every believer. Jesus says I must give up all these to be a disciple (verses 26 27, 33). The warning is against thinking I can be a disciple of Jesus without giving them up.
Jesus is not saying “count the cost and decide whether you want to be a disciple”! He is saying, “count the cost: if you attempt to be a disciple without spending the full price, you’re headed for an incomplete finish, a surrender to sin, or (at best) a useless life.”
We are building!
We are at war!
We are salt!
The danger is that of thinking we can be involved in these without “saying goodbye”! If we want to live the Christian life on our terms, Jesus tells us we’re going to fail!
And if we do it His way, it works! We’ll find what He tells us in Matthew 11:30 to be true: “My yoke is easy and My load is light.”
Bill Ball
5/18/2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)