On faith, reason, and theology.

By Wesley Parker

I once heard a Chinese man tell me that in North America you have a saying that ‘the squeaky wheel gets the grease’ but in China we have a saying that says ‘the nail that sticks up gets hammered down.’  This second idiom is becoming more and more prevalent, even in a pluralistic society that prides itself on tolerance, and that has big implications in how we talk about our faith with others.  Many will point to Acts 17 and talk about how Paul contextualized his message to the Athenians, concluding that we also need to contextualize the Gospel to those we speak to today: and this is correct.  A problem arises however when ‘contextualizing’ the Gospel becomes changing the content to suit the audience; softening truths or even leaving out certain parts lest we offend.  The simple conclusion of this is that you are then no longer sharing the Gospel!  This results in what Matt Chandler rightly calls “inoculating people to Jesus”: they get just enough of Him to think they’re saved when in reality they have not been transformed by the Spirit of God.

We follow an exclusivist faith as Christians and the sooner we accept that the more winsome we’ll become in truly contextualizing the message of the Gospel and not just editing out the hard/embarrassing parts and calling it that.  We will most certainly get “hammered down” as we stand up and proclaim Jesus’ words, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father except though Me.”(Jn.14:6)[emphasis mine],  in this world that practices what D.A. Carson calls “the intolerance of tolerance”.  If you are sharing what you believe with others (and you should be as a believer in Christ) there will come that moment – even those moments – where you’ll be seen as the closed-minded, narrow, elitist who thinks they have the ‘corner on truth’ somehow.  But in those moments we dare not alter the message of the cross – which is an offence, a stumbling-block, foolishness to the darkened mind – to “fit in” or appear more inclusive.  Methods of delivering this message will vary and be as effective (or ineffective) as that style of communication is with your audience, but the message itself (as Paul clearly lays out in I Cor. 15) does not.

Think of it this way: if someone’s throat is swelling up from a bee sting and they say, ‘can’t I just take an aspirin or drink some water?  Why is an EPI pen the only way - that’s so narrow!’, it is not loving to tell them they can just take the aspirin.  Now how you get them to take that shot might vary from person to person, but the shot itself will save their life and, once given, it will do the work it is intended to do; it doesn’t need your help to work properly.  Same thing with the Gospel.

A brilliantly constructed paragraph by D.A. Carson (from Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church) on how the meaning of the word “tolerance” has drastically changed in our contemporary culture.

“It used to be that tolerance was understood to be the virtue that permits, even encourages, those with whom we disagree to speak up and defend their point of view. One recalls Voltaire’s famous dictum: “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.” In other words, one had to disagree with someone or something before one could tolerate it. But in our postmodern world, tolerance is increasingly understood to be the virtue that refuses to think that any opinion is bad or evil or stupid. One “tolerates” everything because nothing is beyond the pale — except the view that rejects this view of tolerance: for that, there is no tolerance at all.”

Michael Horton writes an insightful article that examines the teaching of Pastor Joel Osteen as a case study of the health-and-wealth gospel (aka. the prosperity gospel) so prevelant in modern American Christianity.  Here is a quote that summarizes the biblically-vacant, moralistic preaching of “prosperity” teachers:

“There is no condemnation in Osteen’s message for failing to fulfill God’s righteous law. On the other hand, there is no justification. Instead of either message, there is an upbeat moralism that is somewhere in the middle: Do your best, follow the instructions I give you, and God will make your life successful.”

In Barton’s latest sermon on “Diagnosing the Health of Spiritual Teachers“, he mentioned the anomaly that we call the Bishop of Edinburgh, Richard Holloway.  A self-proclaimed agnositic, Holloway has somehow reconciled in his mind the incongruity that exists in being an unbeliever who serves as a spiritual leader and teacher of the Scottish Episcopal Church.

Al Mohler has written a post called Waving God Goodbye – The Tale of the Unbelieving Bishop.  I recommend it to you.  Here is an insightful comment from Mohler:

“Bishop Holloway claims a right to interpret Christianity as he sees fit. This is a claim commonly offered in some churches.  The truth of the Christian faith, the great doctrines of the Bible, the creeds and confessions of the church — all these are instantly relativized by a claimed right to private interpretation.  The case of Bishop Holloway serves to demonstrate that this right of private interpretation is destructive of the very concept of truth and doctrine. Here we meet a bishop who has “interpreted” the faith all the way down to agnosticism.  Many others have interpreted the faith down to something that is not recognizably Christian.”

Watch this well-constructed video of John Piper responding to President Obama on abortion:

The issue of torture is back in the headlines this week. But I’m not referring to reports that Obama plans to shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison or to the recent admission from a U.S. official that an instance of torture occurred at that facility. No, I’m talking about the season premier of the hit series “24″ (Day 7), which opened with the protagonist Jack Bauer appearing before a Senate committee to answer for the many questionable tactics he’s used to extract information from suspects in the past six worst-days-of-his-life.

Though fans watch for the plot twists and for Jack’s penchant for getting out of sticky situations with 1 on 20 odds – we always appreciate a few reflective moments of sociopolitical commentary. In this scene Bauer readily admits to torturing his suspects, but he has a rationale, that is, he’s adapting to his enemies. Because terrorists, by nature, do not abide by the same laws as law-abiding civilians, Bauer is forced to adapt to their nature in order to protect civilians.

So how should we (as Christians) evaluate his ethical take on torture? Well Jack’s words brought back to mind a really good post Dr. Albert Mohler wrote on Torture and the War on Terror.

He basically outlined a Christian response to the issue of torture that takes into account our responsibility to promote peace but also the reality of human sinfulness. It’s a sad fact, but we live in a world where bad guys seek to harm and kill defenseless civilians by any means necessary. But at the same time, we don’t live in a television series where good guys (Jack) and bad guys (pretty much anybody he’s beating up) are so clearly defined.

Knowing this, Mohler believes that there are certain circumstances in which torture might be necessary. But he argues that it is impossible to codify a list of exceptional situations. He writes, “We are simply not capable, I would argue, of constructing a set of principles and rules for torture that could adequately envision the real-life scenarios under which the pressure and temptation to use extreme coercion would be seriously contemplated.”

So (referring to a bill sponsored by Senator John McCain) Mohler supports a categorical – but adaptable – ban on torture. He writes, “I would suggest that Senator McCain is correct in arguing that a categorical ban should be adopted as state policy for the U.S., its military, and its agents. At the same time, I would admit that such a policy, like others, has limitations that, under extreme circumstances, may be transcended by other moral claims.”

Mohler illustrates this approach with a plausible, real-life situation: “The safe transit of automobiles requires a set of well-established, public, and intelligible traffic laws, including speed limits. At the same time, a parent rushing a bleeding child to the hospital may be stopped by a police officer, but such a parent is not likely to be arrested and prosecuted for breaking this law. Why? Because the parent’s action, under a set of unexpected but conceivable conditions, was understood by legal authorities to have been justified under this precise set of circumstances. The government does not stipulate in advance that such a set of allowable conditions exists, nor does it attempt to exhaust in advance what circumstances might exist that would be similarly justified. Instead, the law is understood to remain in full effect with full integrity even as legitimate and authorized legal agents decide not to arrest or prosecute a citizen whose law-breaking was understood to be justified under these precise circumstances. The rule is unchanged, and the law is not mocked.“

We have laws against speeding and they are always in effect, but we all agree that a greater “moral claim” exists when a child’s life is at stake. So we understand an officer’s decision to adapt in such circumstances. But is there any need (or any way) to codify a list of exceptional circumstances where the laws against speeding do not apply? Who is best able to make such a decision? A politician or judge completely removed from the actual situation? Or a trained police officer on the field, who is able to assess the situation in the moment?

Let’s bring Jack back into the picture and apply this same approach. Torture should never be a part of state policy. We should never give Jack a list of scenarios where he can legitimately break your fingers or get creative with a Bic pen. Considering a state policy that would actually dictate torture, Mohler writes, “No set of qualifications and exceptions can do anything but diminish the moral credibility of this policy.”

But at the same time, there are “rare exceptions under extreme circumstances” where “legitimate state agents” like Jack (well, he’s usually legitimate) can adapt to such situations by the means of torture to save lives – “knowing that a full accounting of these decisions must be made to the public, through appropriate means and mechanisms.” So if a nuke is about to blow or a deadly virus is about to be released or if a passenger plane is about to be crashed, I hope good guys like Jack have the moral sense and courage to act accordingly for the greater good.

But we should end with one very important point from Mohler – that “at all times and in all cases the use of torture is understood to be morally suspect in the extreme, and generally unjustified.” And turning to Augustine, he offers a sober but biblical view of our human sinfulness.

“At our best, we are sinners whose sin contaminates our highest aspirations and most noble actions. As Augustine argued, the Christian soldier may kill enemy combatants as a matter of true necessity, but he can never assume that in doing so he has not sinned. Augustine’s “melancholy soldier” knows that the use of deadly force against another human being is, generally speaking, sin. Yet, he also knows that a failure or refusal to kill can at times be a sin worse in both intention and effect than a decision to kill in order to save lives. . . . The honest soldier knows this problem all too well – as does the interrogator.“