Monthly Archives: January 2012

Uncommon grace amid unbelief

Ayn Rand with cancer stickIn Snoring as a fine art: and twelve other essays by Albert Jay Nock (Google Books), we read

I wish to remark that the gift (I call it a gift only for convenience, to save words) which we are discussing is not only dissociated from intellect, but also from conventional morals. Certain Old Testament characters who unquestionably had it, and on occasion let it put itself to good use, were nevertheless what by our conventional ethical standards we would call pretty tough citizens; our old friend Balaam, for instance, and Elisha. It has been said, and I believe it is accepted in some quarters—of course there is no knowing—that Joan of Arc was not in all respects a model of sound peasant character; but granting it be so, she still most conspicuously “had the goods.”

Kutusov himself, like Lieutenant-General Bangs in Kipling’s amusing ballad, had the reputation of being “a most immoral man.” At sixty-three, very big, very fat, with one eye blinded and his face scarred by a bullet in one of Suvo-rov’s wars, he seems somehow to have kept his attractiveness to the ladies, for his friendships with them—some of high degree, some not so high—were many and close. Even during his fourteen months’ stay in Bucharest while he was starving out the Turks, he passed his enforced idleness in dalliance with a handsome and spirited Wallachian gal; rumors whereof got back to Petersburg, to the great scandal and discomposure of Alexander’s court, for which he seems to have cared not a button. “The Spirit breathes where it will,” said the Santissimo Salvatore; and oftentimes the breath of its most intimate inspiration blows upon persons whom we, in our modesty, would at once put down as morally disqualified.

Obviously, Nock should not have included Elisha in his list. But just as obviously Balaam proves his point about “gifted” people.  We’re all happy about Tebow but we know God has granted amazing athletic ability and performance to people who don’t recognize Him and don’t care about doing anything but using the fruits of that gift for a variety of sins. It is true in sports, music, and many other areas of life. We Christians might notice problems where sin breaks down society. But every day we also depend on God’s gifts to sinners as we drive in traffic, drink water, and do a host of other daily activities that show faith in the totally depraved.

And there is no reason to think that this is limited to a few carefully restricted areas. Nock was a skilled writer of beautiful essays. He was also an apostate ex-clergyman and deadbeat dad. Why wouldn’t God allow us to see his generosity, his continual, gracious, generosity to Nock his entire literary career?

I thought of this today in the orthodontist’s office (not for me) when I leafed through a Newsweek because my daughter wanted to use my Kindle. I ran across the print version of this essay:

The GOP Candidates Read Wacky Books

Anti-Christian odes to selfishness? Crypto-Confederate manifestos? On the wacky study habits of the Republican candidates.

…Predictably, the current GOP nominees have more.?.?.eclectic tastes. National Journal has reported that Ron Paul quotes Ayn Rand on the House floor more than any other member. Rand was a virulently anti-Christian über-libertarian whose turgid prose and supremely selfish philosophy has inspired decades of trust-fund kids to smoke dope at boarding school and mock homeless people…

Funny, people claim to disagree with everything Rand ever said, and then agree with her that she taught selfishness… when everyone knows that she taught it was horrible to enslave or take the property of other people, to sacrifice them to one’s own ends. It would be (and is) the easiest thing in the world to read her as the enemy of the selfishness demanded virtually every politician in America.

But what I just read in Newsweek is about the level of “analysis” I find in many Christian politicians.

You seriously think you won’t find important insight in Ayn Rand because she was an atheist and a egomaniacal flake? Maybe egomania protected something that is beneficial to the world. Ludwig Von Mises? Murray N. Rothbard? Friedrich Nietzsche? Christopher Hitchens? If you somehow know that these people cannot “have something” because they were secular writers (and in my view, Mises is in his own way, an atheist), I think you are closing your eyes in the midst of a garden.

I don’t want Christians to uncritically accept any non-christian thought (even from other Christians). But I’d like to see discussions about actual ideas with an open Bible.

Pretending we know in advance that Ron Paul is wrong because he likes Ayn Rand is a path for fools.

The law of liberty and God’s righteousness

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.  And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.  But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.  She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”

via Matthew 1 NASB – The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah – Bible Gateway.

Many people try to make something of Jesus going “beyond” the OT Law in the Sermon on the Mount. I’ve never found this convincing. At this point I’m of the opinion that Jesus was teaching the true meaning of the Law over against the false teachings of human traditions that were current in Israel among his contemporaries.

But here it really looks different. I remember at one time thinking that Joseph must have heard Mary’s story, decided she was mentally unhinges, and thus not deserving to the death penalty. But notice that nothing is said about the possibility of death. Perhaps that was unenforceable under Roman occupation and was not even considered. But, in any case, Joseph didn’t want to spare just her life. He wanted to spare her even any disgrace.

And why? Because he was merciful?

That’s not the word the Bible uses. He wanted to do her good in her seeming unfaithfulness because he was righteous or (as it could also be translated) just.

This makes me think of a couple of things, one relevant to the way we talk in Evangelical circles and the other about how Evangelicals seem to think about political influence.

First, is it not entirely perverse to think of the righteousness of God as a source of fear and liability rather than the only hope any sinner could possibly have? Does God forgive us despite being righteous? No!

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous/just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness/injustice (First John 1.9)

For more, see my five-part series on the Righteousness of God and other stuff under that label. Honestly, the way that Evangelicals typically talk about their relationship to God’s righteousness often seems perverse to me in comparison to many of the Psalms and other passages. I’m not saying there is not a grain in truth to it, but as a form of discourse it makes us speak a different language from most of Scripture most of the time. More importantly, it opposes us to God’s own character.

Secondly, while I thought this idea had been discredited for most people, I’m finding that in some quarters the concept of Christian influence in society is almost as crude as this: figure out what is good and then use laws to force everyone to do it.

If you think I’m exaggerating I hope you are right. But in case it might be helpful, let me point out that Joseph was perfectly free to publicly disgrace Mary according to the law of God. Nothing external or public forced him to do the right thing. While God’s law doesn’t sit well with modern people (and needs to be upheld and defended in such cases) not even God micro-manages.

 

The Church’s covenant of faith

What shall I do with you, O Ephraim?
What shall I do with you, O Judah?
For your loyalty is like a morning cloud
And like the dew which goes away early.
Therefore I have hewn them in pieces by the prophets;
I have slain them by the words of My mouth;
And the judgments on you are like the light that goes forth.
For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice,
And in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant;
There they have dealt treacherously against Me.

via Hosea 6 NASB – The Response to Gods Rebuke Come let us – Bible Gateway.

This is one of the many lines of evidence that Israel (not conclusive of itself) that Israel was called as a “new Adam.” It is also an argument that God had made a covenant with Adam even though the word is not mentioned in Genesis 1-5.

But some would also claim that this proves that there was “some way” in which God’s covenant with Israel was a covenant “of works”–that is, a covenant requiring perfect obedience as a condition for a relationship with God.

This is impossible, of course. Israel was given forgiveness many times and in many ways. Such forgiveness was never promised to Adam in his original covenant. Also, Adam was a sinless righteous being whereas God’s covenant with Israel was based on a far different premise about their innocence (or lack there of) and nature.

Just to see how wrong it would be to read the requirement for perfect obedience into the “like Adam” comparison above, consider how Paul writes to the Corinthians in his second letter (Chapter 11):

1 I wish that you would bear with me in a little foolishness; but indeed you are bearing with me. 2 For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin. 3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. 4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.

Now, granted, Adam is not mentioned by name. But Eve too was required to be faithful. And how is her faithfulness applicable to the Corinthians? They need to believe in the true Gospel and disbelieve false teachers just as Eve should have believed God’s promise and disbelieved the Serpent’s lies.

It is about faith.