Paul's Passing Thoughts

“Is there a more apt description of American Christians? Ones who fully intend to only give back to God what He has initially granted. To do otherwise would be to ‘add to our salvation.’ We must live by some formula that posits the idea that Jesus does everything ‘through us.’  This is a very complicated formula given all the biblical imperatives we see in the Bible, but don’t worry, our Protestant nannies will grant us forgiveness if we obey them lest we add thinking to our list of works salvation or anything we do ‘in our own efforts.’”

Christians are to be unified by truth, and the Bible, which supplies its own interpretive methods, states the following principles among many:

1. Unity is truth-centered.

2. God’s word is truth.

3. Christians are unified to the point of agreement on the one mind in Christ.

4. The Holy Spirit sanctifies with truth only, not errant ideas.

Bad ideas about God’s truth are the cause of most woes in the church. It is to the point in America that unbelievers do not even have to persecute us anymore, but rather leave us to ourselves. This ministry is here because we target the idea that we think has led to the lion’s share of woes in the American church: Calvinism.

Calvinism is a bad idea because it has an unbiblical view of Man. Calvin, like his mentors, integrated Grecian philosophical presuppositions about man with the Bible and came up with total depravity—which also includes Christians as well. So, when we do something great, it’s not us doing it, it’s God doing it through us. And in the end, Christ will judge himself accordingly. When He states, “Well done faithful servant,” the verse must be interpreted in its “gospel context.” And remember, Calvin was a Protestant which doesn’t mean we are not Catholics. It means we are Catholics who protested priestly bad behavior. The core four of the Reformation, Augustine, Gregory, Luther, and Calvin agreed with Catholicism on its basic presuppositions concerning man which came from the same ancient pagan philosophy, but thought the doctrinal approach should be somewhat different and demanded moral despotism. The fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree; whether Arminian or Calvinistic, we believe Jesus will judge Himself in the end. And the fact that the apostle Paul insisted that servants in the church be honored must also be seen in its “gospel context.”

The fact that this philosophy is in the hands of youth via New Calvinism has turbocharged the problem. Hence, we read the following from the New York Times:

What may have been the most significant contest this season took place more than four months ago in Iowa between a small college and an even smaller one. It pitted Grinnell against Faith Baptist, and by the time it was over, Grinnell’s Jack Taylor had scored an N.C.A.A. record of 138 points.

. . . He poured in those 138 points, playing virtually the entire 40-minute game, while Grinnell was routing Faith Baptist, 179-104. . . .

Grinnell’s coaches, in other words, kept their star guard on the floor and shooting, and kept up their full-court defensive pressure, against an opposing team they were leading by 50, then 60, then 70 points. A college that prides itself on its values — rigorous academic standards, commitment to the common good, historical involvement in the abolition and Social Gospel movements — inflicted a defeat so absolute that it borders on public humiliation.

Sporting tradition has always made allowances so the vanquished can save face. Youth leagues have a “slaughter rule” to halt lopsided games. Football quarterbacks with a big lead hand off the ball rather than passing it. Basketball teams run down the clock instead of running up the score. Coaches pull the starters and send in the bench warmers. Very little mitigation of that sort happened last November at Grinnell.

And beyond the question of athletic ethics, the rout has taken on an overtly religious cast. Jack Taylor, an evangelical Christian, attributed his achievement to divine intervention.

In an interview with the Fellowship of Christian Athletes Web site, in which he alluded to a parable about talents in Matthew 25, Mr. Taylor said of God: “He definitely multiplied my talents that night. His fingerprints were all over that game.” . . .

If Grinnell has gone through much soul-searching, it doesn’t sound like it. From the athletic director and coaches to the ethicist in its philosophy department, the college community continues to point to the 179-104 game against a school less than one-fifth its size as a wholly admirable effort. . . .

“What strikes me in this story about Grinnell is that you have the unapologetic, brazen appeal to ‘Jesus’ right alongside the unrepentant quest to make a name for the school, the team and the player,” said Amy Laura Hall, an ethics professor at Duke Divinity School who is writing a book about muscular Christianity. “Would the story have even come across our radar if the coach had consciously pulled the player out, and kept the score more sportsmanlike, and missed the chance for a moment of fame, on principle? I wish that were the story to cover, this week after Easter, but it isn’t.”

It all starts with a flawed presupposition which leads to said interpretation of Matthew 25:14-30. God doesn’t entrust us with talents that are to be attended by our own efforts, but rather, God increases our talents at times of His choosing, like in a basketball game, and the only way we can know that He has done this is by what happens. No doubt, with everything going on in the world God wanted to glorify Himself via a college basketball game. Good American Christians everywhere give God the glory for doing our laundry, washing our car, and going to fetch the mail. Conveniently, pesky standards are not to be expected from anybody.

And ironically, God’s agitation with this attitude is the point of the very parable. The “wicked,” “lazy” servant feared what God’s response would be to his own efforts. “But Paul: that was just an excuse.” Right, that’s one of my points; such theology is often an excuse to be lazy and irresponsible in spiritual matters. It is a free ticket to not take responsibility for the sum and substance of our own life, the Life that, and I love this, “bears our own name” (John Immel). But don’t miss this: the master was agitated that the servant’s goal was to return to him only what he had received and nothing more.

Is there a more apt description of American Christians? Ones who fully intend to only give back to God what He has initially granted. To do otherwise would be to “add to our salvation.” We must live by some formula that posits the idea that Jesus does everything “through us.” This is a very complicated formula given all the biblical imperatives we see in the Bible, but don’t worry, our Protestant nannies will grant us forgiveness if we obey them lest we add thinking to our list of works salvation or anything we do “in our own efforts.”

The point of the parable is that certain attitudes come part and parcel with salvation versus those of the unregenerate. That’s the point. Here is how Christ concludes the parable:

And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

This parable has eternal ramifications. It is not teaching that we can earn our salvation, but rather teaches an attitude of service that comes with salvation and totally separate from its finished work. The wicked servant feared that his work would be judged by a standard that was impossible to obtain, and he feared losing any of the master’s original investment. But apparently, the other servants didn’t have this same fear. The clear difference between the servants is fear of a future judgment. The other servants eagerly anticipated the masters return to see how pleased he would be with their investments on His behalf; the latter servant feared a standard he thought he couldn’t live up to.

This is the grave danger of fusing justification with sanctification, and I see the application of this parable written all over such doctrines that confuse the finished work of salvation with the Christian life. Like Calvinism in particular. Biblical salvation changes the Christian’s relationship to the law—the law provokes him/her to serve rather than provoking them to sin. In unbiblical salvation, the law is an unkeepable standard that cannot be used to please the master. In this parable, the master had an unattainable standard that the wicked servant feared, so he played it safe and made sure He returned to the master what was only granted.

Christians should take a really hard look at any doctrine that fosters the same attitude of this wicked servant, or for that matter, anything that comes close to it. What does it say about the gospel that we really believe and the type of heart that comes with it?

paul