Dobson and his companion commentator routinely distorted what Obama was saying by rephrasing and capturing what he said in their own context and for their own agendas. For instance, Obama hypothesized (Dobson didn’t get this) what would happen if we moved all nonChristians out of our society. Even then, he was suggesting, we’d have diversity. Then, Obama asked, if we lived out the Bible which parts would we choose? Would it be Leviticus or Deuteronomy — and he brings up shell fish and stoning one’s son — or would it be the Sermon on the Mount, which Obama stated would be difficult for the Defense Dept to apply. Dobson and his guest got into how the OT laws aren’t for today.

What they miss here is that Obama is talking about how to live in a pluralistic society.

Here are the words of Obama: “Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?” Obama said. “Would we go with James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s

In response to this post Dr. McKnight received no less than 205 comments, among which was a comment I cribbed from a response I left at John Armstrong’s blog, Act 3. (For more information about John Armstrong, see my previous post.) Dr. Armstrong’s post asked the question, “Does political partisanship help or hurt the mission of the Church?” and my response to him was as follows:

In my imagination I have often revisited the moment when Jesus is standing before Pilate declaring that his Kingdom is not of this world. An implication that I see in this statement is that we cannot understand the political ramifications of the Gospel by resorting to the categories that this world offers. Jesus’ Kingdom cannot be captured or expressed via the platform of the Republicans or the Democrats for the Gospel transcends them regarding the hope it offers and the expectations it places upon humanity. Consequently, it also provides an indictment on both of these parties, or any party, or political ideology.

Can a Xian be a Republican? Certainly. Can a Xian be a Democrat? Certainly. But, in both instances they need to be critical members of those parties, they need to hold their affiliation loosely, and pragmatically, as when Paul utilized his Roman citizenship in service of the Gospel.

As Jesus said, new wine requires new wine skins, and so, as we seek to live out our faith in political terms, we need to draw upon new categories to sort our political experience, options, and courses of action. We also need to realize that we will never nail down how the Gospel transfers into political commitments, for it is transcendent and thereby it most essentially calls us to be ever self-critical and self-reforming.

So, what do you think about the relationship between faith and politics, or about political partisanship and religious commitment, or for that matter, Dr. Dobson’s critique of Obama?

For More, See These Links

Jesus Creed: Dobson on Obama

Jesus Creed: Dobson and Conservative Politicians

Act 3: Does Political Partisanship help or hurt the Church?

A number of months ago, under circumstances, and for reasons I cannot quite recall, I visited Act 3, and was deeply impressed with Dr. Armstrong’s theological reflection on various cultural issues. Though he affirmed his Reformed roots, he clearly had a more comprehensive vision of the Xian faith, and was passionate about the Missional Movement, which places an emphasis on the Church as being the sent people of God who know that proclamation of the Gospel requires an authentic embodiment of Jesus’ message. John expresses this ethos time and again in his blog as he consistently draws upon the larger Xian tradition when he reflects upon such diverse issues of discipleship, racism in America, the current campaign for the Presidency, and a host of other spiritual, socio-cultural, economic and political issues. All of this to say that I recommend you read Dr. Armstrong’s blog.

This endorsement, however, is not the purpose of this post. Instead, I recently read a series of posts by Dr. Armstrong’s about A.W. Tozer and the question of whether there are conditions to salvation. This was, to say the least, challenging. I have always had feelings toward A.W. Tozer similar to what one might feel toward an O.T. prophet: respect mixed with the sense that you might not want to hear what is coming because it is likely to be challenging. In short, Mr. Tozer’s conviction is that there are conditions to salvation, which are as follows: repentance and an acknowledgment of our inability to save ourselves, commitment to following Christ, a progressive growth in Christ likeness, a turn from idolatry and the false consolations of the world, an embrace of prayer and worship, an increasing desire to serve others, active involvement in the Church. In reading and processing this post I gave the following responses to Mr. Armstrong’s blog.

*******

I have read Tozer and been prompted by awe to praise God, and I have read Tozer and been driven to my knees for fear that I hardly know Him. Off hand, I would say that this indicates that Tozer is a prophetic figure, as any encounter with God’s word is apt be a disorienting and reorienting experience, and Tozer has that effect.

As far as conditions of salvation are concerned, I think it is helpful to acknowledge the distinction that systematic theologians mark between objective and subjective soteriology, wherein the former focuses on the ministry and person of Jesus Christ as the ground and embodiment of salvation, and the latter has to do with how each person appropriates the reality of salvation that is in Christ. Regarding subjective soteriology various traditions and denominations have worked out an “ordo salutis” or “an order of salvation” wherein the steps to salvation are named and arranged. In reflecting on all this, however, I find it interesting that the Catholic Church during the Seven Ecumenical Councils (the Councils prior to the split between East and West, and the manifold splits of the West) never articulated how one lays hold of the salvation that is in Jesus Christ. I know I am being speculative, but it seems to me that though we can assert that no one comes to the Father but through Jesus, we cannot establish a formula for how one genuinely comes to Jesus. The bondage of humanity to sin is universal, but how each person is broken as a result of that bondage is perhaps as unique as our thumbprint. If this is so, then maybe how we come to faith, and begin to genuinely follow Christ is just as unique.

I know that this is perhaps too open ended, and perhaps intellectually sloppy for some, but it seems to me that mystery is an inherent part of the Christian faith, and if it is, then there will always be something we cannot give an account for in our schemas and doctrines, as helpful and important as they are.

*******

To give a little personal context to my previous comment, there have been times in my life where I have wondered if I ever really knew the Lord, and this is exacerbated by having a degree in theology where the tendency is that the head outpaces the heart in knowledge. In the midst of processing this matter, I have often read books about genuine faith and salvation often trying to find where I plot out in the schema of that particular book. Through this, however, I began to sense the Lord saying to me that such endeavors were more about me trying to work out a formula, as opposed to genuinely trusting in him. This may be simplistic, but as I thought about this it seemed to me that genuine trust and obedience are organically related, as disobedience is what happens when we don’t really trust God’s wisdom and goodness, and thereby take a course of action according to the limits of our own understanding.

*******

If I may be permitted, I would like to interject some words from another evangelical mystic, George MacDonald.

“The Lord never came to deliver men from the consequences of their sins while those sins yet remained. That would be to cast out the window the medicine of cure while still the man lay sick. Yet, feeling nothing of the dread hatefulness of their sin, men have constantly taken this word that the Lord came to deliver us from our sins to mean that he came to save them from the punishment of their sins.

This idea has terribly corrupted the preaching of the Gospel. The message of the Good News has not been truly communicated… The mission of Jesus was from the same source and with the same object as the punishment of our sins. He came to do more than take the punishment for our sins. He came as well to set us free from our sin.

No man is safe from hell until he is free from his sin. But a man to whom his sins are a burden, while he may indeed sometimes feel as if he were in hell, will soon have forgotten that he ever had any other hell to think of than that of his sinful condition. For to him his sin is hell. He would go to the other hell to be free of it. Free of his sin, hell itself would be endurable to him.”

Taking what George MacDonald so eloquently expressed, and summarizing it, I would say that salvation is most essentially from sin itself, its power and presence in our lives. As we are delivered from sin, we are naturally delivered from its consequences, the ultimate of which is hell itself.

Using this to directly respond to Tozer, I would say that Tozer’s “conditions of salvation” might be better understood as signs of salvation. We know we are saved, and are being saved, when we obey the Lord, when we no longer seek the false consolation of the world, when we repent of idolatry, when we genuinely seek to commune with him.

I once read somewhere that MacDonald said in a sermon something to the effect that he did not consider himself saved, and that he would not consider himself so until by the grace of God he had been brought into the perfection that God desires for him in Jesus Christ. For MacDonald, this movement toward perfection is something we should experience here, but would not be complete until the age to come.

This kind of challenges our modern evangelical notions of salvation, doesn’t it?

*******

Well, this is where I currently am in processing the nature of salvation and what conditions, or expectations we may have when we use that word. Anyone care to weigh in with their ideas? If so, it may be a good idea to read the couple of posts on Dr. Armstrong’s blog, but it is not necessary.

The other day Ethan took a reading test at school and found out that he, a fourth grader, is reading at a fifth grade level. Now, you might think this isn’t so spectacular, but he is in a dual immersion program, and consequently his fifth grade level of reading is in his second language: Spanish. In his primary language: English, Ethan is reading at the expected level of a second semester Sophomore in high school.

Yep, I’m pretty proud.

Harvard and Yale, you can send your applications to us.

*******

Number One: My Dad was fifty when I was born, and my Mom was thirty-eight. Thus, I was raised in a household where my sister—fourteen years my senior—was often mistaken for my mom, and my parents were often mistaken for my grandparents.

Number Two: In many ways my Dad, Medaldo Velez, embodied the American immigrant story, as he was born and raised on the island of Puerto Rico, remembers humanitarian visits from Eleanor Roosevelt, and when he was old enough migrated to New York to pursue a better life.

Number Three: After fighting in “the War to end all wars,” my Dad made his way to the West Coast, where he met Frances Marian Chandler, the lady who was to become my mom, who was the daughter of a Presbyterian Pastor, a man who tragically died when she was only eleven years old.

Number Four: I am a tragically disconnected person. I am not sure why, but if I was to guess I would say that the cultural, linguistic, and generational gap between my Dad and I, coupled with the English reserve of my Mom, created an environment, which tripled by my innate melancholy nature, created a circumstance through which emotions were never a comfortable phenomena for me. Not that I am a-emotional. Rather, they primarily turned inward and gave birth to an odd interior life wherein I tend to project sentience onto everything in the world. For example, if I am working on a home project and I cannot drive a nail in smoothly then I will think something like, “You damn, piece of sh*t nail, I’m gonna beat the crap out of you for your insubordination.”

Number Five: As the story goes, after my birth, my Mom had a spell of post-partum depression, wherein she remembers sitting at the edge of her bed in a deep funk, being unable to pick my semi-colicky butt up from the bassinet. After my Mom told me this story, I sat down and wrote a narrative where that event became the birth of my tragic disconnection. I don’t know if this is true, but it makes for a good story.

Number Six: Somehow, in someway, John Calvin, predestination, and the inscrutable sovereignty of God became the dark specter that hung over the forming religious consciousness of my youth. At age thirteen I sincerely confirmed my faith, but I am not sure if I really understood what I was confirming. At age eighteen I had a weird religious experience involving a Chick tract, which resulted in the twenty year journey that I have been on for the salvation of my soul.

Number Seven: Perhaps this is another expression of disconnection, but throughout my school years I basically felt like a round peg in a square hole. I was rather insecure, a little too above the norm regarding my linguistic abilities, and consequently I was not cool. However, this all changed in college where what formerly worked against me now worked for me, and I became “college cool.” This unfortunately led to me being something of an unintentional jerk toward women, as I could not get above my insecurities, and general relational ambivalence.

Number Eight: All the books in my personal library are divided by genre, and are generally displayed with the largest books to the left working down in size toward the smallest book on the right. On the level of information access, I realize it would make more sense to shelve them by author’s last name (as I usually do with the artists in my CD collection), but for me, this is where aesthetics trumps pragmatics.

Number Nine: I started dating my friend’s sister, Paula, the summer after we both graduated from college. We knew each other, but I was not her type and so, in her own words, I was a safe date for her. As time went on we became serious, but I became ambivalent, and she drew a line in the sand. Graciously, however, while cruising on the Pacheco Pass coming home from the Bay Area, I heard the voice of God confront me about idolatry, and about my misperceptions regarding the nature of happiness, and this freed my heart to love Paula. Within a year we were married. Twelve years later we are still married and we have four children: two boys, two girls, who consecutively are Ethan, Elena, Joel and Camila.

Number Ten: I tend to by leery of things like fact memes, chain letters, and all things that ask you to forward what you received to others. This leeriness was reinforced during the era of the Clinton scandal when I was working at Wheaton College and was regularly receiving chain emails from the “friend” of the pastor of Ken Starr, and from the “friend” of the pastor of Bill Clinton, both asking me to support their man in this latest battle of the culture wars by forwarding their emails to my friends. Also, I received several emails regarding a national gas boycott day, which through some kind of economic voodoo was supposed to drive the price of gas down for us Americans who were, God forbid, paying three plus dollars for gas. However, I like Roger and for his sake was all too willing to put my leeriness aside and comply with his request to post ten things about myself. And yet, I don’t think I will tag five other people. If this brings some kind of curse upon my head, so be it.

Awhile ago I wrote a post under “The Dead Speak” about George MacDonald, through which I gave a brief presentation of his significance for the modern Church, as well as provided an excerpt from one of his works. Today, perhaps by great serendipity, while searching for another video, I found this video instead. And so, I’ve decided to go with the flow, and post it both for your entertainment and enlightenment.

*******

As I am sitting in the pews, amidst my family, both tracking the sermon and working on this sense that there is some part of my soul over which I need to relinquish control and acknowledge the intimate sovereignty of God, I overheard the priest talk about impatience and waiting. In giving an example where his impatience is most acute, the priest shared how he tends to project frustration on people who are in front of him in line, and how he reacts with the thought that such people need to hurry up because his time is important. As he was sharing, I found myself completely identifying with him and I began to pray. In the midst of acknowledging my need to work on this subtle, but grossly egoistic expression of falleness, my son, Ethan James, leans in and quietly says to me, “You are like that when you drive the car… Everyone is in your way.” Yes, indeed, my ten year old son, a prophet unawares, functioned to deepen the awareness of my need for change. And now, I am sitting here writing this, thinking about how Jesus once said that a person who accepts a prophet in his name will receive the reward of that prophet.

A closing prayer:

Lord, on the day I stand before you, please remember to share some of Ethan’s reward with me, as I have accepted your words through him. Amen

*******

A couple of days ago I browsed the back section of the latest issue of Men’s Health. I admit that this was not the wisest move given that this section is the red light district of these magazines: an area full of sexually explicit ads about sexually related stuff. I can honestly say that I was not looking to cast my eyes upon some skin, but rather I was drawn by a morbid curiosity to see how lowbrow and twisted the circus of worldly sexuality can be. One ad I spotted was for a product called “Vahard,” which prompted a mildly amused smile, along with a feeling of superiority as I easily discerned the ad’s obvious ploy to prey upon my masculine insecurities. This ad had a picture of a couple taken from an overhead perspective that gave the reader a sense of being the mirror above their bed. The couple is embracing one another on silk sheets, obviously moving toward coitus, and we know that this man is ready because he takes “Vahard!” As I continued to ponder this ad, I couldn’t help but analyze the thinly veiled sexual allusion of this product’s name: “Va” combined with “hard”. The associations and connotations began to flow. “Va” for vagina, and “hard” for the virile and aroused male member, which evoked a subtext of, “Oh yeah baby, you are going to hit that and you are going to hit it hard!” Then I thought about the fact that this is supposedly a natural alternative to Viagra, so now, I am seeing a reference to a drug that is the “sacred grail” of male performance. Finally, I thought of Valhalla, the heaven-like destiny of heroic warriors in Norse mythology, and in my mind a connection was forged between Thor’s hammer and the male member. This was a potent connection as I remember from my youth that Thor was able to strike the ground with his hammer and create an earthquake, which is exactly the kind of impact many males would love to have upon their ladies. We imagine her under the rhythm of our embrace crying out in ecstasy and then declaring, “Oh baby, the earth moves, and the ground shakes when we make love.” As I continued to look at the other ads of this sort, stoking the embers of my supposed superiority, I realized that no matter how much I tried to neutralize it effects through analysis, on some level I am not impervious to its attacks upon my sense of masculine competency.

Women should not be enlightened or educated in any way. They should in fact be segregated as they are the cause of hideous and involuntary erections in holy men.

What I particularly like about Augustine is that he is a fantastic example of how an exemplar of faith is not exempt from blindness. Regarding so many matters about the Xian life he is a master and a profound source of inspiration, but when it comes to his thinking about women and sex, it appears that vestiges from his time as a Manichean remained.

So, here is a challenge for you. The next time you have a theological discussion try working the phrase “involuntary erection of holy men.” into it. The challenge, of course, is to do so in a way that it connects with the content of the conversation and it flows with the point you are making. You don’t want to perpetrate a non-sequitur such as, “Yes, genuine discipleship requires critical engagement with the world while engaging in the full life of the Church, and thus avoiding the involuntary erection of holy men.” Kudos to you if you are able to use this phrase so that it flies under radar.

I have to finish by giving the young lady who used this quote in her research paper two thumbs way up. I mean, it is not often that I can be so entertained while reading student papers.

*******

It has always been hard for me to hear about God’s wrath and condemnation and not hear it like, “You miserable sinner, God is so gonna kick your ass.” The picture I have is of a mythological deity who in a fit of rage has departed from self control, and who thereby unleashes wave upon wave of crushing blows to sadistically inflict pain and finally ruin upon the object of his ire and frustration. I know my picture is a distortion of God’s character, and yet there are images and stories in the Scriptures that seem to support it.

Awhile ago, I read a work by theologian Donald Bloesch who stated that God’s wrath is the strange work of his love. I did not quite get the significance of his statement but I certainly found it provocative. Later, I read a novel by Ted Dekker, in which one of the characters said that God’s wrath is his reaction toward anything that inhibits or prevents his love. This seemed to provide insight into Bloesch’s expression, and it certainly ameliorated the image of a moral bully looking to trounce wrongdoers. Still, something negative lingered.

Yesterday, as I was reading the above verse from the third chapter of John’s gospel I was struck by a different notion of God’s wrath. As the verse indicates, God’s action is to deliver us from the default state of the human condition: condemnation. In the context of the whole Gospel we see that this deliverance was enacted through his self-giving, and it is this self-giving that most clearly expresses who God is. So, where does God’s wrath fit into this? I am not sure except to say that it must be consistent with his self-sacrificing nature.

While I was reading the above verse, I sensed God presented me with a question: “How would you have me respond to those who in refusing me refuse the foundation of reality and the source of all goodness? What kind of beauty, love, and goodness can be established through those who ultimately must bring everything into conformity with their fallen will and desire?” In response, I saw a picture of unending conflict, ugliness and destruction. From this, it seemed to me that God’s wrath must be his response toward that which brings destruction and ugliness. God’s wrath is his destruction of destruction.

None of this completely alleviates the discomfort or perhaps fear that I have regarding his wrath, but it certainly makes me see it as necessary and even desirable if the world is ever going to be permeated by love. As I see it, we can’t have the good we want apart from God. Both goodness and love are like an energy that flows from God and through hearts that are open to him. Thus, in refusing God a person kills the circuit, and in that place where the circuit ceases ugliness and destruction naturally emerges. In this light, condemnation is God merely identifying the ugliness of what is. Moreover, wrath is the strange movement of his love to restore all things to their original beauty and goodness.

It is truly right and good, always and everywhere, with our
whole heart and mind and voice, to praise you, the invisible,
almighty, and eternal God, and your only-begotten Son,
Jesus Christ our Lord; for he is the true Paschal Lamb, who
at the feast of the Passover paid for us the debt of Adam’s sin,
and by his blood delivered your faithful people.

This is the night, when you brought our fathers, the children
of Israel, out of bondage in Egypt, and led them through the
Red Sea on dry land.

This is the night, when all who believe in Christ are delivered
from the gloom of sin, and are restored to grace and holiness
of life.

This is the night, when Christ broke the bonds of death and hell,
and rose victorious from the grave.

How wonderful and beyond our knowing, O God, is your
mercy and loving-kindness to us, that to redeem a slave, you
gave a Son.

How holy is this night, when wickedness is put to flight, and
sin is washed away. It restores innocence to the fallen, and joy
to those who mourn. It casts out pride and hatred, and brings
peace and concord.

How blessed is this night, when earth and heaven are joined
and man is reconciled to God.

Holy Father, accept our evening sacrifice, the offering of this
candle in your honor. May it shine continually to drive away
all darkness. May Christ, the Morning Star who knows no
setting, find it ever burning–he who gives his light to all
creation, and who lives and reigns for ever and ever. Amen.