Column in the Paper, Letter in the Mail

Last Sunday's Amarillo Globe-News included an editorial I wrote. I was responding to an article by one of the paper's regular columnists.

His opinion is that Amarillo people act like thoughtless hypocrites when the majority of them claim some sort of Christian conviction, while at the same time favoring the Texas policy of executing those who have committed the worst of crimes.

My response came from this angle: you haven't necessarily lost your "Christian principles" (his expression) if you agree that at least in some cases capital punishment is appropriate.

One thing you find out when you publish something in a print paper or magazine: at least a handful of people track you down, usually to say something like "I agree, and thanks." Because of the trouble they go through, I tend to value their "comments." Most any time I published something in a Church of Christ periodical, within a couple weeks I would get a beautiful note from the late Hugo McCord. That always meant a lot to me.

This week I received a heart-rending letter from someone whose family members were murdered many years ago. This person also regrets that the criminal has received two stays of execution. In prison, said the letter, the convict has outlived most of the family. They have been denied whatever sort of closure or satisfaction that might have come from the execution of the murderer.

As I read those words, I was astonished at how quickly things left the realm of theory and moved much closer to reality. It was time for me to stop thinking like a debater and start acting like some sort of pastor.

I sat and wrote down the best things I could think of and sent them off with a prayer.

Anyway, if you care to read the exchange that appear in the paper, the first article, "Dead is dead, and justice suffers," by Greg Sagan is here. My article, in part a response to the first one, is here.

No, I didn't pick the title and don't like the photo either. Sometimes I wish I had an agent. Note to self: start writing things that people actually pay for.

Natural Theology: Is it Christian?

Mike Cope set off quite a discussion yesterday when he quoted from a new book by Samuel Harris.

Harris recently gained a good bit of attention when he published “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason.” His more-recent book—the one that Mike was quoting—is called “Letter to a Christian Nation.”

Except for the few snippets I’ve come across, I haven’t read either of Harris’ books. But I gather that both of them advance ideas like:

• Biblical religion is deeply flawed. In fact, it’s just plain bad. If someone had to pick a religion to practice, there are better choices than Christianity.
• In practice, Christians renounce what they say they believe and are committed to. They don’t practice what they preach.
• The commonly-known Christian variety of supernatural theism—where, for example, people can pray expecting that God will act in response, even transcending the laws of nature—is irrational.

All of this led me back to questions I’ve had for what seems like a long time to me. Questions like:

How should the church respond to the Samuel Harrises of the world (assuming that it should)? That is, given our situation, where unbelievers make public assertions designed to refute the claims of Christianity and embarrass the commitment of religious faith, how should Christians respond?

What does the way of Christ teach us about how to handle our ever-popular, in-the-news debates between faith and unbelief, reason and religion, science and Scripture?

Most of all, I come back to this question: To what extent is it Christian for believers, as part of the church’s evangelistic thrust, to advance and defend arguments for the existence of God?

Now, if you come from the same place I do, then you’re likely to say that it is only right for Christians to rationally advance theism. In fact, if someone says that he loves his neighbor as himself, and that he completely loves the God who saves us through His Son, how could that person do anything less than to try to convince the atheist or the agnostic of the existence of God? After all, once the unbeliever is convinced of the reality of God, that person can then be led to Christ, the Son of God.

It’s interesting. Karl Barth, the man regarded by many as the greatest Christian theologian of the 20th century, said that what I just described is not, in fact, Christian. Why did he say that? I’ll explain next time.

Stone and the Campbells on Who is a Christian

It might be that many members of the Churches of Christ would be surprised (pleasantly or otherwise) to know how some of the earliest American church reformers, their religious ancestors, dealt with questions of Christian fellowship and unity. Here's a sampling:

"Whoever acknowledges the leading truths of Christianity, and conforms his life to that acknowledgement, we esteem a Christian." --Barton W. Stone, Biography, p. 332.

* * * * * * * * *

Alexander Campbell calls the following definition his "favorite and oft-repeated":

"A Christian is one that habitually believes all that Christ says, and habitually does all that he bids him." --Millennial Harbinger, 1837, p. 566

This definition grew out of the criticism fired at Campbell after he published an exchange between himself and a "lady from Lunenburg." In his letter to the lady, Campbell allowed that there must be unimmersed Christians in the so-called sects. He added:

"But who is a Christian? I answer, Every one that believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God; repents of his sins, and obeys in all things according to his measure of knowledge of his will." --Millennial Harbinger, 1837, p. 411

To recognize that one may habitually obey Christ even when one's knowledge is defective is to face up to the obvious; we all do it. We're all ignorant about some things. And among those things we understand very well, our obedience is imperfect. But, said Campbell, if a person habitually obeys "in all things according to his measure" of knowledge of the Lord's will, then that person rightfully calls himself a Christian. Among the early leaders of what is now called the American Restoration Movement (a.k.a. Stone-Campbell Movement) this was regarded as a valid basis for unity and fellowship.

In the context of the first definition (Millennial Harbinger, 1837, p. 565), Campbell warns against judging those "who would die for Christ" but who because they do not yet understand, have never been immersed. He notes that some of these unimmersed folks often show a Christ-likeness that is lacking in those who would judge them. And he says candidly that he expects to see such people in heaven. Interestingly, this comes from one who championed baptism by immersion and its importance as much as any church leader in history.

* * * * * * * * *

Yet another statement comes from Thomas Campbell, Alexander's father. In the historic "Declaration and Address," Thomas offers the following on the nature of the church: "The Church of Christ on earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and none else; as none else can be truly and properly called Christians."

We can learn from our fathers in the faith. They can press us to consider and think through Scripture with the heart of Christ so that we can (1) avoid a false emphasis and (2) identify what is truly crucial to Christian identity and life.