Theolitics

A fusion of theology, faith, politics and culture.

Archive for the category “Faith”

The Third Commandment

The Ten Commandments -or the Decalogue as it is sometimes referred- was given to Moses by God at Mount Sinai shortly after the Hebrews left Egypt in the Exodus.  The story of the Exodus is familiar to us, as is the corresponding story of the forty-year pilgrimage in the desert.  My focus is on one of the commandments in particular and how it has been misinterpreted, resulting in its misapplication.  I would like to share what I see as the proper interpretation of the commandment and the implication of this interpretation upon all who call upon the name of God.

The specific commandment is “Thou shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.” The commandments can be found in the book of Exodus, chapter 20.  Depending on one’s religious tradition, the placement of the commandment will vary. If one if Jewish, the commandment is third; if one is Catholic, it is second; if one is Protestant Christian, generally the commandment falls third.  The wording of the commandment also differs depending on one’s religious tradition.  For religious Jews, the wording of the commandment also includes the remainder of the passage found in Exodus 20: 7 which states, “…for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.” I believe this to be an important tool in instructing how important this commandment to be and I will return to it shortly.

The commandments as we understand them are ten laws that were given as precedent as the foundation for changing the character of the recently freed Israelites to reflect the nature and character of God for the benefit of the nations. It is important to remember that these laws were given at a particular time in history for a particular people.  With that said, I believe that the Ten Commandments are still relevant to us in our contemporary setting.  At the same time, many of the laws that are contained in the Levitical code are not relevant to us in our contemporary setting and I think we as Christians forget this important detail. But the Ten Commandments are as relevant as ever.

As it relates to this particular commandment, we often hear it translated as “You shall not use the Lord’s name in vain” and it has often been translated and understood to mean that we should refrain from using God’s name in conjunction with expletives- be them mild or explicit. Throughout many years of Christian and Catholic schooling, church attendance and seminary education, this is the commandment was taught and how it should be understood.

But as I said earlier, I believe this to be a misinterpretation and misapplication of the commandment. Though I agree that it’s inappropriate to use God’s name in conjunction with swearing, I don’t believe that is how we are to understand the depth, meaning, importance and the application of the commandment. The commandment of not taking the Lord’s name in vain does not expressly mean improperly using the Lord’s name in conjunction with an obscenity.  I don’t believe that was God’s intention when he gave the commandment to Moses and the severity of the punishment seems to indicate as much.

The literal translation of the commandment from the Hebrew text is “You shall not carry God’s name in vain.”  The word generally translated as “take” is the Hebrew word “tissa” which can mean either “take” or “carry” or “use,” based on the Hebrew lexicons I have used.  The word translated as “vain” is the Hebrew word “la-shav,” but this word also means “empty,” “untrue,” or “thoughtless” in manner.[1] As a side note, the word “vain” (la-shav) has also been translated to mean “false” as is found in Deuteronomy 5:20[2] based upon Strong’s Concordance in conjunction with a Hebrew lexicon.  This hints to why the punishment was attached for breaking this commandment.

Understanding the commandment to mean we should not carry or use the Lord’s name in an empty, thoughtless or false manner, what is the thrust of the divine injunction?  It means that to carry God’s name in an empty and thoughtless manner impugns his name and character.  It also means participating or attributing something that is evil or false in the name of God. But one may ask how this is done.

One way this is done is when Islamic radicals murder innocent people and justify their actions or “religious duty” by invoking the name of God.  When an Islamic terrorist yells, “Allahu Akbar”[3] prior to murdering someone, they are claiming that in committing these acts of terror and violence, they are doing God’s will.  This is an obvious case of attributing evil to the nature and character of God.

Another clear example is found in the sex scandals involving Catholic priests.  When Catholic authorities chose not to promptly remove the predatory priests from their parishes whom they knew to be guilty of pedophilia, and subsequently chose to transfer them to other parishes which enabled them to continue to prey on children, this was an abuse of religious authority and faith that injured God’s name and his credibility.  This also injured the body of Christ who are to be the faithful community of believers who bear his name on earth.

Considering the seriousness of attributing evil to God, we see why the latter part of the commandment says that God will not hold anyone guiltless for doing so.  Another indicator of the severity of breaking this law is that it is the only one of the Ten Commandments where God clearly states that he will not forgive the commandment’s transgression. The transgression is so serious that it is repeated in the New Testament by Jesus in Matthew 12.  In this text, the Pharisees were attributing Jesus’ power and ability to cast out demons to Beelzebub (Satan). In this passage, Jesus is quite clear in his admonishment of those who attribute the power of the Holy Spirit to Satan, labeling it blasphemy and teaching that those guilty of the offense would not be forgiven in this life or the next.

But why is it that God will not forgive the transgression of the commandment in the Old Testament and its corresponding indiscretion in the New Testament? The answer is simple, actually.  When God’s name is desecrated, it discredits his reputation and alienates people who may have otherwise come to worship and have a relationship with him. The concept of desecrating God’s name in Judaism is referred to as “Chillul Hashem” which translates “to defame God’s name.”  When God’s name is defamed and his character or reputation is ruined, it influences people to have a misconception of who God is and who his followers are.[4] This is why God will not forgive those who are active in placing obstacles in the path of those who would find salvation.

As a result, religious Jews have a concept that they take seriously to thwart “Chillul Hashem” and it is something that I believe Christians should adopt as well and it is the concept of “Kiddush Hashem”[5] meaning, “sanctifying God’s name.”  What this means is that Christians have an obligation not to say or do anything that dishonors God’s name (and by extension, Christ) which would prevent others from coming into a relationship with Jesus.  When we as Christians interact with non-Christians and they know our religious inclinations, we no longer represent ourselves individually but we also represent the church and the Christian faith. We are ambassadors of the faith and as such we must conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of being called a disciple of Christ. If we fail this task, we risk people making broad, negative generalizations about Christians based on our behavior and they may choose not to accept the free gift of grace in Christ.

Therefore, to use the Lord’s name in vain is to wrongly attribute his name, character or will to things that are empty, thoughtless, false and or evil- in other words conflating God with words and deeds that are not representative of his character. The punishment for this violation is that God will not forgive those who do.  Knowing that, we have a duty to righteously reflect the nature of God in Christ by being disciples that serve the purpose of evangelizing through our actions which will result in bringing more souls to Christ and ultimately to God.

 


[1] The LXX translates “la shav” as “thoughtless.”

[2] Deuteronomy 5:20, “Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor.”

[3] “Allah Akbar” or “Allahu Akbar” does not mean “God is great.” In Arabic, the word for “great” is the word “Kabir” whereas “Akbar” means “greatest.” Therefore, when a terrorist yells “Allah/Allahu Akbar!” they are in effect saying God, or in their case Allah, is the greatest (of gods) and thus his will, must be enforced.

[4] Incidentally, this is why I suspect Moses was able to persuade God to relent from his anger when he sought to kill the Israelites for worshipping the golden calf at Sinai and again in the desert (Numbers 15), when God sought to strike them with pestilence for their ingratitude, both times suggesting that he would start over with Moses and his descendants. Had God done so, he would have belittled his name and would have undermined his character for the nations to see and judge.

[5] Religious Jews take this seriously and as such have been known to go to extremes to advance this cause.  Though I argue Christians should follow this practice in principle, I stop short of advocating it to the extent it is followed in Judaism because it can be misinterpreted as righteousness through works and the focus of Christ can become peripheral in importance.

Is Liberal Christianity Worth Saving?

I decided to reprint this article I came across in the Christian Post because I’ve expressed some of the same sentiments when discussing the kind of liberal or progressive Christianity that such folks as Jim Wallis, Glen Stassen, Tony Campolo among others advocate.

In my opinion there is a tangible reason numbers are falling when it comes to congregations that espouse liberal Christianity- it’s because they don’t need church to get this kind of dogmatic liberalism.  They can easily get it from a number of news outlets, media sources and from the campuses of academia, which makes going one more place to be reinforced (or offended) is pointless.

By Ken Connor , Christian Post Guest Columnist
August 7, 2012|5:23 pm

The recent General Convention of the Episcopal Church has prompted a broader discussion of the fate of liberal Christianity. No surprise-the Episcopal Church has been one of the most aggressively liberal influences in American Christianity in the past few years, pushing hard against the traditions of the broader Anglican Communion. In The New York Times, Ross Douthat goes so far as to ask, “Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?” But that question necessarily prompts two others: What is Liberal Christianity, and Should it be saved?

Liberal Christianity is dying on the vine. Mainline denominations are taking big hits across the board. According to The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, among Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians, more adults are leaving the church than entering it. Methodists, Presbyterians, and Anglicans are retaining less than half of their children. And in these denominations, no one is sitting in the pews! Gallup reported in 2005 that weekly and near-weekly church attendees made up less than 45% of self-identifying Methodists, Presbyterians, and Lutherans, with Episcopalians at a dismal 32%. And the numbers aren’t getting any better.

But what, exactly, is liberal Christianity? Over the past several decades, liberalism has primarily defined itself by what it is not. Its message is “We’re not like those stodgy old traditionalists-we’re hip and accepting” (as long as they’re not asked to accept unchanging morality or the truth of Scripture). Liberal Christianity rejects the core tenets of Christianity, including the belief that Jesus is God, that all of mankind is guilty of sin and condemned to hell, that God sacrificed His Son to bear the punishment for our sins, that Scripture is the absolute, unchanging, perfect Word of God, and that the only path to salvation is through believing in Christ’s sacrifice and accepting His gift of eternal life by grace through faith.

In place of these tenets, liberal Christianity embraces a series of denials: Christ is not divine, mankind is not inherently sinful, the Scriptures are not authoritative and unchanging, heaven and hell are not literal, morality and theology are not absolute, and social mores do not flow from Scripture, but are an ever-changing product of our evolutionary enlightenment.

All of these beliefs allow liberal Christians to be more “comfortable” in the culture around them. The common message of the liberal Christian is that “God is love” and we need to speak to the rest of culture in the language of loving acceptance. “Love” here is code for the conviction that there is no absolute moral standard which humankind has violated. Hence, to believe in justice, morality, sin, punishment or an unchanging God is to be “judgmental” and “unloving.”

If this is the heart of liberal Christianity, is it worth saving? Douthat argued in his article that conservatives “should not be smug” about the failures of liberalism, but rather value the work liberal Christianity has done to advance the social duties of the Church. While liberal Christianity might have gotten the Church talking more about social justice, it provided all the wrong answers. Liberal Christianity looks primarily to the government to shoulder our social responsibilities. But the social duties of Christians are clearly spelled out in Scripture, and they are directed to individual Christians and to the church. Christians-individually and collectively-are primarily responsible for this work, not the civil government.

It is not the message of “acceptance” but the truth of historic, traditional Christianity that has transformed society over the centuries. The spread of the biblical Gospel message throughout generations has changed the world. Christianity has grown and spread because Christians have taken seriously Christ’s great commission to go into all the world and make disciples. Animated by love for their neighbor (dictated by Scripture) and concern for their eternal future (heaven or hell), believers in historic Christianity have sought to spread the truth of the Gospel throughout the world. Concern for their fellow man and the belief that ministering to the poor and needy is the same as ministering to the Lord Jesus Christ himself (Matt. 25:40) has been the impetus to build hospitals, orphanages, soup kitchens, pregnancy care centers, water purification plants and the like around the world.

Liberal Christianity undermines the Truth that has motivated so much good work. Liberal Christians reject the core tenets of historic Christianity. They have embraced the contemporary fancies of an ever-changing culture. They have nothing to live for, nothing to die for, and nothing to work for. For them, church is just another social club, devoid of power because it is not animated by transcendent truth and accountability for living in conformity with that truth. They have no authority for faith or action. They embrace a counterfeit Christianity, a pale image of the real thing, a hollow shell, a thin gruel that offers little sustenance for its followers or the culture at large.

It is no wonder that the ranks of liberal Christian churches are shrinking. Liberal Christianity is passing with a whimper, not a bang. Increasingly, its adherents have concluded it is not worth saving.

Ken Connor is Chairman of the Center for a Just Society in Washington, DC and a nationally recognized trial lawyer who represented Governor Jeb Bush in the Terri Schiavo case. Connor was formerly President of the Family Research Council, Chairman of the Board of CareNet, and Vice Chairman of Americans United for Life. For more articles and resources from Mr. Connor and the Center for a Just Society, go to www.ajustsociety.org. Your feedback is welcome; please email info@ajustsociety.org.

Why We Should Reexamine the Faith of Barack Obama- How Christians might think about the Gospel and the President.

I decided to re-print an article written by Owen Strachan, courtesy of Christianity Today, discussing why Christians should take a closer look at President Obama’s faith and why it’s important. Regardless of how one feels personally about the President, Strachan’s position is thought-provoking and in my opinion, spot on.

 

This piece is a response to “Barack Obama: Evangelical-in-Chief?

Is Barack Obama a Christian?

This perennial question came to the fore recently after American President Barack Obama endorsed same-sex marriage in an interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts. Speaking of his views on the issue as the result of “an evolution,” Obama relayed that he had decided that it was “important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” Referencing the ethical witness of his daughters, the President made his argument on biblical grounds, specifically the “golden rule,” the idea that we should “treat others the way you’d want to be treated,” as he paraphrased Matthew 7:12.

The question of whether any person is a Christian is important, not just a President or celebrity. Scripture offers numerous examples of people who claim faith and yet are not necessarily converted (Matt. 7:22; Luke 8:4–21; 2 Tim. 4:3–4). Christians and local churches act biblically when they examine a confession of faith to see if it is backed up by a holy, God-pleasing life (1 John 4:1; 1 Thess. 5:22). Though a vocal Christian contingent argues that such analysis is hostile, it is necessary for us to examine the faith of those who profess it.

At first blush, President Obama can certainly sound like a Christian. As seen above, he cites Scripture as an inspiration and moral guide. At the 2012 Easter prayer breakfast, he explored the “all-important gift of grace” that came through the endurance of “unimaginable pain that wracked His body and bore the sins of the world.” At the 2011 prayer breakfast, he spoke of how he came to “know Jesus Christ for myself and embrace Him as my lord and savior.” The President had sounded similar themes in his 2004 interview with Cathleen Falsani.

Yet in that interview, his most fulsome statement to date of his religious views, President Obama diverged sharply from Scripture. In the interview, never refuted in print or in word, spirituality boils down to values: “I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power … there are values that transcend race or culture.” Accordingly, to sin is to fail to abide by these values, not to dishonor a holy God per Exodus 20. In terms of salvation, “there are many paths” to an undefined “place,” not one exclusive path to heaven, contradicting John 14:6. Disavowing belief in hell, the President opined that “if I live my life as well as I can … I will be rewarded.” This reward, though, does not mean “harps and wings” but rather successfully “transferring values that I got from my mother” to his daughters. Heaven, then, is not the perfected realm of God found in Revelation 21. It seems to be the perfected civic order found in liberal Protestant theology.

President Obama’s understanding of God as well presents a few problems. God is conspicuously absent from surprising places. When it comes to prayer, for example, the President has spoken of pausing to “take a moment here and a moment there to take stock, why am I here, how does this connect with a larger sense of purpose.” The act of prayer, as the President said in 2011, is not only a chance for confession but “itself is a source of strength.” Prayer offers a kind of Protestant Zen moment, a dialing-in to deeper currents and larger realities. So too with conversion. Though the President speaks of God as his savior, he does not picture his conversion as a rebirth from righteous damnation per Ephesians 2:1. Instead, it “allowed me to connect the work I had been pursuing with my faith.” This version of his conversion is a centering of the self, a Western remix of Eastern spiritualism.

President Obama’s Christology also veers into unbiblical territory. In his 2012 Easter prayer breakfast talk, he spoke of Jesus’ “doubts,” casting Jesus as not able to fully trust the Father. Surely Christ knew immense sorrow over his fate, but as Denny Burk has suggested, Jesus never sinned by doubting God’s goodness or wisdom (John 17:4). To update the language of German liberal theologians like Martin Kähler, this is the Jesus of postmodernism, Christ for a generation that has baptized doubt as a virtue and questioning as an imperative.

Given all this, what does actionable faith look like for the President? It seems to mean personally participating in a pan-religious mission of cosmic justice: “I can still help whoever I can, however I can, wherever I can, for as long as I can, and … somehow God will buttress these efforts.” Not only Christians undertake this work, however: “It also helps to know that none of us are alone in answering this call.It’s being taken up each and every day by so many of you—back home, your churches, your temples and synagogues, your fellow congregants—so many faith groups across this great country of ours.” We can read this as mushy politico-speak. It also reveals, crucially, the strain of non-exclusivistic ecumenism that runs throughout President Obama’s religious pronouncements. Those who are not Christians—Jews and Mormons, apparently—can “answer the call” of God and work for justice.

It is not only President Obama’s confession of faith that is troubling, but his policies. Though in response to Rick Warren’s question he famously argued in 2008 that the question of life’s beginning was “above his pay grade,” when compensated by the citizens of Illinois in 2001 he knew no such humility. As a state senator, he actively opposed legislation that would have mandated care for fetuses that survived abortions. He has also made it a point of presidential pride to let the Defense of Marriage Act go unenforced, contributing substantially to the weakening of the traditional and biblical view of marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman.

The culture, not Scripture, is the primary driver of President Obama’s views. With abortion, his own values matter, not Psalm 139; with homosexuality and marriage, his daughters’ opinions matter, not Genesis 2 and Romans 1. But it is not merely President Obama’s isolated policies, troubling as they may be, that give many Christians like me pause. It is the whole worldview. As seen above, there are deeply unbiblical ideas running beneath the surface of the President’s orthodox declarations. The President’s oratory sometimes smacks of Billy Graham, but those who listen carefully will also hear the dulcet tones of Harry Emerson Fosdick. His is a no-injury Protestantism, liberal Christianity enrobed in a revivalist shell.

Faith as construed by the President gives no offense and draws no boundaries. In the final analysis, what is missing from his theology is nothing other than the gospel, the message of God-given righteousness grounded in the cross of Christ that when received by faith and repentance runs roughshod over a sinner, transforming a ward of Satan into an angel of light. This exclusive reality—and the top-to-bottom ethic it creates—is noticeably lacking in President Obama’s actions and proclamations.

This, then, is why evangelicals come away so confused from the President’s faith-friendly speeches. He sometimes sounds the thrilling chords of the gospel of life, but his policies smack of the culture of death. How can a man who shows such charm toward his wife help to destroy the foundational institution of human society? How can a man who so clearly loves his adorable daughters stand on the floor of the Illinois senate and declaim the right to life of a child who, against the terrible odds only a womb-bloodying scalpel can produce, miraculously survives an abortion? Saving faith creates a relentless desire in the name of Christ to heal the wounded, restore the weak, and defend tiny fetuses that kick and spin and wave their miniscule arms when they hear their parents’ voices. Saving faith causes us to weep and yell and wrestle with God in prayer for infants that are savaged in the womb. Saving faith cannot abide unlawful death. It must and will decry it.

So when someone professes faith, yet has none of these instinctive reactions—and actuallyopposes such instincts despite years of membership in supposedly Bible-teaching churches—we realize, chillingly, that something greater than right morality is missing. The gospel, the ground of our ethics and the animator of our conscience, is very likely missing. Perhaps the person speaks of faith and their nearness to God. In reality, though, they are far from him. They may have come near at some point to the kingdom, but like the rich young ruler who chooses reigning with sinners over reigning with Christ, they are desperately far.

I do not write this with politically-driven glee. I write it in sorrow, because I am all too aware of the deceptive nature of depravity. Yet I also write it in hope, because I am aware of the stunning power of the gospel that has saved a wretch like me. I write it as one who knows because of Scripture that he must pray for President Obama (1 Tim. 2:1–3). He and I have major differences, but he is my President. Beyond this, however, we are at base the same: fellow sinners in desperate need, as we all are, of divine grace.

Owen Strachan is assistant professor of Christian theology and church history at Boyce College. Author of essays in The Atlantic and First Things, he has worked for the White House in the U.S. Department of State and for the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Labor.

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: