The Church and the World -- A Raging Debate at "On Faith"

Posted: Friday, September 05, 2008 at 2:39 pm ET

Over at "On Faith," the project of The Washington Post and Newsweek magazine, a debate is raging over this question:

Women are not allowed to become clergy in many conservative religious groups. Is it hypocritical to think that a woman can lead a nation and not a congregation?

As you might expect, that question has unleashed a torrent of response.  The essays range across the spectrum.

From retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong:

It is not a hypocritical sign so much as it is a uninformed sexism in the Christian Church as well as a sign of how irrelevant many parts of Christianity are in the world of today. Great Britain had a woman prime minister before the Church of England had a woman priest. How absurd can a people be?

and

It is time for the dated prejudices of human beings based primarily on the fear of being different, to cease receiving the dignity of a cover from either the Church or the Bible. We need to call those prejudices what they are - evil!

Spong is one of the most outspoken characters on the religious left of our day.  He has embraced every heresy imaginable and rejects the deity of Christ and the inspiration of Scripture.  Thus, he can only be repulsed by people who hold the Bible to be a binding authority.  It is "evil" to restrict modern humanity by means of biblical authority.

From Brian McLaren, author and leading figure in the "emerging church:"

I just talked to a leading conservative religious leader about this the other day. He believes that the New Testament texts regarding women only apply to the church and not the secular world. I find that line of interpretation very convenient for conservative churches, and impossible to justify theologically. My guess is that more and more of the daughters of today's religious conservatives will decide to a) abandon their parent's approach to interpreting the Bible, b) decide the "secular" world is a more hospitable place and spend more time there and less in the church, or c) change churches.

This short post is interesting for what is absent as much as what is present.  McLaren suggests that he finds the distinction between the church and the secular world "impossible to justify" in terms of the New Testament texts, but he offers no explanation as to why. Does McLaren think that the Apostle Paul's list of qualifications for pastors found in 1 Timothy 3 is to be applied equally to positions of secular political office?  This would be a fascinating argument to see him make.  Given the tone of this argument and his other writings, it would seem that he would see these texts as basically inapplicable to both contexts.

N. T. Wright, Anglican Bishop of Durham, offers this:

No, it isn't hypocritical. There might well be perfectly coherent guidelines as to why a woman might lead in one area and not in another. It isn't hypocritical, after all, to think that the church is not just 'another human organization' or a society like any other; it's Christian common sense.

Bishop Wright is a supporter of woman as priests, but he recognizes the distinction between the church and the world.

The entire question was framed against the backdrop of the nomination of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as the Republican nominee for Vice President.  In opening salvos, Sally Quinn of The Washington Post directed her guns at the Southern Baptist Convention and to me by name.  Her articles, "Palin's Pregnancy Problem" and "Sarah's Palin's Priorities," set the stage.

In reality, Sally Quinn's articles and the question posed to "On Faith" illuminate an important aspect of our current cultural situation -- and serve as a warning to the church.  The clear and unavoidable implication of this question is that there must be no distinction between the church and the world. If equal employment opportunity is the rule in the secular world, must not the church follow the same rules?

This reasoning is perfectly understandable coming from the secular world.  How else would we expect the secular mind to think?  But coming from inside the church this logic is both fatal and unfaithful.

Sally Quinn's articles were also fascinating for the logic she employs against Sarah Palin.  I can understand this logic coming from a conservative Christian who is committed to biblical gender distinctions.  I'm having a very hard time understanding how a feminist can ask these questions.

My article at "On Faith" is found here.

An Unexpected New Motherhood Debate

Posted: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 at 5:41 am ET

Labor Day 2008 came with a bang as Hurricane Gustav plowed into the Gulf Coast and as the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain revealed that the daughter of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is five months pregnant, and yet unmarried.  The word spread quickly, even as Americans celebrated their end-of-summer holiday with an unusual attentiveness to the news.

A statement released by the McCain campaign got right to the point, quoting Gov. Palin and her husband, Todd:

"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."

The release added little to that statement, other than that the father is an 18-year-old named Levi and that the young couple plans to get married.

McCain advisor Steve Schmidt said, "Life happens."  McCain speechwriter Mark Salter commented, "An American family."  Millions of Americans wondered, "What's going on here?"

The Palin family asked to be left to deal with this privately, an understandable impulse for any family.  But this isn't just any family at the present.  The moment Sen. John McCain announced Gov. Palin as his running mate, the entire Palin family became a public issue.  This was amplified by the fact that the entire Palin family (except for the oldest son, Track, soon headed for deployment in Iraq) stood there before the public.

One central feature of the public introduction to the Palins was the presence of Trig, the 4-month-old baby boy who is the couple's fifth child.  Trig was diagnosed with Down syndrome prior to his birth, and the Palins translated their pro-life beliefs into a beautiful portrait of human dignity.  As the couple said, they never even considered aborting the baby, but considered him a gift from God.

Now there is another gift -- this time in the form of a pregnant daughter and a child conceived outside of marriage.  The Palins spoke of their pride in the fact that their daughter would keep her baby and marry the father.  Once again, the Palin family chooses life over death, birth over abortion, when aborting the baby would be justified by many and considered the easy way out of an embarrassing situation.  Yes, that baby is a gift, as is every single living human being, born and unborn.

But the entire nation felt the awkwardness of the situation, and even part of the embarrassment.  Yes, as Steve Schmidt said, "Life happens," but not always like this.  And Mark Salter is certainly correct in describing the situation as "an American family."  Still, this is not the script many families would choose -- especially evangelical families who had been most encouraged by Gov. Palin's choice as Sen. McCain's running mate.

Will this damage the McCain-Palin ticket in November?  Time will tell, but there is good reason to doubt that it will.  Teenage pregnancy is hardly unknown these days, and the very public decision to keep the baby will encourage pro-lifers all the more.  The press is likely to leave this issue alone, at least as much as possible.

A more interesting angle on this story has to do with the question of motherhood.  In this case it is the Governor as mother that is the issue, rather than the daughter.  As Jodi Kantor and Rachel L. Swarns of The New York Times frame the issue:

When Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska was introduced as a vice-presidential pick, she was presented as a magnet for female voters, the epitome of everymom appeal.

But since then, as mothers across the country supervise the season’s final water fights and pack book bags, some have voiced the kind of doubts that few male pundits have dared raise on television. With five children, including an infant with Down syndrome and, as the country learned Monday, a pregnant 17-year-old, Ms. Palin has set off a fierce argument among women about whether there are enough hours in the day for her to take on the vice presidency, and whether she is right to try.

It’s the Mommy Wars: Special Campaign Edition. But this time the battle lines are drawn inside out, with social conservatives, usually staunch advocates for stay-at-home motherhood, mostly defending her, while some others, including plenty of working mothers, worry that she is taking on too much.

I was asked about this on Friday in an interview with Stephanie Simon of The Wall Street Journal.  As that paper reported:

So Ms. Palin's decision to accept the nomination for vice president just four months after the birth of her disabled son gave pause to a few conservatives. But just for a moment.

"If I were her pastor, I'd be very concerned for her and her family," Mr. Mohler said. "But it looks as though she's found a way to integrate it all in a way that works."

Well, I would be even more concerned now.  Do I believe that a woman can serve well in the office of Vice President of the United States?  Yes.  As a matter of fact, I believe that a woman could serve well as President -- and one day will.  Portraits of significant men of history hang on the walls of my library --but so do portraits of Queen Elizabeth I of England and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

The New Testament clearly speaks to the complementary roles of men and women in the home and in the church, but not in roles of public responsibility.  I believe that women as CEOs in the business world and as officials in government are no affront to Scripture.  Then again, that presupposes that women -- and men -- have first fulfilled their responsibilities within the little commonwealth of the family.

Is this kind of public role what most women want?  Clearly not, and for that I am honestly thankful.  The tasks assigned to women within the home are monumental.  The maternal role is crucial, and the vast majority of women find their greatest fulfillment in this role -- and for good reason.  In the roles of wives and mothers women do what no one else can do so naturally and so well.

What does all this mean for Gov. Palin?  The New York Times reported:

For decades the anti-abortion movement has brought together a broad alliance of conservatives concerned about both the moral value of a fetus and traditional gender roles. Ms. Palin rejects both abortion and stay-at-home motherhood, and most conservatives have praised her choices. The news that she would be a grandmother only enhanced their enthusiasm, with many describing themselves as thrilled to see so prominent a display of pro-life commitment.

Count me in on the thrill of seeing such a public display of pro-life commitment, and such a prominent pro-life candidate added to the ticket.  I still believe that Gov. Palin can -- and I hope will -- serve with distinction as Vice President of the United States.

Still, there is something to give us all pause in this picture, and those who care for the future of the family should take note and think hard.

Welcome to the World, Trig Paxson Van Palin -- Now the World Has Seen You

Posted: Saturday, August 30, 2008 at 12:42 pm ET

[This article was originally posted on May 6, 2008.  In it, I offer the remark that Gov. Sarah Palin "is often mentioned as a potential running mate for Sen. John McCain."  What seemed merely a possibility in May has become reality in August, and the world saw Trig Paxson Van Palin in his eldest sister's arms as his mother was announced as Sen. McCain's choice for the vice presidential nomination of the Republican Party.  Thus, the event became a great testimony for the sanctity of all human life.  The article is reprinted due to requests and interest.]

A little boy with an extra chromosome was born on April 18. His name is Trig Paxson Van Palin and his new home is the Alaska Governor's Mansion in Juneau. His mom is Governor Sarah Palin, who along with her husband Todd, has welcomed Trig as their second son and fifth child.

Governor Palin has already made a mark on the political scene. A high school basketball star and beauty queen, she was elected Alaska's governor in 2006. She is often mentioned as a potential running mate for Sen. John McCain. The Palins' other children include Track, their oldest son, who now serves in the U.S. Army. They also have three daughters, Bristol, Willow, and Piper.

Trig made news long before he was born, as Alaska's citizens learned that their governor was pregnant. Then, for the Palins, the story got more complicated.

This past December, Sarah Palin was told that her baby was likely to have Down syndrome -- just one extra chromosome.

As the Associated Press reports:

The doctor's announcement in December, when Palin was four months pregnant, presented her with a possible life- and career-changing development.

"I've never had problems with my other pregnancies, so I was shocked," said Palin.

"It took a while to open up the book that the doctor gave me about children with Down syndrome, and a while to log on to the Web site and start reading facts about the situation."

When he was told, Todd Palin quickly said, "We shouldn't be asking, 'Why us?' We should be saying, 'Well, why not us?'"

The Palins never considered aborting the baby. That means that Trig Palin is now is a very rare group of very special children, because it is now believed that the vast majority of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome before birth are being aborted.

Modern diagnostic tests are driving a "search and destroy mission" to eliminate babies judged to be inferior, disabled, or deformed. Some experts now believe that up to 90 percent of all pregnancies diagnosed as having a likelihood of Down syndrome end in abortion.

Back in 2005, ethicist George Neumayr commented: "Each year in America fewer and fewer disabled infants are born. The reason is eugenic abortion. Doctors and their patients use prenatal technology to screen unborn children for disabilities, then they use that information to abort a high percentage of them. Without much scrutiny or debate, a eugenics designed to weed out the disabled has become commonplace."

The Palins would not even consider aborting their baby. "We've both been very vocal about being pro-life," Governor Palin said. "We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential."

She loves her baby boy and is proud of him. "I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection," Palin told the Associated Press. "Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?"

Some ethicists now go so far as to argue for a "duty" to abort a baby with a Down diagnosis. This is an assault upon the dignity of every human being. The fact that so few Down syndrome babies now make it to birth is a sign that America is making its own pact with the Culture of Death.

Trig Paxson Van Palin has an extra chromosome, two proud and loving parents, four very happy siblings, and he will bring his own joy to untold numbers of lives.

He will face some unique challenges, but he has a loving family who will face those with him. They will learn together the wonder and beauty of a Down syndrome child and will learn to see the glory of God in his trusting face.

Mothers Day 2008 is certain to be a special day in the Alaska Governor's Mansion. What an unspeakable tragedy that so many other homes will have aborted that joy.

Welcome to the world, Trig Paxson Van Palin. Your very existence defies the Culture of Death and gives us all hope.

_____________________

See photos of Trig Palin and his proud parents here [from The Juneau Empire].

© All rights reserved, www.AlbertMohler.com

The Culture of the Congregation -- Celebrating Adoption

Posted: Friday, August 29, 2008 at 3:41 am ET

The concept of adoption is nearly universal.  In the classic sense it is the formal and legally recognized act of willingly receiving someone else's child as your own.  In contrast to temporary guardianship or foster arrangements, adoption is permanent.  Legally, adoption establishes a new identity for the child.  In many cases around the world, adoption can mean the difference between life and death.

In the New Testament, adoption serves as a primary analogy of salvation.  The sinner, who prior to faith in Christ is a rebel headed for destruction, is now adopted as a child of God. This new status is further defined as that of a joint-heir with Christ.  By grace, the rebel child of the enemy is adopted as a child of the King.  The former slave to sin is now a son or daughter of the heavenly Father.

As the Apostle Paul explains:

In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world.  But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God. [Galatians 4:3-7, esv]

Further:

So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. [Romans 8:12-17, esv]

In recent years, American Christians have seen a recovery of adoption as a living concept -- and as a focus of congregational celebration.

Many evangelical congregations actively encourage families to adopt and offer support, education, and encouragement for international adoptions.  This renewed interest among evangelicals attracted the attention of The Wall Street Journal.  Naomi Schaefer Riley explains that adoption is now a "hot topic in the evangelical community" as Christians understand adoption to be a sanctity-of-human-life issue.

The article cites my colleague Russell Moore as a direct authority on the issue:

Russell Moore, the dean of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., is the author of a forthcoming book called "Adopted for Life: The Priority of Adoption for Christian Families and Churches." A few years ago, Mr. Moore and his wife adopted two boys from Russia, and he notes that his church has posted a large map showing which countries member families have adopted children from. "In any given church," he notes, "you rarely see only one family who has adopted. . . . It becomes part of the culture of the congregation."

Given the vast number of at-risk orphans in the world -- now numbering in the millions -- this resurgence in adoption among American evangelicals should be a matter of public celebration.  In the United States, 127,000 children are considered "unadoptable," and many of these are racial minorities.  Shouldn't the adoption of these children be a priority for the church?  It would seem so, but politics and political correctness often complicate the rescue of vulnerable children.

As Naomi Schaefer Riley reports:

"There is much more openness to transracial adoption today," Ms. Rosati says. And Mr. Moore has been very vocal about this issue. Groups like the National Association of Black Social Workers have taken a strong stand against placing black children in the homes of white parents, a position that outrages Mr. Moore. He recently compared social workers who oppose transracial adoption to George Wallace. "Both are saying the same thing, 'Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.' And both pretend they're just being realistic about racial discrimination."

The command to "defend the orphan" (Isaiah 1:16-17) has always been vital to the Christian message, Mr. Moore tells me. One thing that distinguished early Christians from their pagan neighbors was their treatment of unwanted children. And adoption is also the literal manifestation of a metaphor that Christians use to describe themselves all the time. "Every one of us who follows Christ was adopted into an already existing family," says Mr. Moore.

Russell Moore has offered a clear and compelling basis for celebrating and encouraging adoption, and for refuting the lies of this age with the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is, after all, a Gospel of adoption.

For Christians, this is thus a matter of adoption by the adopted.  Such is the Kingdom of God.

When Conscience and Medical Practice Collide

Posted: Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 4:55 am ET

Should physicians and other healthcare professionals be required to perform procedures that violate their conscience?  Most states have adopted so-called "conscience clauses" that shield doctors and others from being required to perform abortions, euthanasia, and other procedures when these would violate the doctor's own moral commitments.

Now, this allowance for conscience is under attack.  Just last week, the California Supreme Court handed down a decision that denied a right for physicians who perform IVF procedures to claim a religious liberty right to deny those procedures to persons on the basis of sexual orientation.  The unanimous decision resets the whole equation in the nation's most populous state and sets the stage for similar reviews elsewhere.

Then, just days later, the Bush administration announced a new set of regulations that would deny federal funds to any hospital or medical service that does not allow healthcare professionals to "opt out" of procedures that violate conscience.  Given the controversy surrounding these proposed regulations, we can expect this issue to be thrust into the current presidential race -- and probably soon.

A revealing look into the thinking of those who want conscience clauses eliminated or severely curtailed is found in a recent op-ed column contributed to The Los Angeles Times.  In "When Religion and Healthcare Collide," Professor Richard P. Sloan of the Columbia University Medical Center argues against what he describes as a "disturbing trend" toward allowing doctors to exercise a right of conscience to opt out of certain procedures.

In his words, this disturbing trend is "an increasing willingness to allow the actions of individuals to disadvantage, and even endanger, others if those actions derive from religious faith."

Of course, there could be situations in which Dr. Sloan's logic would rightly apply.  For example, we would not want to allow an emergency room physician to deny emergency treatment to a threatened patient -- any patient.   We would not allow for a surgeon to refuse to perform a life-saving operation just because of the patient's sexual orientation.

If these were the situations that troubled Dr. Sloan, all persons of conscience would join in his call for action.  But, as you might suspect, these are not the situations that concern him.

To the contrary, Dr. Sloan is concerned with doctors who want to opt out of "legal medical procedures" that they cannot perform without violating religious conscience.  Lest we miss his point, he explicitly directs his concern toward the proposed Bush administration regulations that would allow medical professionals to opt out of procedures "including those associated with reproduction and terminal sedation."  In other words, including abortion and euthanasia.

Dr. Sloan laments the fact that "studies have shown that 14% of U.S. doctors, when confronted by possibly objectionable but legal medical treatments, not only would refuse to deliver such care but also would refuse to inform their patients about it or refer them to physicians who would deliver the care."  He estimates this means there are "about 40 million people who would receive substandard care from these physicians, who believe that their religious convictions are more important than the well-being of their patients."

The use of terms like "substandard care" and "possibly objectionable but legal" point to the essence of Dr. Sloan's radical argument.  "Substandard care" is here applied to mean the refusal to use any legal procedure another physician may perform under a similar situation.  Abortion, euthanasia ("terminal sedation") and other procedures are presented as "possibly objectionable but legal."

We must doubt that Dr. Sloan would apply his chosen criterion to the era of Nazi medicine, where, for example, the medical murder of "unworthy life" was legally sanctioned (and encouraged).  These medical murders were legal, but immoral - a point Dr. Sloan would almost certainly accept.  Nor, we can hope, would Dr. Sloan extend his argument to the involuntary sterilization of Americans on the basis of mental capacity or race.  This practice was once legal in the United States, but it is inherently immoral.

Nevertheless, Dr. Sloan argues that "our deference to religion in contemporary American society has allowed us to subordinate all other values. It has allowed us to routinely accept religiously motivated behaviors that we otherwise would have no reluctance to sanction and that, indeed, would be impermissible with any other justification."

Thus, "it's time to say 'enough,'" he argues.  "In the United States, we all are free to practice our religion as we see fit, as long as we do not interfere with the well-being of others by imposing our religious views on them. If physicians or other healthcare providers who have religious objections to legal medical treatments will not at a minimum inform their patients about those treatments and refer them to others who will deliver them, they should act in a way that is consistent with their convictions and the well-being of their patients and find other professions."

The virtue of Dr. Sloan's argument is its clarity.  There is no doubt where he stands.  He wants doctors who cannot perform these procedures in conscience, or at least to refer patients to other doctors who will, to get out of medicine and "find other professions."

This is a logic that leads to disaster.  Indeed, it is a logic I believe Dr. Sloan would be hard-pressed to accept in other contexts, with respect to other procedures.  Requiring medical professionals to violate their own moral convictions by coercing them to perform procedures they believe to be immoral is itself immoral, and these conscience clauses protect the religious liberty rights of all.

Without these protections of conscience, our world would be much less free -- and much more deadly.

---------------

Thanks to observant readers who corrected my reference to California as the nation's largest state, when I meant in terms of population, not area.  Interestingly, I heard only from those who identified themselves as Texans -- and not from Alaskans. I can only be reminded of the Texas tourism slogan, "Don't Mess with Texas."

From Mainline to Sideline -- The Death of Protestant America

Posted: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 4:03 am ET

Joseph Bottum remembers a time when America was painted in bold Protestant hues.  "America was Methodist, once upon a time--Methodist, or Baptist, or Presbyterian, or Congregationalist, or Episcopalian," he explains.  But, that was then, and this is now.

Now, Bottum suggests that the average American "would have trouble recalling the dogmas that once defined all the jarring sects, but their names remain at least half alive."

Bottum writes of this Protestant collapse in the August/September 2008 issue of First Things, one of the most influential intellectual journals of the day.  In "The Death of Protestant America: A Political Theory of the Protestant Mainline," Bottum offers a clever and insightful theory of mainline decline -- the collapse of liberal Protestantism as a movement and dominant cultural influence.

That dominance was once unquestioned.  As Bottum explains:

And yet, even while we may remember the names of the old denominations, we tend to forget that it all made a kind of sense, back in the day, and it came with a kind of order. The genteel Episcopalians, high on the hill, and the all-over Baptists, down by the river. Oh, and the innumerable independent Bible churches, tangled out across the prairie like brambles: Through most of the nation’s history, these endless divisions and ­revisions of Protestantism renounced one another and sermonized against one another. They squabbled, sneered, and fought. But they had something in common, for all that. Together they formed a vague but vast unity. Together they formed America.

Bottum then offers his political theory of the Protestant mainline.  America, he asserts, was really a Protestant nation from the start.  This Protestant identity, he argues further, was an "obvious fact."  Jews and Catholics were tolerated, but the central identity of the culture was Protestant.

The American concept of religious liberty was, he argues, actually about making space for intra-Protestant rivalries and was "essentially a Protestant idea."  The dominance of mainline Protestantism within the culture represented one leg of a "three-legged stool" that joined democracy and capitalism to establish civic order and national self-consciousness.  Protestantism provided the nation's narrative, he offers, along with a moral vocabulary.

Nevertheless, the mainline Protestant denominations began to implode in the 1960s.  In Bottum's analysis, this decline meant that the main stream of Protestantism began to run dry in the 1970s.  Further:

In truth, there are still plenty of Methodists around. Baptists and Presbyterians, too—Lutherans, Episcopalians, and all the rest; millions of believing Christians who remain serious and devout. For that matter, you can still find, ­soldiering on, some of the institutions they established in their Mainline glory days: the National Council of Churches, for instance, in its God Box up on New York City’s Riverside Drive, with the cornerstone laid, in a grand ceremony, by President Eisenhower in 1958. But those institutions are corpses, even if they don’t quite realize that they’re dead. The great confluence of Protestantism has dwindled to a trickle over the past thirty years, and the Great Church of America has come to an end.

And that leaves us in an odd situation, unlike any before. The death of the Mainline is the central historical fact of our time: the event that distinguishes the past several decades from every other ­period in American history. Almost every one of our current political and cultural oddities, our contradictions and obscurities, derives from this fact: The Mainline has lost the capacity to set, or even significantly influence, the national vocabulary or the national self-understanding.

Bottum then offers a statistical analysis wedded to his historical review.  The collapse of the Protestant mainline has been swift, steady, and self-inflicted.  These denominations embraced theological liberalism and adopted accommodationism as a cultural posture.  Bottum estimates that less than 8 percent of Americans are now members of "the central churches of the Protestant Mainline."

Accordingly:

Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran—the name hardly matters anymore. It’s true that if you dig through the conservative manifestos and broadsides of the past thirty years, you find one distressed cry after another, each bemoaning the particular path by which this or that denomination lost its intellectual and doctrinal distinctiveness.

In the course of his article, Bottum offers a sophisticated and compelling sociological and theological understanding of what happened to the churches of the Protestant Mainline as they lost their members and forfeited their influence.  He offers a lament that the American experiment is now robbed of a central support.

"We all have to worry about it, now," Bottum reflects.  "Without the political theory that depended on the existence of the Protestant Mainline, what does it mean to support the nation? What does it mean to criticize it? The American experiment has always needed what Alexis de ­Tocqueville called the undivided current, and now that current has finally run dry."

What can replace it?  Bottum suggests that neither Catholicism (with its "vast intellectual resources") nor Evangelicalism (unable to offer "a widely accepted moral rhetoric") can replace what America's Protestant identity once provided.

His argument is convincing and his analysis is well documented.  Furthermore, his concern for the nation's social cohesiveness is admirable.  Joseph Bottum is clearly on the right track with his "political theory of the Protestant Mainline."

Nevertheless, understanding a "theological theory" of liberal Protestantism's collapse is an even greater concern.  The health of the church is a far greater concern than the health of the nation.  The primary injury caused by mainline Protestant decline is not social but spiritual.  These denominations once fueled the great missionary movement that carried the Gospel to the ends of the earth.  Now, liberal Protestantism sees conversionist missions as an embarrassment.  Committed to a radical doctrinal relativism, these denominations have served as poster children for virtually every theological fad and liberal proposal imaginable.  Now, many of these denominations are involved in court fights to keep churches from leaving.  The stream has indeed run dry.

The "Death of Protestant America" Joseph Bottum describes must serve as a warning to Evangelicals.  There can be no doubt where theological revisionism and accommodationism will lead.  Why, then, would some argue that Evangelicalism should follow essentially the same path?  Can they not see that the liberal Protestant river has run dry?

__________________

In today's edition of "The Reading List" I review David Wells' important new book, The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-Seekers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World.

New God or No God? The Peril of Making God Plausible

Posted: Monday, August 25, 2008 at 4:41 am ET

What kind of god would be plausible in this postmodern age?  Taken by itself, that question represents the great divide between those who believe in the God of the Bible and those who see the need to reinvent a deity more acceptable to the modern mind.

After all, the answer to that question would reveal a great deal about the postmodern mind, and nothing about God himself.  Unless, that is, you believe that God is merely a philosophical concept, and not the self-existent, self-defining God of the Bible.

That distinction is apparent in A Plausible God by Mitchell Silver, a professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts in Boston.  The book's subtitle is "Secular Reflections on Liberal Jewish Theology," and Silver's work is an attempt to construct a concept of God that modern secular people will find plausible.  The book is directed to a Jewish readership, but the issues Silver raises and the arguments he proposes are precisely those found among many liberal Protestant theologians.  Most, however, are less candid and clear-minded as Professor Silver.

The key to understanding Silver's argument is his distinction between the "old God" of biblical theism and the "new God" of the secular philosophers.  Growing up as a secular thinker, Silver rejected belief in a personal God who created the world and now rules over it.  He saw those who believed in a personal and transcendent God -- a God who is objectively real -- as superstitious.

Yet, he observed that many people he thought to be intelligent thinkers did believe in God, and this fact perplexed him.  Then came the big realization that these intelligent people do believe in God, but not in a personal God who is objectively real.  Instead, they believe in a "new God."  This new God is the only God imaginable, he suggests, to secular moderns.

"My fundamental premise is that the modernist has only two options consistent with her modernism: new God or no God," he writes.  That sentence communicates a powerful insight with absolute clarity.  Belief in the old God, he argues, is simply too laden with impossible beliefs and immoral assumptions.

Indeed, one of Silver's stated purposes is to reveal just how little deity is associated with the new God, and in so doing he considers Protestant theologians such as Paul Tillich and Rudolph Bultmann.  As Silver rightly observes, the views of God represented by Tillich and Bultmann are not "substantially different" from atheism.  These theologians retained "references to the divine," but stripped theology of belief in a personal God.  He makes similar observations of Jurgen Moltmann's "theology of hope" and the works of the process theologians such as Charles Hartshorne.  What is rejected by these theologians, to one degree or another, is supernaturalism.

Such thinkers are theologians who are not theists, Silver reports.  Furthermore, the "God" of much popular belief is hardly more theistic.  "With all the particulars left unspecified," Silver asserts, "our public theism is probably a riot of equivocations in which there are many new-God beliefs among the rioters."

God is reduced to "deep feelings, fundamental values, basic attitudes, and humane hopes."  Many modern people, including both Jews and many who identify as Christians, have, as Rabbi Jonathan Gerard related, "merely lost faith in an older and unacceptable notion of God."

The new God is a philosophical concept that its proponents use to ground a potential for goodness in the world.  When believers in the new God speak of God in personal terms, they do so metaphorically.  One key insight in Silver's book is his argument that even secular people need to express gratitude in personal terms.  As he explains, "God-talk may be the only language adequate for the expression of certain emotions."  Speaking of a personal God in this sense is a "trope" or "just a manner of speaking."

The new God becomes "whatever there is in nature that makes good things possible."  But, lest we over-read this statement, Silver adds:  "God has no will, intentions, or desires."  In no sense is the new God a personal God.  This God is a principle, a concept; not a person.

The God of the Bible is dismissed as a rational impossibility.  Supernaturalism is itself ruled out of bounds within the closed box of the materialist worldview.  Many would go further and argue that the God of the Bible is immoral -- ethnocentric, violent, and oppressive.  But all this goes away with the new God, who is not a person, does not need to "exist," has no will or intentions, does not intervene in history, and is thus not morally accountable at all.  The new God is not an agent who acts, and thus cannot be an immoral agent.

The old God, the God of the Bible, the God described by Silver as the "God of our fathers," is simply not plausible.  Thus, as Silver eloquently suggests, modern secular people turn "from the God of our fathers to the God of our friends."

A Plausible God book is a brilliant exposition of the vast shift in thinking about God that marks so much modern theology -- Jewish and Christian.  Many theologians continue to speak of God without believing in the God of the Bible.  Those who are unaware that the "new God" of modern theology is not the "old God" of biblical theism may well be either deceived or confused.  Mitchell Silver's clarity is refreshing, even as it is tragic.

We are not called upon to make God plausible to the modern mind or the postmodern age.  The God of the Bible cannot be accommodated to the secularist assumptions of so many modern people.  The "God of our friends" fits easily into this modern secular framework and is easily received by a postmodern culture.  The God of our friends neither wills nor acts.

In other words, only "the God of our fathers" can save.

____________________

An interesting theological conversation at "On Faith" brings this new thinking about God to light in terms of what was at mid-century called "protest atheism."  In this video, Sally Quinn of The Washington Post interviews Rabbi Laszlo Berkowits.  Rabbi Berkowits rejects traditional theism (and divine omnipotence in particular) in light of his experience at Auschwitz.

In "The Reading List" today, I review Howard Gardner's new book, Five Minds for the Future.

Greeting the Future of the Family -- It's in the Cards

Posted: Friday, August 22, 2008 at 4:56 am ET

The greeting card features two male torsos in tuxedos. The message is clear -- Hallmark is ready to join the celebration of same-sex marriage.

According to the Associated Press, America's most prominent greeting card producer decided to roll out a line of same-sex greetings after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in May. The company had released a line of "coming out" cards last year.

As the Associated Press reports:

The language inside the cards is neutral, with no mention of wedding or marriage, making them also suitable for a commitment ceremony. Hallmark says the move is a response to consumer demand, not any political pressure.

"It's our goal to be as relevant as possible to as many people as we can," Hallmark spokeswoman Sarah Gronberg Kolell said.

The fact that Hallmark has decided to publish the cards is in some ways less interesting than that statement from the company's spokeswoman. When Sarah Gronberg Kolell asserts that Hallmark wants "to be as relevant as possible to as many people as we can" she clearly intends, even now, for the public to read certain limitations on that goal.

We can safely assume that the company is not to release a line of cards intended to celebrate polygamous marriages. There has been no shortage of media attention to these polygamous unions, but don't look for a new card picturing a man in a tuxedo surrounded by women in bridal gowns.

No, the decision to market the same-sex marriage celebration cards reveals some tipping point in the culture. The normalization of homosexuality and homosexual unions is significantly enhanced when a company like Hallmark joins the revolution.

"The fact that you have someone like Hallmark going into that niche shows it's growing and signals a trend," remarked Barbara Miller, a spokeswoman for the Greeting Card Association.

But same-sex marriage is not the only trend of note in this regard. Some greeting card companies now offer lines of cards announcing and celebrating divorce. Selected card lines for heterosexual couples are designed to cover both the married and the cohabitating. One company recently released a series of Valentines greetings for adulterous partners.

Historians are not likely to look to our greeting cards as the most important documentation of these times, but they are hardly irrelevant. These cards underline what this society has decided to celebrate, allow, and announce.

Hallmark is sending America a message with the release of these same-sex marriage cards. Perhaps it is high time to send a message back.

So . . . Why Did I Write This? The Delusion of Determinism

Posted: Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 4:48 am ET

The subversion of moral responsibility is one of the most significant developments of recent decades. Though this subversion was originally philosophical, more recent efforts have been based in biology and psychology. Various theorists have argued that our decisions and actions are determined by genetics, environmental factors, or other forces. Now, Scientific American is out with a report on a study linking determinism and moral responsibility.

The diverse theories of determinism propose that our choices and decisions are not an exercise of the will, but simply the inevitable outcome of factors outside our control. As Scientific American explains, determinists argue that "everything that happens is determined by what happened before -- our actions are inevitable consequences of the events leading up to the action."

In other words, free will doesn't exist. Used in this sense, free will means the exercise of authentic moral choice and agency. We choose to take one action rather than the other, and must then take responsibility for that choice.

This link between moral choice and moral responsibility is virtually instinctive to humans. As a matter of fact, it is basic to our understanding of what it means to be human. We hold each other responsible for actions and choices. But if all of our choices are illusory -- and everything is merely the "inevitable consequence" of something beyond our control, moral responsibility is an exercise in delusion.

Scientific American reports on a study performed by psychologists Kathleen Vohs and Jonathan Schooler. The psychologists found that individuals who were told that their moral choices were determined, rather than free, were also more likely to cheat on an experimental examination.

As Shaun Nichols reports:

The Western conception idea of free will seems bound up with our sense of moral responsibility, guilt for misdeads and pride in accomplishment. We hold ourselves responsible precisely when we think that our actions come from free will. In this light, it’s not surprising that people behave less morally as they become skeptical of free will. Further, the Vohs and Schooler result fits with the idea that people will behave less responsibly if they regard their actions as beyond their control. If I think that there’s no point in trying to be good, then I’m less likely to try.

Even if giving up on free will does have these deleterious effects, one might wonder how far they go. One question is whether the effects extend across the moral domain. Cheating in a psychology experiment doesn’t seem too terrible. Presumably the experiment didn’t also lead to a rash of criminal activity among those who read the anti-free will passage. Our moral revulsion at killing and hurting others is likely too strong to be dismantled by reflections about determinism. It might well turn out that other kinds of immoral behavior, like cheating in school, would be affected by the rejection of free will, however.

There are limitations to this kind of research, of course, but the report is both revealing and unsurprising. If we are not responsible for our actions, they why would people do the right thing? The most immediate result of such thinking is the subversion of moral accountability.

Of course, this pattern of thought also renders human existence irrational. How can we understand ourselves, our children, our spouses, our friends, or our neighbors if moral responsibility is undermined by determinism. Our legal system would completely collapse, as would the entire experience of relating to other human beings.

Shaun Nichols explains that "the Western conception of free will seems bound up with our sense of moral responsibility." That "Western conception" is a product of the Christian inheritance and the biblical worldview. The Bible clearly presents human beings as morally responsible. Christians of virtually all theological traditions -- including Reformed theology, Arminianism, and Catholicism -- affirm moral and spiritual responsibility and the authenticity of the experience of choice.

As a matter of fact, this capacity and accountability is rooted in the biblical concept of the imago Dei -- the image of God. Our Creator made us as moral creatures and planted within us the capacity of conscience. All this refutes the concept of moral determinism.

In its most modern forms, determinism is a product of naturalism -- the belief that everything must be explained in purely natural terms. Naturalism explains the human mind (including the experience of moral choice) as a matter of chemical reactions in the brain, and nothing more.

Determinism is implied by naturalism and relieves human beings of moral responsibility. There is no moral revolt against the Creator, no Fall, and no need for the Gospel. This subversion of moral responsibility is both a delusion and a trap. And, as the Scientific American report indicates, even those who say they believe in moral determinism are unable to live consistently with this assumption. We know we are responsible.

Backtrack to Saddleback -- Secularists Not Pleased

Posted: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 at 4:58 am ET

Suffice it to say that I was not very hopeful about the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency held at the California megachurch last Saturday night. In the first place, I am not really comfortable with the idea of hosting such a politically charged event in a church. No matter how the event is planned and projected, once the event starts it can turn into something far more politically volatile than planned. That is a truth I have learned by hard experience.

Secondly, the advance publicity about the event touted it as a platform for a kind of "third way" movement that would avoid the serious worldview issues and would instead limit the conversation to vague generalities. A good many media reports suggested that Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain would be asked only "soft" questions that would demonstrate common ground and agreement between the candidates. That would be an exercise in wasted time and a squandered opportunity.

Thirdly, I was concerned that Pastor Rick Warren, the moderator of the event, would be reduced by the format to the role of a therapist or spiritual guru. Like all of us, Rick Warren likes to be liked, and being liked by two of the most famous political figures in the world is quite an achievement. Yet, if Rick Warren was to fulfill his role in moderating and leading these conversations, he would have to risk being liked a bit less. Maybe even a lot less.

With the press pushing the event as a "new face" for American evangelicals, I was not overly hopeful. Given the hype, I was positively unhopeful. But . . . the event turned to be quite worthwhile after all. I still have deep reservations about identifying the event so closely with a church, but the conversations really did get to urgently important and controversial issues, and Pastor Rick Warren handled the conversations with aplomb, demonstrating both civility and candor.

Pastor Warren's questions ranged from the deeply personal to the overtly controversial. He often asked questions that made it difficult for the candidates to avoid giving direct and revealing answers. He let the candidates speak for themselves.

He asked about their greatest moral failure. Obama spoke of drug and alcohol use as a young person. McCain referred directly to the failure of his first marriage. When asked about the reality of evil, the two candidates revealed very different approaches. When asked about abortion and same-sex marriage, a great chasm appeared between the candidates. Obama declared his complete support for the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion on demand. When asked, "at what point does a baby get human rights?" Obama said that the question "is above my pay grade." That is a particularly evasive answer, because the President of the United States must frame policies that are predicated on some assumption of when a human being, born or unborn, deserves the full protection of the law.

On same-sex marriage, Sen. Obama attempted to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, but he made clear that he would actively oppose any constitutional amendment designed to protect that definition, and he gave full support to civil unions. He suggested that the matter should be left to the states, but he has opposed Proposition 8 on the California ballot -- a citizen-initiated referendum that would define marriage as a heterosexual union.

Sen. McCain offered more succinct answers. When asked the question about when a baby gets human rights, McCain said, "at conception." He pledged to be a pro-life president and he opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage. The worldview differences between the two men were made clear, but the conversations were calm, respectful, and unhurried.

In other words, something of genuine significance happened at the Saddleback Civil Forum. Millions watched the event on CNN and the event set the stage for many lively conversations to follow.

But, not everyone is pleased. Writing in the editorial pages of USA Today, columnist DeWayne Wickham complained that the event was too overtly Christian. "What we need in the White House is a devout believer in this nation's democratic principles, not the vicar of Saddleback," he asserted.

The "vicar of Saddleback?" Neither of these candidates is running for that office. That comment reveals more about DeWayne Wickham's commitment to a secularist vision of politics than about the Saddleback event.

He wrote:

As his interviews made clear . . . Warren's doublespeak cloaked an effort to get the candidates to take a stand on many of those non-negotiable issues, which he apparently still considers matters of religious faith — and qualification for public office. His questions about their "worldview" on Christianity, abortion and the definition of marriage reflected not so much a civil forum as a push for a theocratic presidency, one that would be deeply influenced by Warren's evangelism.

Sound the alarm -- "a theocratic presidency?" That hyperventilation is remarkable. Anyone who talks about Obama or McCain in terms of a "theocratic presidency" has been reading too much science fiction in the secularist apocalypse genre. Furthermore, Rick Warren is no theocrat.

Wickham continued:

Just as worrisome for me was his call for McCain and Obama to confess their "greatest moral failure." That's a pretty far-reaching inquiry that would be better answered in a pastor's study than on national TV — unless, of course, the purpose is political persuasion, not personal salvation. Even so, Obama said it was his drug and alcohol use during his youth. McCain said it was the failure of his first marriage.

Wickham's real issue here is probably not the question itself at all. It's hard to imagine his umbrage if Lesley Stahl or Bill Moyers asked that question of the candidates. No, the real issue here is the setting. But, then again, Wickham went on to argue that it is a good thing that many famous presidents of the past did not have to answer that question.

Finally, Wickham argued:

The president's job is not to rid the world of the Bible's Beelzebub but rather the worldly devils that afflict us. It is to properly handle the difficult issues of war and peace, to manage the domestic affairs of this great melting pot, and to ensure this country's longstanding guarantee of religious freedom — and protect its commitment to a secular government. CNN did these causes a great disservice by giving a leader of just one of this nation's religious faiths a platform to influence the outcome of the coming presidential election.

There is much in that paragraph to unpack, but the central issue here is Wickham's definition of a "secular government." The Saddleback Civil Forum revealed once again that government must necessarily deal with many decidedly "unsecular" questions. These two candidates were not forced into this conversation, they embraced it. Once there, they had to answer the questions.

Neither candidate is seeking to be the new vicar of Saddleback. Instead, both are running for the highest political office in the land. As both candidates were reminded Saturday night, that means there are certain questions you just can't duck.

_________________________

We discussed the Saddleback Civil Forum on Monday's edition of The Albert Mohler Program [listen here]. A CNN transcript of the Saddleback event is available here.