Woodrow Wilson and Progressivism

I watched a weekend edition of Glenn Beck about the issue of progressivism and found the discussion most interesting. That led me to read some articles on-line that deal with Wilson and his concept of progressivism. One of the issues caught my attention particularly. It had to do with the view of progressives and the Constitution. One blogger, G. Stolyarov II wrote the following:

Wilson's progressivism challenged the very construction of the Constitution itself. Wilson considered the Constitution to be based on the old Newtonian scientific paradigm-whereby the Framers are alleged to have seen the government as "mechanical" and subjecting it to pre-planned checks and balances. But Wilson wished to base government on the principles of Darwin rather than those of Newton; he saw government as a "living thing" and believed that "no living thing can have its organs offset against each other as checks and live." He wanted to replace the system of checks and balances with a system of cooperation among the branches of government.

Progressives believe that they must fundamentally change government and the way it operates. Part of the rationale behind this is that humankind is growing, changing, becoming closer to perfection. It is this idea that intrigued me. Largely because it has a theological basis. One of the primary differences between a theology based upon progressive principles and a theology based upon the Bible as the Word of God is that the Bible teaches that mankind is a sinner and that everyone sins. Even within the Holiness movement, which teaches that sanctification "perfects" believers, there is a real debate about whether we are perfected in this life or in the next. Progressive theology believes that the development of human beings is largely a task given to us. We must act holy (i.e. acts of service, compassion, kindness) and that human beings have the capacity to become greater, more closely aligned with perfect action, even though they are hopelessly entwined in their sins. In other words, progressive theology believes we are getting better as humans and more conservative theology says that humanity is the same today as it was in Biblical times.
One of the ways this has been played out is in the theology of the second coming. There used to be a popular idea called, "post-millennialism." In this theology, the world was going to get better and better, more and more Christian, until the gospel would reach and impact every person and, at that moment, Jesus would return to rule over a Christian world. You can still see some vestiges of this in pre-millennial thought when it talks about reaching the whole world (usually as an appeal for funds to support their TV ministry) before Jesus can return. Another way it comes up is in the actions of human beings. For instance, the recreating of Israel as a nation is a key issue, the Battle of Armageddon has to take place in a certain way with certain nations in conflict, etc. All these actions are initiated by human beings and they make God's will come about. By the way, no one believes in post-millennialism any more. The world is not getting better. Sin has not changed. The church still has a huge mission.
Another way the discussion intrigued me was the way Progressives dismiss the Constitution because it is an old document. Progressives look to the future not the past for understanding. This is the same argument that is brought against the Bible. It is 2,000 years old. What does it have to say to a modern world? As a Practical Theologian, I believe that the church gets itself in trouble when it either leaves the Bible out of its practice or leaves the current actions of the Holy Spirit out of the equation. Both are important for how we understand the will of God. Fortunately, God has determined that he will not ask us to do the will of God while violating the word of God. Both are in harmony. For those who leave the Bible behind, there is a high price to pay for that kind of "progressivism." It sounds as if we are progressing but in reality we are leaving behind truth as it has been revealed. Fundamentally, that is something I cannot accept either politically or theologically. I still believe it is hard to improve on the Constitution and the documents of the Founding Fathers (though they can be added to rather than thrown out) and that it is hard to improve on the Word of God (though our witness and testimony can add to its power and understanding).

The Rule of Faith

I've been reading some early church history for a book idea. One of those early church fathers that I have been reading is Tertullian (160-c. 220). Tertullian was from North Africa, which at the time was a major center of Christian thought and church growth. He is considered the first of the "Latin Fathers" (early church leaders and thinkers who wrote in Latin rather than Greek - the tongue of the New Testament). It was Tertullian that helped to develop the Rule of Faith. What is the Rule of Faith? Well, that is what this column is about.
The Rule of Faith (regula fidei) was the development of what the church would later call creeds. It was a statement of Christian belief, theology, and doctrine that became the norm against which heresies were then judged (Readings in Christian Thought by Hugh T. Kerr, p. 38-39). When Christians were tempted to go down a heretical doctrinal road, it was the Rule of Faith that prevented them from taking the road of falsehood. Tertullian was the first to really consider and develop the importance of such a guiding statement. Actually, it may be better to let Tertullian express this in his own words.
"The Rule of Faith (apostolic tradition; creed) - to state here and now what we maintain - is of course that by which we believe that there is but one God, who is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced everything from nothing through his Word, sent forth before all things; that this Word is called his Son, and in the Name of God was seen in divers ways by the patriarchs, was ever heard in the prophets and finally was brought down by the Spirit and Power of God the Gather into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in here womb, was born of her and lived as Jesus Christ; who thereafter proclaimed a new law and a new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles, was crucified, on the third day rose again, was caught up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of the Father; that he sent in his place the power of the Holy Spirit to guide believers; that he will come with glory to take the saints up into the fruition of the life eternal and the heavenly promises and to judge the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both good and evil with the restoration of their flesh." (Readings, Kerr, p. 41)

Now, it should be noted that I come from a non-creedal tradition that has not used the creeds as part of its liturgy or discipleship process. However, my tradition is also deeply concerned about the issues of doctrine and theology. That provides and interesting and somewhat conflicting experience. How do you talk about the doctrine of the church and the doctrine of the early church without talking and teaching the creeds (Rule of Faith)? As a matter of fact, the creeds and the Rule of Faith were really designed to prevent the church from teaching wrong doctrine adn theology (heresy). You would think that we would embrace the creeds rather than create some distance between us and them. However, the reason that my tradition has been hesitant to embrace the creeds as a part of our worship really has to do with the fact that we believe the Bible should speak for itself. Reducing the teaching of scripture to a statement, however detailed, should not substitute for the study of the Word itself. With this I heartily agree. However, I understand the importance of the Rule of Faith.
If we are disconnected from the teaching of the apostles and the early church fathers, we are in danger of preaching and teaching things that are not a part of the church's teachings. If we are distanced in any way from the teaching of the Word we can be in grave danger of teaching tradition rather than the Word. What is the solution? To recognize that the Rule of Faith is different from the use of creeds in worship. The Rule of Faith is an appropriate study of the teaching and understanding of the early church, including the teachings of the New Testament writers. As with anything, it is the moderation of using the Rule of Faith that is crucial. The Rule of Faith dare not substitute for the Word but it may help explain the Word. After all, the Holy Spirit was working in the early church as well as working in the Church today.

Arguing with Atheists

Brit Hume from FoxNews caused quite a stir last Sunday when, in a segment about Tiger Woods future, he suggested that Tiger needed to turn to the Christian faith for the forgiveness he so sorely needs. It set off quite a firestorm of anti-religious comments from around the Net and the TV. It is so rare to hear someone in the media talk about Jesus Christ in any way that is not disparaging that I found it refreshing and amazing. Tonight, I went on YouTube to see how others were reacting and found a site called "Atheist Media Blog" that posted it. As you might imagine, the comments were quite "colorful." The language was beyond salty and the comments nearly universally negative toward faith, belief, God, and Christianity in particular. So, I spent about an hour chatting with those who responded. As a result, I learned some things that might be helpful to many of us. Here are a few:

1. People were angry at Christianity because it had failed them. One guy talked about getting hooked on cocaine through his youth group. Several relayed the issue of pedophilia priests or TV evangelist moral failures. To them, this discredited the message of Jesus. I guess the old adage is still true, "Don't tell me what you believe, show me."
2. We are an angry society, polarized along conservative and liberal lines. Some even called Hume a fundamentalist, revealing by this that any religious belief that is taken seriously is fundamentalist, narrow and bigoted. While this is sad to hear and, on the face of it false, it is a prevailing thought among many who have not been exposed to real Christianity or a true, practicing believer. Most have only seen organized religion and the falsehood of those who believe but do not live.
   
3. Hume made a blunder in his analysis, comparing the values of Christianity and its theology of forgiveness to Buddhism (which he suspected was Tiger's religious upbringing, based on his Mother's religious affiliation) which Hume thought offered little in terms of forgiveness. His advice to have Woods turn to a Christian faith were well placed, but he could have left out the Buddhist comparison. It became grist for the gristmill on the blogs.
4. Many seemed surprised that anyone, let alone a newsman, let alone on a Sunday Political Forum would choose such a venue to espouse a religious conviction. I found that argument astounding and suggested that offering advice was the gruel of political opinion forums and that Hume was exercising a perfectly valid idea for such a program. While there were some reasoned replies, most simply said, "Oh yea, well Jesus Christ can . . ." You get the picture.
5. I was not the only Christian responding. However, most could not offer a reason for their belief. They ended up saying, "Oh yea, well Jesus Christ can . . ." Well, you get the picture. They had good intentions but little to offer to further the conversation.

I think believers still have a responsibility to engage the culture. It is not always easy nor is it always productive. However, if we do engage, we have to offer more than platitudes and zingy one liners. Paul reasoned with the Stoics in Athens and offered an argument for the reality of Jesus Christ. In this ever increasing secularized soceity, we had better find a way to do the same.

Preparing for the Sabbath

Tomorrow is Sunday. How am I preparing for the Sabbath? The same way most everyone else does. I have done little to nothing to prepare! In North American culture, the major preparation for Sunday worship is getting up and getting dressed; driving to the church; sitting down in the pew; being there. In our culture, it is not the responsibility of the parishioner to prepare for worship but it is the task of the church to get me ready to worship. How does the church prepare me? Well, most of it is the task of the worship leaders. Whoever starts the service or greets me at the door has as much to do with my preparing for church as I do. Preparing is akin to motivating. If you wonder why Joel Osteen is so popular while his sermons are pop psychology rather than biblical depth, it is because he motivates. He is upbeat, excited, and engaging. He is encouraging others to worship.
The tragedy of all of this is that it is not the task of the leader to either motivate or prepare the parishioner for worship. That, my friends, is up to you. You are the one with the relationship. You are the one with the need to worship and draw close to God. Imagine someone saying to you, "Do you love your wife? Good, then she should motivate you to come and talk to her." I don't think that would go over well on Valentine's Day or her birthday. No, each of us has a responsibility to prepare to come into the presence of the Lord. The High Priest used to go through an elaborate ritual of washing and dressing before going into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. The OT worshiper would have to go through a whole ritual of preparation for their offering before actually sacrificing the animal. Those journeying to Jerusalem for worship would sing the Psalms on the way. In the NT the church would gather, eat, pray, sing, and then get down to worship. When Paul and Silas were stuck in prison they prepared for the earthquake by singing and worshiping before the Lord.
Preparing is not the function of the worship leader, pastor, or church musician. Preparation is up to you and me before we get to church on Sunday. While I was in Tanzania in November, the participants in the conference attended some Tanzanian Lutheran Churches. Since there are few folks who own cars in Tanzania, most walked to church. In one case, over 300 people walked an hour up Mt. Kilimanjaro to attend a worship service. The walking was part of the worship. It was preparation.
So, tomorrow (or in preparation for the next Sabbath day coming up) make sure you do something to get ready for worship. Read a devotional; spend a few minutes in prayer; have some quiet time; read the scriptures early on the Lord's Day. Preparation is all up to you. Everything else is up to the Holy Spirit. Be prepared.