Tsunami of Stupidity

Several months ago I made a post titled "Things Actually Said In A 12th Grade English Class," in which I described an informal debate I had with three high school students who adamantly defended the practice of abortion. Now several months later, in that same class, one of the students who was most adamant in defending a woman's "right to choose" (that is to choose to kill an unborn child) almost left the room in protest as we watched the opening scene of Amazing Grace where an injured horse is being whipped. "I can't watch this! I can't watch this!" said the student. The sight of an injured horse is appalling to this student, but the thought (maybe the sight would change perspective) of stabbing an unborn baby to death with sharp instruments is perfectly tolerable. I know I'm speaking of a more-thoughtless-than-normal high school student--and maybe most of us at some point fell into the intellectual paralysis that often comes with adolescence--but the disturbing thing is that this student articulates very clearly the perspective of many adults. That bumper sticker that says, "Save the Whales and Kill the Babies" was inspired by just such people.

When adults with this quality of thinking and character team up to run for office (or vote people into office) or run schools or businesses, it's like a Tsunami of stupidity crashing through American society. The big question is whether or not the traditional structures of reason and morality will be strong enough to stand in the wake of such a wave.

Response to Mormon Comment

The initial comment by "arringtonzoo" to my last post on Arminian security really struck a chord, so I'm compelled to give my response on the main page.
_____________________________________________________________________

arringtonzoo said...

I really liked this entry Mike. Good thoughts. Question for you though. According your following quote, "It definitely doesn't seem like God would string someone along, giving him a passionate desire for the gospel, empowering him to live the Christian life, experiencing conviction of sin and repentance, and then condemn the person at the end." Would you say that it is possible then, in your mind, that a Mormon (and one who remains true to the LDS faith) could be saved? And if your answer is yes then how is it that one who is saved according to the grace of Jesus Christ is not a Christian? (Referring to the popularly held belief by many Christians that Mormons are not Christian). And if your answer is no, then how do you explain your above comment? I cannot speak for all members of my faith but I can speak for myself and I can see it in others. I have a passionate desire for the gospel. I have been empowered to live the Christian life. I have been convicted of my sins and repented, and do so continually! I recognize the grace of my Savior as the only means by which I can be saved in the Kingdom of God. Tell me, how is it I am not a Christian? Tell me also, who was given the authority to make that judgment call? It truly saddens me. I need no one, no one, to tell me that I am a Christian. I know what I am.
4:20 PM

Mike Mitchell said...

You raise a number of important questions. I'll try to address them one by one.

The first question is "How is it that one who is saved according to the grace of Jesus Christ is not a Christian?" This raises a general question Christians consider and debate often: can those who are not professing Christians be saved if they die without becoming a Christian?

One non-negotiable point in genuine Christianity is that there is no way for any person on earth to be made right with God except through Christ. However, I do not believe it necessarily follows from that fact that all people who die without becoming a Christian are automatically condemned. Maybe (and I'm only speculating) God works in the transitionary process from this world to the next so that each ignorant person is given an opportunity to hear and accept the reality of Christ? This would make a lot of sense in the case of people who have lived their entire life span in parts of the world where they've never heard of Christ. But ultimately only God knows the way this does and doesn't happen, and those to whom it happens. But if someone who does not live the Christian life is, in the end, saved by the grace of Christ in some unconventional, mysterious way, that doesn't change the fact that the person did not (maybe never had the opportunity to) live a Christian life.

The other question you raise is, how can Christians say that Mormons are not Christians when so many Mormons have "a passionate desire for the gospel" and are empowered to live the Christian life and have have been convicted of sin and repented?

In response to this, it's hard to know where to start. The first thing that comes to mind for me is the question of why Mormons today would ever want to be thought of as Christian? Mormonism is founded on the idea that all of Christianity fell away--"apostasized"--around the 2nd century, and for the next 1700 years or so all that went under the name Christianity (with the exception of a few rare and isolated individuals) was apostate and evil, worshiping God with their lips, but with their hearts far from Him. The Mormon Prophet Seer and Revelator, John Taylor, said the Roman Catholic Church was the whore of Babylon and the Protestants were its "lewd daughters." So why would you ever want to be numbered with us anyway?

To your point about being a Christian because you have a passionate desire for the gospel, everything hinges on what you mean by that word, "gospel."

If I were to dream up some religious doctrine that said that God Almighty was once a man—that he began his existence as a human being and developed into God, and that all human beings were in the midst of the same process, and that if we obey that former-man-now-God person as he sends us commands through chosen prophets, that we too would be able to become a God and create and populate our own planet—if I were to dream this up and then apply the word “gospel” to it, and say emphatically that those who believe it have a passionate desire for the “gospel”—that would not make those people Christians. When you say you have a passionate desire for the gospel, that gospel is no more Christian than it would be if someone applied the word “gospel” to the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism or the Five Pillars of Islam.

Likewise, when you say you’ve been empowered to live the Christian life, the life you’re talking about centers on temple endowments, temple marriages, baptisms for the dead, dietary laws, obedience to the President of the LDS Church, etc. and none of these are Christian practices. None of these are aspects of the Christian life.

How can this be more clear: Joseph Smith taught that God is an evolved human being; Isaiah (and every other Biblical prophet/writer who addressed the issue) taught that God is infinite and unchanging—that He is eternally constant in strength, power, goodness, etc. They cannot both be right. And there are many other colossally important doctrines that are equally contrary between Christianity and Mormonism. I could go on.

Simply using Jesus' name and borrowing terminology from those who follow Him does not make someone Christian. Jehovah’s Witnesses recognize the existence of Jesus; they are not Christians. Muslims recognize the existence of Jesus; they are not Christians. It is what we believe about Jesus and how that belief affects our behavior that makes us Christians—and the litmus test for this is how consistent our beliefs and practices are with the Bible, and secondly with 2000 years of Christian history.

Most Mormons I’ve met are people with high moral standards, most of whom I would trust to babysit my kids or manage my bank account. But they are not Christians! Now whether or not all who are not Christians in this life will be eternally separated from Christ is for Christ alone to decide.

But I have to say one more thing before leaving this post. The “gospel” the Salt-Lake-based Mormons are passionate about is not only inconsistent with the gospel of Christ, but with the gospel of Joseph Smith as well. It’s extremely hard to describe the exasperation I feel when I hear upstanding Mormons express scorn and disgust at those nasty, filthy, pedophiliac polygamists out in Texas who have recently been arrested. And yet those same Mormons will swell with pride and reverence at the mention of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young—whose lifestyles were a thousand times closer to those Texas polygamists than to that of President Hinckley or President Monson.

My wife recently had a baby. Once when visiting the gynecologist’s office in Provo with her for a check up, I saw in the lobby a beautiful painting of Joseph Smith sitting on the side of a bed in which a woman (presumably Emma) is lying holding one infant while Joseph holds another. It’s a tremendously tender, moving scene, evoking strong emotions for family and parenthood. But the one question I couldn't get out of my mind was, “Which wife was that?!” It’s documented that he married thirty-three women, and others are suspected but lack documentation. To be disgusted with the Texas polygamists is to be disgusted with Joseph Smith. Those of us who know much about Mormonism know that those who have followed Joseph Smith with integrity have recently been arrested in Texas or are living in Colorado City or Centennial Park Arizona—still practicing polygamy, still hating blacks, still at odds with the U.S. government—just like the early prophets of the LDS Church.

Lastly, you asked about authority. To cut to the chase, just read Paul’s short letter to the Colossians in the New Testament. There’s the ultimate Christian declaration on authority (as is the book of Hebrews). If there were no other available books in the Bible, I can't fathom how anyone who accepts the Bible as Scripture could remain Mormon after reading Colossians.

Please don’t mistake my frustration for arrogance or meanness. I want only to speak the truth in love, which demands honesty and candor.

MM

Arminian Security

A wise Christian brother of mine and I often spar over the Calvinism/Arminianism debate, and I thought I'd share a response I recently gave on a deterministic view of salvation. My first rendetion of the fictional dialogue was a little over simplistic, so I added in some acknowledged insight given by my debate partner. The added insight is given in blue:
____________________________________________________________________________

Alright, in light of what you said last night, here's a new and improved and less perceivablly-though-not-actually-strawmanish fictional dialogue. Let me know if you think this is any better:

My problems/perspective with Calvinism can be summed up in this imaginary conversation between a nonbeliever and a Calvinist:

NB: I don’t know much about Christianity, but I’m interested. I’ve always thought intuitively that there’s something after death and that we’ll be held accountable in some way for the decisions we make while alive. What’s the Christian perspective on the after life?

C: The Christian view is that there is Heaven and Hell; Heaven is the place where we are eternally united with God, where we will live the life He intends for us in infinite love and fulfillment. Hell is a place of eternal separation from God, where we experience the punishment we rightly deserve for our sins.

NB: What’s the Christian view on who goes to either place?

C: Well, there’s the elect and the non-elect. God has predetermined the number of all people who will be in Heaven and Hell before the beginning of time, and we have nothing to do with it. His call is immutable and irrevocable.

NB: So, either we’re elect or we’re not? If we’re elect we can’t resist His call, and if we’re non-elect, it doesn’t matter what we think of God or how badly we want Him, we’re going to Hell and there’s no hope for salvation?

C: Yes, although it is important to keep in mind that the existential factors of a person's inner desires for God and the fruits of the Holy Spirit in his life are themselves evidences of election. It wouldn't make any sense for God to move in a person's life so that he lives in obedience to the gospel if that person is not one of the elect.

NB: But really no matter what you do or say, or what I do or say, in the end, you and I are either elect or non-elect, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it?

C: Yes

This clarification makes a little more sense out of the issue for me, but it is still no guarantee. This is why I'm so struck by the irony that the one thing Calvinists so often accuse Arminians of (thinking our salvation is uncertain) is one of the things that most trouble Arminians about Calvinism. If I believed in deterministic soteriology, I could never be completely certain about my salvation. It definitely doesn't seem like God would string someone along, giving him a passionate desire for the gospel, empowering him to live the Christian life, experiencing conviction of sin and repentance, and then condemn the person at the end. But then again it also doesn't seem like there could be some people God would intentionally choose not to save. If his ways are higher than ours when it comes to determinism, whose to say he doesn't cause some non elect to live the Christian life and then withhold his mercy in the end? If I embraced determinism, the most I could say is that I'm 95% sure I'm one of the elect, but I won't know for completely sure until after death when I find out God's ultimate judgement.

From the Arminian perspective on the other hand, I'm completely sure of my salvation, because I know that God wants all people to be saved and freely offers his grace to all who want to surrender to Him. Because God is faithful (not that there could be any disagreement on that point), I never have to worry He'll get tired of me or decide--regardless of any choices I make--that he doesn't want to elect me, and so condemn me.

Also, while I do definitely believe it's possible for people to walk away from God (as I think is clear from passages like Heb. 6), and I do believe the choice of a person to accept God's grace is one He allows us all to make in a genuinely free, undetermined way, the freedom is in the beginning of the process--and even then is likely one small point in the midst of mountain of other things that are determined--but not so much toward the end. What I mean is that our decisions form us; they have a trajectory which, over time, can condition us to the point where we are no longer free to choose.

For example, I can remember walking around my college campus wrestling with the decision of whether or not to ask Leslie to marry me. I thought long and hard about it. It was definitely something I could have chosen not to do. But since I did make that choice, now 12 years in the future, not being married to her is not a choice, and not for any practical or logistical reasons, but because the love I have experienced in our relationship has so conditioned me that I could not now be in my right mind and choose not to be her husband. Some might say not being married to her would be a "psychological impossibility," just as it would be for one of us to throw one of our kids off a cliff. That's just not a choice we would ever make, because it's so contrary to the character God has formed in us.

I think it works in a similar way with God. When Christ calls his first disciples, certainly they had a choice to follow or to stay. (No doubt Judas had a choice in the betrayal or else Jesus would not have said it would have been better for him not to have been born). But over time, those who genuinely chose to surrender to Him were changed by Him in such a way that they could not do otherwise. I think this is a big factor in Peter's response to Christ's asking his disciples if they were going to leave in John 6: "Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

MM