Touching on Schwager’s View of the Atonement

Peter Leithart wrote a short post on Schwager’s view of the atonement (which borrows from Girard’s work on mimetic desire). Leithart takes issue with Schwager’s assertion that grace and judgment are not “alternative possibilities within one single appeal;” the “appeal” being Jesus’s free offer of pure grace. Leithart notes that, “Jesus begins His ministry announcing judgment. He does issue an invitation to all to enter His Father’s kingdom and to join the feast, but that entry requires repentance.” Agreed. I’d like to say a bit more though. Here’s a lengthier section of Schwager:

Whereas the preaching of the prophets contains an alternative (‘if you repent, you will find grace; if not, the judgment will be upon you’), the message of Jesus initially disregards the readiness to repent or the hard heartedness of the sinner and consequently at this level excludes the alternative ‘of rejection for not repenting.’ Preceding, and at first independent of, the actual human decision, it offers to oppressed humankind the pure mercy of God. If, nevertheless, it is a call to decision…, then the pure offer of grace must be clearly distinguished from an arbitrary offer. It does not presuppose conversion, but wants to awaken it, and where the offer of pure grace is rejected a person falls prey to all the consequences of his or her own decision. With Jesus, grace and judgment are not two alternative possibilities within one single appeal; the predominance of grace is shown by the fact that the offer of grace takes place in advance of human choice. The problematic of judgment, on the contrary, emerges from the other side, from the human decision actually made. In the framework of the message of Jesus, the judgment sayings can therefore be taken seriously – without any weakening of the salvation sayings – only if they are related to a second situation of proclamation, which is distinguished from the first by the human rejection of the offer of salvation that is given without prerequisites. The two situations are … opposed to each other not as offer and refusal of the offer. The transition to the second situation is not made by Jesus, but it results from the reaction of his hearers. Jesus only makes clear the theological consequences of their decision. (pp. 55-56) [online source here]

In short, Schwager is suggesting declaring – logically & sequentially, mind you – that Jesus’s proclamation of grace was prior to Jesus’s proclamation of judgment, and that his proclamation of judgment was only in response to the peoples’ rejection of his offer of grace.

First, I’m not sure how this can be known, certainly not to the extent that leads to an assertion. But more importantly, Schwager’s motivation for advancing this view should be called into question. On the face of it, this appears to be an attempt to get Jesus off the hook for pronouncing judgment apart from (and prior to) a rejection of grace. Schwager stops short of suggesting that Jesus cannot pronounce judgment until and unless his grace has been rejected, but this view has nonetheless been inferred by emerging church types, some of whom consider themselves ‘Girardian.’ The dichotomy between these two proclamations of Jesus (grace and judgment) is at least partly semantic, making disparate something which was intended to be straightforward. As Leithart noted in his post, “Even before Jesus, John says that the axe is already laid at the foot of the tree.”

Today, Any Word can be a Verb

Most individuals, I suspect, don’t think much about the use of ordinary language; of cliches, colloquialisms, neologisms, buzzwords (which is a newer word itself), and the like. But even more so, we tend not to think about verbs which were once nouns; words which previously did not convey action whatsoever, but now have multiple parts of speech depending on their usage. Well, now you can think about it, because Anthony Gardner has written an informative, fascinating article titled, “You’ve been verbed.”

John Winthrop on Moral Liberty

From Winthrop‘s “little speech” on liberty:

For the other point concerning liberty, I observe a great mistake in the country about that. There is a twofold liberty, natural (I mean as our nature is now corrupt) and civil or federal. The first is common to man with beasts and other creatures. By this, man, as he stands in relation to man simply, hath liberty to do what he lists; it is a liberty to evil as well as to good. This liberty is incompatible and inconsistent with authority and cannot endure the least restraint of the most just authority. The exercise and maintaining of this liberty makes men grow more evil and in time to be worse than brute beasts: omnes sumus licentia deteriores. This is that great enemy of truth and peace, that wild beast, which all of the ordinances of God are bent against, to restrain and subdue it. The other kind of liberty I call civil or federal; it may also be termed moral, in reference to the covenant between God and man, in the moral law, and the politic covenants and constitutions amongst men themselves. This liberty is the proper end and object of authority and cannot subsist without it; and it is a liberty to that only which is good, just, and honest. This liberty you are to stand for, with the hazard (not only of your goods, but) of your lives, if need be. Whatsoever crosseth this is not authority but a distemper thereof. This liberty is maintained and exercised in a way of subjection to authority; it is of the same kind of liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.

Trueman on the New Left ‘Mumbo Jumbo’

A hearty ‘amen’ goes to this post by Carl Trueman about the New Left’s tactic of disenfranchisement. Trueman argues that by redefining terms, the New Left have also redefined “basic categories of personal identity into species of Gnostic knowledge on which only the illuminati can opine.” Today you must play by their rules which includes a prohibition on dissent. This is something that I’ve also found irksome having observed, for example, the term ‘tolerance’ morph into something like ‘tacit approval.’ The rub is that the enlightened must genuflect to the new meaning of a host of cultural buzzwords, with no room for disagreement no matter how substantive. Read Trueman’s entire post, but enjoy a snippet here:

Last year has provided an abundance of examples of how disenfranchisement is the order of the day for the Left. Does a significant historical figure not conform to the exacting moral standards of today’s Manhattan cocktail party-goers or over-indulged Ivy Leaguers? Then erase them from history. Nay, simply erase the history. Saves time later. And does somebody today hold to a position on marriage or sexuality which fails whatever test Slate cares to set? Then by definition they have no place in polite society.

When Religious Pluralism goes Mainstream

…it finds its way – not accidentally – into every sphere of culture, which includes once benign comic book-based movies like the upcoming ‘X-men: Apocalypse.’ The trailer (here) depicts the title character, Apocalypse, as having gone by the names Yahweh, Krishna, and Ra, saying, “I’ve been called many things over many lifetimes.” Also in the trailer, Apocalypse employs the help of the ‘four horsemen.’ In response, one character says, “he got that from the bible,” and another, “or the bible got it from him.” So, what one can reasonably assert from having seen the trailer is that, 1) various gods of different world religions are portrayed as the same god, and 2) the one ‘god’ being portrayed, named Apocalypse, is the villain.

It remains to be seen how this theme will play out in the (yet to be released) movie, but the trailer not only smacks of religious pluralism, but also of what Christopher Hitchens has called antitheism. And although the spread of antitheism is a very recent development spurred by the New Atheists, religious pluralism (the view that all spiritual paths have the same destination) isn’t new. However, it is only in recent decades that this view has become popular enough to be considered mainstream. And among those who do not hold this view or even consider it absurd or indefensible, few seem to be bothered by it. I believe that one important reason that this is so, is that these belief systems have been transmitted through media entertainment; and also why I’d like to say just a few things about the manner in which film and television lull consumers into (at least passively) accepting false beliefs and destructive ideologies.

Movies and television shows have a sly way of inculcating ideologies and values; a way of forming one’s beliefs and assumptions without the media consumer really noticing it, because they are packaged inside of compelling narratives. It’s similar to the way in which anesthesia allows a person to undergo surgery with no memory of the procedure – except the procedure exacted by media consumption is lengthy, slow, and requires very little anesthesia (although I’m sure binge-watching has sped the process along a bit, let alone smart phone/social media consumption). Movies and television shows hold the potential to change the way I see the world by presenting a grand message, or to shape my identity, as I envision absorbing certain on-screen characters’ personalities and beliefs into my public persona. As early as age seven, I can recall roaming about my neighborhood looking for Russian communists with toy guns after having watched Red Dawn; or becoming skeptical of the criminal justice system as a teenager after watching The Shawshank Redemption; or even the current inexplicable feeling that G.E. is a great company, simply because of my fondness for Jack Donaghy and his mentor, Don Geiss, on 30 Rock. The point here is that films and television shows are powerful, and to an extent that is not immediately apparent.

The transmission of ideas and sentiments is a significant transaction between the screen and the consumer, and one that is not always a bad thing. What is important to note is that it is a thing. The film industry certainly knows it. Consider this short that documentarian Errol Morris made for the 2002 Academy Awards. Obviously, it intends to cast the film industry in good light, but the point still holds up. This is all the more reason, when a destructive, heretical ideology is presented (as it appears is the case in ‘X-men: Apocalypse’), to point out the sway of film of television and their ability to shape who we are.

 

On Christian Political Non-engagement

Doug Wilson makes an important point about American exceptionalism here, and I’d like to offer some words to the same end. Here’s a quote:

Nationalism is the result when you try to make your natural affection for your people into a god. It is a terrible, devouring god. If a couple of men got into a fist fight in the greeting card section of a store because one of them saw that the other guy was going to buy a “best mom in the world” card, when he did not in fact have the best mom in the world, because the fellow punching him had the best mom, what would we say? One would begin to suspect, would one not, that they were both missing the point?

But there is a mistake in the opposite direction. I have noticed an unsettling tendency among some young Christians, who know that they are not supposed to be nationalists, therefore thinking that they can or should zero out their Americanness. When the project of eradication is complete, we will have “just a Christian.” No, we will have nothing of the kind. We will have a translucent, shimmery thing that will look and act like a wisp of morning mist. Real Christianity lands. Real Christianity disciples nations.

Patriotism, rightly developed, is a duty that falls under the fifth commandment. I am to honor my father and mother, and this extends beyond them in such a way as to include my people, my tribe. Ordinary and ordered patriotism is not just okay; it is a duty, one that needs to be cultivated.

Special notice to other readers of my blog. Whites are not a tribe. Blacks are not a tribe. Americans are a tribe — and that, incidentally, is what currently is under assault. Trump is a demagogue who is playing off the fears created by the assault, but the reality of the demagoguery does not erase the reality underneath the fear. But demagogues can’t save. Only saviors save.

So America is a tribe, a nation, and, as such, the Church is commanded to disciple her. The end point we should have in view should be an obedient nation, not an erased nation.

The pit that some evangelicals fall into, even unwittingly, is to become apolitical. Many young evangelicals in America, having observed the inability of a political ideology to win the day, coupled with the moral imperfections of any such ideology, have decided to distance themselves from any set of actions having to do with politics. This is a mistake which will produce “a wisp of morning mist,” as Wilson notes.

The trouble, it seems to me, with such an approach to politics, is that nearly every area of social and civic life intersects with politics (or at least political ideologies). And when a Christian judges anything remotely political to be guilty by association, one ends up with a Christian who is silent. Silent on the rights of the unborn, on the sanctity of marriage, on constitutionally protected religious liberties; but also silent in general. Further, self-conscious political non-engagement engenders a private faith, wherein silence on political issues extends to personal proclamation of the gospel. It is difficult to strike a balance between politically private and spiritually public; sure it can be done, but not without remaining silent on some pretty important social matters about which the bible has something to say. The notion that political non-engagement is a more fitting third way for Christians turns out to be yet another stripe of political correctness masquerading as politeness or even piety.

Eschewing politics is not a more Christian stance. It’s not less Christian either. But it is still a kind of de facto ideology. Christian faith is not meant to be private, and it also happens to regularly intersect with the world of politics. Any attempt to cleanly separate the two is mistaken. The gospel is for all of life, even for those areas of life that can make me and you both squirm.