The Sixth “Sola” that Cripples the Church

The lively debate Martin Luther was hoping to generate with his 95 Theses quickly got out of hand and changed the world forever.  Obviously the time was right: when events are primed to happen, they happen.  Within decades the Reformation was firmly established on the “Five Solas” developed over the next half-century of Reformation teaching, namely

Scripture Alone

declaring the gospel of

Christ Alone,

effecting salvation by

Grace Alone,

apprehended in the believer by

Faith Alone,

for the

Glory of God Alone.

(That’s not the usual order, but you get the idea.)

This is all good news, and the Five Solas are a concise way of defining the aims of the Reformation as they shook out.  A concise definition would be sorely needed, for within Martin Luther’s own lifetime the Protestant movement became dozens of Protestant movements, energizing Europe in ways that weren’t always positive.  It was like releasing one of those mattresses that come packed under pressure: once out of the box, you’ll never get it back in, as it expands far beyond its original bounds.  A quasi-communist peasants’ revolt, numerous pietistic communes, a state church headed by the monarch, proliferating Bible translations and commentaries, a series of wars, the seeds of the Enlightenment, the eventual establishment of the United States of America: all these and more can trace their ancestry to the Protestant Reformation.  So can the sixth, unstated Sola:

by My Interpretation Alone

Once Luther realized his concerns about the Catholic Church had gone beyond an academic debate, and way beyond the original issue of indulgence-peddling, he went on to develop his ideas of where the Church had gone wrong.  One problem was the priesthood, which created a superfluous intermediary between the believer and God.  The Lutheran phrase, “priesthood of all believers,” meant that every follower of Christ had free access to God through Jesus, our only mediator.  We don’t need a priest to hear our confession and assign penance; we can work that out with God on our own.

“Every man a priest” was never meant to imply that every man had the right to make up his own mind about what the Bible said.  But it didn’t take long for the narrow interpretation of that phrase to stretch.  If Luther and Zwingli disagree about a point of scripture, who’s right?  If the Anabaptists are preaching a radical pietism, should they be stopped?  Aren’t they’re reading the scriptures for themselves, as we’re all supposed to?  Peeling off from Luther and Zwingli, in very short order, were Calvin and Muntzer, followed by Wesley and Fox, Alexander Campbell and Joseph Smith, Charles Finney and William Miller, Ann Lee, Ellen G. White, Charles Taze Russell, Mary Baker Eddy, William J. Seymour . . . and literally thousands more, founders of Protestant mainline denominations, offshoots, micro-movements, and cults.

The multitude of denominations is not entirely bad.  We all have different personalities, inclinations, and backgrounds; it’s possible that some will thrive in a particular Christian tradition where others would suffocate.  And while “organized religion” is dying all over the Western world, fewer churches are on life-support in the state-churchless USA.  But it’s hard to say whether their relative health is because of the Sixth Sola, or in spite of it.

 

What gives some people—mostly men, but plenty of women, too—the assurance that, not only can they interpret scripture for themselves, but their interpretation is right?  As in, “The rest of you are wrong.”  Damnably wrong, even.  Having grown up in one one-true-church and, much later in life, been declared apostate by another (much smaller) one, I’ve seen how the sixth-sola pattern emerges:

  • Reformer displays an early aptitude for religion.
  • Reformer involves himself in established church, where he may experience disappointment or disillusionment.
  • Reformer endures a period of intense self-examination and study, from which
  • Reformer emerges with a unique spiritual insight.
  • Reformer enthusiastically preaches his special insight, meets resistance from “establishment.”
  • Reformer collects a band of converts, may undergo real or perceived persecution.
  • Reformer, now the leader of a movement, receives affirmation from his followers.
  • Reformer decides his opposition is a) wrong, b) going to hell, or c) spawn of Satan.
  • All of which means that the Reformer is a) right, and b) well, just right.  Because.

Don’t get me wrong: the church is always in need of reform, and God is always reforming it.  But not usually through movement men (and women).  Luther was an exception, and there are others, but I’ve known and heard of many mini-Luthers who have it all figured out according to the Sixth Sola.  Some may be false prophets, but most are sincere believers (at least to start with) who let that special insight go to their heads.

A little humility would do wonders for them; a little charity and patience with those who aren’t where they are, and may never be.  “My interpretation” must be tested and debated and measured against established teaching—and perhaps discarded, if it doesn’t measure up.  But even if it’s a sound scriptural principle, the soundest secondary principles become shaky when they’re elevated to primary ones: right up there beside “Jesus is Lord.”

Jesus is Lord of our minds, our study, our interpretation.  As he submitted himself to his Father (and even, temporarily, to men), so should we.  It’s not for us to build little empires around a Sixth Sola; far better to live it out in the wider church, and let the Spirit be our interpreter.

Bible Challenge, Week 9: The People – Moses

The sons of Jacob have become tribes, and the tribes will become a multitude called “Israel.”  God started with one man who trusted him (Abraham), chose one of his sons (Isaac) to carry on the promise, and chose one of that man’s sons to continue.  From the grandson with two names (“Cheater” and “Striver”) God is building a great nation.  It seems that Genesis has a happy ending.  But two problems come up right away . . .

Something huge is about to happen, certified by an explosion of supernatural events.  As much as unbelievers scoff at the Bible as a “book of fairy tales,” miracles are not that common in its pages (and fairies are  nonexistent).  God reserves miracles for special events, and we’re coming up on a big one.   But first we need a messenger, a human agent to put events in motion: someone who was planned for, and set aside, and providentially preserved for a time such as this.

To learn more, click here:

Bible challenge Week 9: The People – Moses

(This is a continuation of a series of posts about the “whole story” of the Bible.  I plan to run one every week, on Tuesdays, with a printable PDF.  The printable includes a brief 2-3 paragraph introduction, Bible passages to read, a key verse, 5-7 thought/discussion questions, and 2-3 activities for the kids.  Here’s the Overview of the entire Bible series.)

Previous: Week 9: The Promise – Joseph

Next: Week 11: The People – Deliverance

 

Bible Challenge, Week 8: The Promise – Joseph

Joseph is an interesting character.  There are more chapters devoted to him in Genesis than even his great-grandfather Abraham, but he’s not part of the standard patriarchal formula used throughout the Bible to identify “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”  Does adding another name simply make the tagline too bulky?  Or is Joseph something more or less than a patriarch?

I think there’s another factor that eliminates him from that very exclusive society: unlike the others, he receives no direct covenant promises from God.  Instead, he lives the covenant promise.  He is both the last of the patriarchs, and the first of the key figures through which God begins to work out his plan.  Joseph is the link between a covenant family and a covenant people, as we’ll see next week.

His life is characterized by weird dreams and swift reversals, and is one of the most dramatic in all of scripture.  You may know the plot of his story, but what’s the theme?  Click here for the pdf download:

Bible Challenge, Week 8: The Promise – Joseph

(This is a continuation of a series of posts about the “whole story” of the Bible.  I plan to run one every week, on Tuesdays, with a printable PDF.  The printable includes a brief 2-3 paragraph introduction, Bible passages to read, a key verse, 5-7 thought/discussion questions, and 2-3 activities for the kids.  Here’s the Overview of the entire Bible series.)

Previous: Week 7: The Promise – Jacob

Next: Week 9: The People – Moses 

When Is Sexism Not Sexism?

Sexism and misogyny are rampant in our culture, says Hillary.  Her #1 proof is, she’s not president.

If you’re not convinced by that, how about this: as she explained to Rachel Maddow, her audience viewed her superficially.  Instead of listening to what she was saying, the chatter was consumed by what she wore and how her hair looked.  Her appearance overshadowed her substance, hence, we live in a misogynistic culture.

Well . . . first of all, I listened to what she said and wasn’t too impressed.  The part that wasn’t anodyne platitudes sounded like bread-and-circus populism (free college!) or extreme progressivism (abortions all the way down!).  She insults all Americans, and women in particular, by implying that every woman who did not vote for her is a fashion-obsessed twit with no mind of her own.

When a professional woman hears a discouraging word, or fails to score a big promotion, or falters in her career path, sexism is the usual suspect.  And I know for a fact that women are treated differently from men, often not to their advantage.  It may be sexism.  Or it may just be sex.

One reason Hillary’s clothes and hair attract comment is that she doesn’t have to wear the same thing all the time.  If Donald Trump had appeared in a white suit to make his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, that would have caused some comment (and as a matter of fact, his hair and skin color do not escape notice).  Sometime in the early 19th century, by whatever common consent determines these things, men of the west gave up sartorial splendor in favor of more subdued colors and plain lines.  For the last 200 years, men’s fashion has not broken out of that tailored, creased and lapelled standard.  Ties and socks are the only avenues of self-expression in men’s clothing, and they had better not get too crazy or the wearer is asking for reams of press about it the next day.

This is not sexism; it’s the differences between two sexes.  Hillary has always been an attractive woman—not a great beauty, but certainly presentable—and I appreciate that she hasn’t indulged in face lifting or tummy tucking (so far as I know).  She’s earned those wrinkles and bears them well for the most part.  She uses color, makeup and hair styling to good advantage because she can.  She is a woman, and makes that point over and over.  This is what women do, and their wardrobe choices are going to be a topic of conversation whenever they are in the public eye.

Men and women are naturally different, and nature dictates how they act toward one another.  When men get together and the conversation turns to a particular woman, it should be no surprise that the mental aptitude, verbal agility, or sparking wit of the subject are not the first attributes under discussion.  This is not going to change; it’s built in.  There are other ways to challenge and deal with it than the blanket charge of “sexism” and “misogyny.”

Whether we are designed by God or designed by evolution, there is such a thing as human nature, and relationships between the sexes are part of it.  Should women fight that, or work with it?  Hillary tries to do both; she uses hair, clothing, and makeup to her advantage but doesn’t want anyone to talk about it.  She talks up her virtues as a woman continually, and complains when she’s not judged by the same standards as a man.  No female candidate will ever be judged by the same standards as a man, unless she dresses in dark gray suits, forgoes the mascara and eye shadow, and buzz cuts her hair (none of which is likely to get votes).

One day we’ll have a woman president, and I will vote based on her policies, not her appearance.  To any aspiring female candidate, here’s my advice: Be a woman.  Dress to your advantage, choose a flattering, easy hairstyle, smile at compliments and ignore petty barbs.  Thank any man who opens the door for you, cuddle babies all you want, have confidence in the feminine attributes God gave you.  Be very careful who you sleep with.  Answer pickup lines with clever putdown lines.  Don’t be shocked at the occasional pass or power play; be prepared.  Politely and firmly insist on what is due to you in the workplace.  Smile when you feel like it, and when you can.  This is not only more effective in a successful career, it’s also a lot more fun.

Bible Challenge Week 7: The Promise – Jacob

Babylon has Gilgamesh, Athens has Theseus, Rome has Aeneas–but what nation or city ever had a founder like Jacob, the “supplanter”?  Even his name change is provocative: Israel, or “he wrestles with God.”

In spite of his checkered character, he is the last of the three great patriarchs whose name will echo throughout generations of Bible history.  His other name remains a rock of offense today: Israel, a stubborn, tiny nation that continues to exercise an influence far beyond its size.  There’s got to be a reason for that, and we get a hint of it in this week’s Bible challenge, where personality wrestles with destiny.

Click here for the pdf download:

Bible Challenge Week 7: The Promise – Jacob

(This is a continuation of a series of posts about the “whole story” of the Bible.  I plan to run one every week, on Tuesdays, with a printable PDF.  The printable includes a brief 2-3 paragraph introduction, Bible passages to read, a key verse, 5-7 thought/discussion questions, and 2-3 activities for the kids.  Here’s the Overview of the entire Bible series.)

Previous:  Week 6: The Promise – Isaac

Next: Week 8: The Promise – Joseph

Bible Challenge, Week 6: The Promise – Isaac

What’s there to think about Isaac?  A promised child, a near-victim, a weak husband, a gullible father . . . meh.  He fades into the crack between Abraham and Jacob. and we see very little of his actions, even less of his inward thoughts.  The defining moment of his life may well have been the instant when, somewhere around 15 years old, he lay bound on a stone altar gazing up at a knife held by his own father.  Trustingly? Fearfully? Incredulously?  Maybe all those things at once, and the experience could have scarred him for life.  But now he enjoys an eternal existence as one-third of the patriarchal triumvirate, the “Abraham-Isaac-and-Jacob that the God of Israel would identify Himself by.

It turned out okay for him.  However colorless he appears, being a vital link in the chain of God’s covenant blessing is no small thing.

 

Click here for the pdf download:

Bible Challenge, Week 6: The Promise – Isaac

(This is a continuation of a series of posts about the “whole story” of the Bible.  I plan to run one every week, on Tuesdays, with a printable PDF.  The printable includes a brief 2-3 paragraph introduction, Bible passages to read, a key verse, 5-7 thought/discussion questions, and 2-3 activities for the kids.  Here’s the Overview of the entire Bible series.)

Previous: Week 5: The Promise – Abraham

Next: Week 6: The Promise – Jacob

Bible Challenge, Week Five: The Promise – Abraham

We like to say God has a sense of humor.  (Though I suspect it’s not like ours.)  He may also have a sense of irony, or why would a man who was childless until the age of 90 come to be known as “Father” Abraham?  But then, what seems ironic to us might just be a splendid dichotomy for him.  He loves shaking up the system: the younger supplants the older, the weak overcome the mighty, the last shall be first, and the meek (eventually) inherit the earth.  Likewise, a old man (75 when we meet him) becomes a major point person in our Hero’s quest to resolve the central conflict of the Bible.

Our Hero, remember, is God himself.  We’ve talked about our problem: rebellion, judgment, and separation.  His main problem is us: how to be reconciled to people he loves even though they reject him.  The answer will begin with one person; and from one person, one family; and from one family, one nation; and through one nation . . . but we’re getting ahead of ourselves.

So here’s Abraham, great father and great receiver of a foundational covenant.  And here’s the download:

Bible Challenge, Week Five: The Promise – Abraham

(This is a continuation of a series of posts about the “whole story” of the Bible.  I plan to run one every week, on Tuesdays, with a printable PDF.  The printable includes a brief 2-3 paragraph introduction, Bible passages to read, a key verse, 5-7 thought/discussion questions, and 2-3 activities for the kids.  Here’s the Overview of the entire Bible series.)

Previous: Week Four: The Problem – Separation

Next: Week Six: The Promise – Isaac

American Expectationalism

When the American colonies erupted in revolt against the Stamp Act (1765), poor King George could not understand.  Weren’t these subjects well-treated?  Did they not prosper as a result of benign neglect? As for this taxation they were incensed about, part of it was to cover the expense of defending them, and what was their problem?

Our problem is basically the same now as it was then: whether a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal can long endure.*  The colonies were jealous of their liberties as Englishmen first.  All those stamp act protests, some of them very ugly and violent, stemmed from the assumption (not the revolutionary idea) that they could not be forced to fork over money involuntarily.  By the time the shooting started ten years later, the issue had crystalized: they were fighting for their rights as Americans.

Whatever that means.

Americans have always disagreed about what that means.  Has a nation ever clashed so often over what it means to be at peace?  Since we born unsettled, I suspect our differences will never be settled, even though they come from the same source.  Because they come from the same source.

O my America!  My new-found land!  John Donne described a woman that way (before getting into bed with her).  Not a bad metaphor for the nation, though: a new-found land for all conflicted ideals and idealists; “America” as the undiscovered utopia humanity is blundering toward.  Even those who hate her do so for what she might have been: O my America—you let me down.

Think of all those extravagant hopes, from 1630 until now:

A City on a Hill . . .

We hold these truths . . .  

The Last Best Hope of Earth

Give me your tired, your poor

That’s not who we are

We’re better than this!

Do other nations refer to their founding ideals anywhere near as often?  Are other citizens as prickly about their rights, as contentious over memes, as we are?  Do other peoples expect so much?  From their government, no less—from men and women inside a beltway who pursue their own interests first, as officials (with a few notable exceptions) always have?

I don’t know Colin Kaepernick and can’t judge his motives.  But when he takes a knee during the national anthem, his stated motivation springs from the same root as that of the flag-waving right-wingers (or presidents) who denounce him.

O my America . . . you’re not living up to your promise.

O my America . . . you’re not living up to her, buster.

High ideas make for high expectations.  And crushing disappointment when they’re not met.  The vitriolic chatter among the left is an echo of the vitriolic chatter from the right four years ago, and both sides are dreaming too big to be satisfied.

“Liberty and justice for all” can never measure up to our competing visions of what that looks like.  And yet, even from the beginning, there was a less extravagant vision: out here in the hinterlands we mostly just want to get along with each other and prosper a bit.  Never before, I venture to say, have so many accomplished their commonplace dreams through the efforts of so few.  Our founding fathers, scorning utopian dreams, set the ideals just high enough to strive for.  And then they set careful checks and balances on the powers that could hold people back from reasonable striving.

Humanity being what it is, we’ll never quite get there, and our failure to get there may have the unlovely consequence of pushing the bar ever higher.  The right pushes for liberty; the left for justice.  We in the middle can’t hear much but the shouting, and it leaves us feeling helpless and confused.  But listen: perfect justice will never happen here on earth, nor perfect liberty.  Bring down the bar, and let us reach what we can.

*A. Lincoln, Gettysburg Address

Bible Challenge, Week Four: The Problem – Separation

Something is wrong; everybody knows it.  The world is not as it should be.  Some great religious traditions look forward to a future when all our frustrated desires will be subsumed into a blissful oneness.  Others look back to a long-lost paradise and speculate on a leader (or system) who will return us to that ideal state.

Last week we talked about judgment, admitting (perhaps grudgingly) that God has a right to judge.  But there are times when his judgment doesn’t seem . . . well, right.  We can accept bad things happening to bad people (which doesn’t include us, of course).  That’s only just deserts.  But bad things happening to good people is the main problem doubters have with a supposedly “good” God.

The Bible meets that problem head-on.  It’s part of the problem, and no figure shows it better than the long-suffering, pitiful character of Job.  The man has a lot of complaints, and they seem perfectly reasonable to us.  But underneath all the apparent unfairness of the way he’s been treated, Job is most hurt about this:

I thought we were friends.  I thought You were on my side.  But now it seems I never knew You, and we don’t even speak the same language.  Is there anyone who can come between us? Or will we be eternally a universe apart?

Click below for the download:

Bible Challenge, Week Four: The Problem – Separation 

(This is a continuation of a series of posts about the “whole story” of the Bible.  I plan to run one every week, on Tuesdays, with a printable PDF.  The printable includes a brief 2-3 paragraph introduction, Bible passages to read, a key verse, 5-7 thought/discussion questions, and 2-3 activities for the kids.  Here’s the Overview of the entire Bible series.)

Previous:  Week Three: The Problem – Judgment

Next: Week Five: The Promise – Abraham

 

He’s No Gentleman

Have you ever heard this?  “God is a gentleman.  He would never . . . [insert something a courtly deity would never do, usually related to busting in where he’s not wanted].”  I don’t know where this idea came from, but it’s supremely silly.

It might be seen as gentlemanly to sweep back the waters of the Red Sea for his people to cross (“After you, my dears”).  But then he slammed the sea on the pursuing Egyptian army, drowning every last horse and man.  It was nice of him to gently wake the boy Samuel for a midnight chat—to tell him that his mentor’s priestly family was toast.  He spoke reassuringly to Elijah in a still small voice, after scaring the pants off him by hurling fire, wind and storm in his direction.

And wasn’t it God who sent Jesus to tell us about his Father’s universal love and grace?  But Christ was also known to drop a word about universal judgment and punishment for those who rejected him, making himself the standard for determining who gets in and who stays out.

Jesus actually doesn’t seem like much of a gentleman either.  But why would we want him to be?

Gentlemen are reserved and polite and exercise self-control.  They condescend to make their inferiors feel at ease.  They hold the door for ladies and step aside for baby carriages.  They don’t point out your faults unless you ask them to.  They listen patiently, consider carefully, and make up their own minds.  They know their place and are comfortable in it.

But God is the place.  He does not offer us heaven; he is heaven.  Life is not a smorgasbord of options, though it may seem that way.  There’s really only one option: Those who fail to find me harm themselves; those who hate me love death (Prov. 8:36).  There’s him, or there’s death.  A gentleman might try to arrange another choice or two in order to accommodate those who just can’t comply.  In the process, he would be courteously opening a door to doom: After you, my dear.

The burly track worker who shoves you out of the path of a speeding train is no gentleman.  The lifeguard who knocks you out while you’re struggling is no gentleman.  The Son of Man who makes himself a bloody sacrifice for you is probably the least gentlemanly of all: volunteering to be a spectacle, hanging between heaven and earth, commanding you to look if you want to live (Num. 21:8, John 3:14).  Gentlemen do not offend or plant themselves as stumbling blocks.  They don’t cause any more trouble than they have to.

Better to stumble in this life than the next.  Better be troubled now than later.  If God is embarrassing or bothering you—which, granted, no gentleman would ever do—embarrass yourself in return.  Fall on your knees and give him thanks.