An Imperfect Church Striving to be Perfect

During the last year, my theological studies have been focused primarily upon the differences and similarities between Catholicism and Protestantism (and, recently, between Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism). While these studies have been intellectually stimulating, I must admit that the primary motivation for them came less from the intellectual curiosity and more from questions I had that shook (and still shake) the core of my Protestantism. These questions, which I will not discuss in this post, concern that nature of authority in the church, the origins of Scripture, and the use of Scripture.

It is no secret that Christendom is divided, and true Christians must lament this fact. However, I often wonder why there has to be divisions among people and congregations based upon theological differences. I want to be careful, though, because I do not want to insinuate that I advocate ignoring theological difference. However, doctrinal correctness is not the only virtue stressed in Scripture: the unity of the people of God is stressed more.

So, the main question I want to raise is this: why can’t we see the Church, as a whole, as imperfect similar to how we see ourselves as imperfect? Christians are to humbly recognize their sins, but also prayerfully strive toward perfection. Why can we not see the Church — by which I want to include all who have faith in Jesus — as imperfect but striving for perfection? Theological differences are a stain upon the purity of the Church, but we strive toward perfection in this like individual Christians strive for perfection in their lives. Can’t God forgive theological errors in a similar manner to how he forgives moral failures?

Great Picture!

Did Ron Paul imply we deserved 9/11?

By now, everyone should be aware of Ron Paul’s comments at the Republican Debate on Tuesday, May 15th. If you are not, you can watch Ron Paul say them here. As one would expect, blogs and forums across the internet have erupted with debates and discussions on his comments. Besides the fact that many people are spinning his comments, including Fox News, some people are claiming that Ron Paul implied that we deserved the attacks. These people are arguing that Ron Paul’s comments that our foreign policy were one of the causes of the attacks implies that we deserved the attacks. This is clearly wrong, as I hope to show.

Causation is different than justification. X can cause Y without providing any moral justification for Y. So, our foreign policy could cause the 9/11 attacks without morally justifying the attacks. (After all, saying that we deserved the attacks means that the attacks were morally justified because of our actions. That’s how we typically use “deserve.” For example, someone might say that a murderer deserves the death penalty because of what he did, by which they mean that giving the murderer the death penalty is morally justified because of what he did.)

Let me give an example of how one can cause an action without deserving an action: imagine a preacher that confronts an adulterer. The preacher admonishes the adulterer for his sins. However, the adulterer get extremely angry at the preacher (perhaps his sense of guilt contributes to his temper) and punches the preacher. Did the preacher’s admonitions cause the attack by the adulterer? I think everyone would agree that they did. Of course, many other things contributed to the attack, e.g. the adulterer’s sense of guilt, but the preacher’s chastisements also helped cause the attack. If one denied that the chastisements helped cause the attack, then one loses the ability to explain why the adulterer attacked the preacher and not someone else, and why the adulterer attacked the preacher when he did and not at some other time. So, the preacher’s rebuking of the adulterer caused the attack, but did the preacher deserve the attack? I do not think anyone would say he would, so I will not spend time trying to convince you that he did not deserve the attack. Therefore, we can see in this example that one can cause someone else to do something without deserving what was done.

Ron Paul’s comments do not imply that we deserved it. I hope that if any of you have thought that or claimed it, you will hereby change your views. I also hope that you will correct others when they make this mistake.

The “Pauline Principle” and the Old Testament

And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), “Let us do evil that good may come “? Their condemnation is just. (Romans 3:8).

Romans 3:8 contains what is often referred to as the “Pauline Principle”: do not do evil that good may come. Most Christians are familiar with this principle and often apply it, whether or not they are aware that they do. However, it recently came to my attention how the Pauline Principle contradicts a common view of the Old Testament that many hold.

Many people, including myself, have tried to mitigate some of the more embarrassing stories and laws in the Old Testament. (I need to point out, though, that I am not claiming one should be embarrassed at some elements of the Old Testament.) One way in which we do it is admit that the actions that God commanded (like the killing of the children of people opposed to the Jewish people) were wrong, but they were necessary. I am not saying that people explicitly say the actions commanded were wrong, but the manner in which people discuss them, perhaps I should say dismiss them, imply that the person thinks something is wrong about them. I openly admit that I have thought they were immoral, and I searched for justifications for this view. Presently, however, I do not know what to say.

Anyway, these embarrassing actions are often dismissed as necessary, whether it was necessary for the circumstances to be right so that the Son could be incarnated, or to protect the Jewish people from future attacks. Yet, this would mean that God commanded that an evil be done (the killing of the infants) so that a good will result (the eventually coming of the Christ). This, of course, violates the Pauline Principle. The view, though prevalent among many, is incorrect. However, I do not know what view to put in its place! Anyone have any thoughts?

Also, while I am discussing the Old Testament, I would like people’s thoughts on the plan of salvation and the unchangeableness of God. If God does not change, then how does his covenant with his people change?

Should we leave Iraq?

Though the election is still over a year away, the political campaigns are already starting. A main topic in the speeches of every candidate is the Iraq War. Most of the Republicans want to stay in Iraq until the job is “done” — whatever they mean by that — and most of the Democrats want to end the war.

At the beginning of the Iraq War, I was supportive of the effort. This was due to an apathy towards politics and a de facto position of Republicanism. However, I have since become interested in politics and drastically changed my views, including my view of the war. My thoughts on foreign policy have changed — if you can say I had a view of foreign policy when I called myself a Republican. I am now a staunch non-interventionist, and I am discomforted by the neo-conservatives’ hawkish attitude.

It is probably obvious now that I support withdrawing the troops from Iraq. However, I am still open-minded about the war, and I enjoy listening to its supporters explain why we should stay in Iraq. However, two reasons that are often given do not convince me. The first reason is that if we leave Iraq, our enemies will become emboldened and attack us on our own soil. My main problem with this argument is that the people who use it seem to ignore the many other ways an enemy can become emboldened. Winning might embolden a person, but impending defeat can also embolden a person, especially people who are not afraid to die. Judging by the prevalence of suicide bombings, our enemy is not afraid to die. Continuing to fight them, even if we win, can cause them to fight more tenaciously and desperately. Of course, the more desperate they get, the more likely they are to use terrorist tactics in our country.

Imagine if England had not pulled troops out of the colonies to end the Revolutionary War. (Perhaps their statesmen were arguing that if England left America the colonists would eventually attack England.)Do you think the colonists would have given up? Or would they have fought harder? I am not claiming that the terrorists are as noble as the colonists, or that they are fighting for a just cause. I simply want to show that there is a chance that staying in Iraq will embolden the enemy as much as, if not more than, leaving Iraq.

In other words, those who argue that leaving Iraq would be detrimental to Americans’ safety because the enemy would be emboldened have to show that staying in Iraq will not embolden the terrorists more than leaving Iraq.

Second, some people argue that we should not leave Iraq because, if we do, the region will be left in chaos. First, there is no guarantee that staying in Iraq can produce order, and there is no guarantee that leaving Iraq would spawn disorder. If you disturb a beehive, leaving will produce order, while staying will produce more disorder. Sometimes you cannot forcibly create order, and sometimes doing nothing creates more order than doing something.

This leads me to my second problem with the “Chaos Argument.” Social orders are very complex. Despite their claims, politicians do not know how to create order in a society. Government intervention in a social order, despite the good intentions, often creates chaos. A society is not an easy thing to put together. It is not a mechanical object that one simply has to put the parts back in place for it to work; it is organic entity that often takes time for order to evolve. So, those who use the Chaos Argument need to show that their assumption — staying in Iraq is the best way to produce order — is a good assumption. Too often, this is taken for granted in their rhetoric. (A good book to read on the trouble with government intervention in society is the first volume of F. A. Hayek’s Law, Legislation, and Liberty.)

So, in summary, those who use these two arguments to show that we need to stay in Iraq need to justify these two assumptions:

1. Staying in Iraq will not provoke the enemy to attack our homeland more than leaving Iraq will provoke them.
2. Staying in Iraq will produce order in Iraq than leaving it.