The response to Ben Crenshaw’s bold statement strikes me as overcomplicated, I have a few thoughts on this issue.
It’s one thing to say lying is a sin, but to say that lying has no eternal consequences–the ultimate criterion–undercuts the sinfulness of lying. That’s built into a number of theologies floating around today. I’ve done my share of attacking these, most forthrightly in The Baptists, Their Doctrine and Their Nasty Politics:
Smith (Church of Christ debater) doesn’t miss a chance to take a pot shot at groups neither one of them likes (Roman Catholics, Methodists, etc.) But basically he’s spot on, especially with the “straight shot” part of the diagram. Although it’s part of the baptismal regeneration part of the debate, his characterization of salvation as “cannot be lost–unconditionally secure–idolatry and murder not make soul in danger” is basically either what the Baptists believe or the logical conclusion of that belief.
That concept is a game changer for the life of the church. The people I normally associated with being free from moral constraint were the Communists, who deny the existence of a non-material reality. But here we are. And Garner never responded to this. This basically turns the life of the church into a numbers game; once you’ve got them saved, that’s it.
Smith could have added lying to the list, but he didn’t have to. His point is made. Such a theology removes our actions from an ethical framework. And the Reformed “unconditional perseverance” depends upon a reliable discernment of election, so while it is consistent logically it has some unappetising consequences.
Since the Cardinals are meeting in Rome to choose a successor to their recently deceased Jesuit Occupant, we would be remiss if we didn’t bring up the hard work his order did to undermine Christian morality in the seventeenth century, a work Francis restarted with his ambiguous pronouncements. I discuss this in With Pope Francis, The Provincial Letters Ride Again. There was also some casuistry going on the Reformed side as well. I think that’s where Ben Crenshaw is ultimately going whether he wants to admit it or not.
Finally concerning Rahab, she did go out on faith because she saw the Israelites winning, something many of the Israelites didn’t. (Kinda like the women coming back from the Resurrection…) Out here in the real world, things are more complicated than they look.
Crenshaw’s biggest weakness, however, is his insistence that the survival of the country deserves the kinds of moral failures that he is advocating. And survival is what’s at stake here: if Crenshaw or the proponents of what we’ve endured during the last administration think that the country will endure that kind of agenda, both are delusional. Nevertheless there are two things that Crenshaw and many American Christians forget. The first is that Rome collapsed but Christianity survived; could American Christianity do the same? The second is that, if we adopt the neopagan ways of our political allies, what kind of country will we end up with? Will we just defeat our own purpose?
In the rondeau above, the Jesuits were told to “look for a New World,” and they did just that. Evidently their spirit is oozing north just as the border is being closed.
Positive Infinity 