Post 104—Admission, Confession and Total Depravity

Behind the Scene

A reviewer of one of my writings wrote that I write as I talk. Well, yes, I guess that is true. Another characteristic of my writing is that I like to converse with you, my readers, about, for example, the reason for my choosing this or that subject. Today’s topic is kind of an ugly one that I do not particularly enjoy dealing with. The subject arose in my mind in the context of my posts of last month on the World Council of Church and its suggestion that religions should “heal” themselves from their “obsession with conversion.” Just how or why today’s subject arose in that context, I do not quite remember. However, it lead me to write the main body of this post. I did not like the subject and so kept postponing publishing it. However, neither do I like to waste time writing stuff I do not publish.  Besides, ugly as it is, it is a very important truth that cannot be ignored if we wish to understand human history in general or today’s current events or even our individual selves And, oh yes, I am very aware of how politically incorrect the subject is, and how insulting to proud secularists, but, then, I am not known for political correctness. So, here, just as I am and just as we all are-- with no further soft kind of apology.

This post should have been written earlier like in post 100, right after 98 and 99.  Other issues intervened so that the flow of thought was broken. So, while I hope you found the intervening posts helpful, please refresh yourself by going back to posts 98 and 99 in order to get into the right mood for this one—if that’s even possible!

First, a confession or admission.  For a moment I was not sure which is the proper term in this context. I really want to go for the latter, since the concept of confession usually includes an element of guilt. What I’m about to admit here is partially due to ignorance, which in turn, was due to incomplete information, but does not involve any sense of guilt, at least not a heavy dose of it. Don’t worry, if there were heavy guilt involved, I would know it, sense it, recognize it, for as a Christian I am very aware of guilt in all I do, for we confess it regularly in our church services, if not in our personal spiritual life.

In fact, my particular version of Christianity subscribes to the teaching of “total depravity.”  Perhaps you recognize this version as the Calvinist or Reformed or Presbyterian, three terms referring to the same tradition. The last century the term “Kuyperian” and related terms have appeared to point to a sub-group within the Calvinist tradition. It is the “brand” to which I subscribe and which sets the tone for this entire blog as well as my website < www.SocialTheology.com >.

So, “total depravity.”  What an awful term, don’t you think? Even though I subscribe to it, I don’t like the term. Even less do I like its awful reality, but reality it is, believe me. No, don’t take my word for it. Just look around you in the world, in fact, all of world history as well as current events, and it faces you everywhere. But it does not mean what it seems to say on the surface. It does not mean that the human race only does evil, not even its most immoral or amoral members.  But it does mean that everything we do, even the very best, has a negative or sinful aspect to it.  It may not be dominant; the good in a particular action may far outshine that negative part, but it is there without exception, even in the life of the most saintly.

The most saintly missionary of the ancient church, the Apostle Paul, cried out that he, of all men, was the most miserable precisely for this reason. And I am quite sure that even Sister Theresa would have been very conscious of that negative side of her life. Saints, the best people in the world, are usually the most aware of this reality in their own lives. And I say this of Sister Theresa, even though she was a Catholic, a church that rejects “total depravity.”  Her Church may reject it; she personally would have been very conscious of it without approving or using that term to describe it. It’s just part of being a saint: To be aware of your own shortcomings, your own selfishness, etc. A saint never feels that she’s arrived, always feels short. ( Not sure I would dare say this about this lovely Saint if she still were living among us. She just might sue me! You never know what lawyers can talk us into!)

The Heidelberg Catechism, one of the most popular creeds of the Reformed churches, teaches that our wills are “so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all evil.”  This needs to be taken with a grain of salt.  This creed was coined during the hefty years of the Reformation when both sides were inclined to extremes and often threw out babies with the bathwater.  Once the totally aggravated spirits of Europe simmered down a bit and they came to more moderate opinions, they turned to the more moderate opinion I already mentioned. Yes, we are totally corrupt; that is, we can do nothing perfectly; it is always tainted by sin to some degree. But to claim we “are wholly incapable of doing any good” surely goes too far. Was Gandhi, the Hindu, incapable of any good?  Come on. You can’t take that seriously. He has become a human icon and hero to almost all the world. Even Christian leaders like Martin Luther King followed his lead. Gandhi did a whale of a lot of good. Nevertheless, if one were to dissect his soul and mind, he would find that negative factor called sin in the mix, most likely more than you might have expected!

So what is the admission to which I referred in my opening sentence? The conference I discussed in Posts 98 and 99 was held way back in 2006—a decade ago!  I wrote as if it were a current event. This happened because the source as it came to me was undated and I failed to check that out on the internet, even though I gave you the website of WCC in Post 98.  I did not know and I did not practice due diligence, the very failure of which I accuse Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Now is this an admission or a confession? I chose to characterize it as the former. However, I also admit (or confess?) that this failure skirts confession. I did not know, but I could have and should have known by practicing due diligence.  My failure may not be earth shaking, but it was a failure that should not have happened. Failure of due diligence does have an element of guilt or irresponsibility.

In the meantime, I took you along a diversion to one of the most unpopular and unpleasant teachings of Calvinism—but also one of the most realistic ones. 

The wonder of it all is that it has not turned me into a sour puss or miserably negative person. In fact, I am a cheerful person because the other side of the coin is being born again, something I wrote about in an earlier post, and about being forgiven. That combination takes away all the stress of that negative reality. It is still there, but it is trumped by the reality of the other two. Halleluiah!

Note: I will be away camping at a place north of Langley, BC, on the shore of the Fraser River. I expect to come home next week Wednesday, for the weather woman tells me it will rain on that day. During this period, there will be no new posts. And upon my return, there will be so many emails and other stuff needing my attention that it may be a week before you see a new post. But you never know. If the weather changes unexpectedly, I may return home earlier. So, I invite you to keep checking every couple of days. The next post will be on the lighter side of Trump! I suspect you’ve heard of him? As strange as it may sound to some, you will see that there is a lighter side to him. 

Post 82—The “Christmas Spirit” at McDonald

Today we are going a bit lighter as well as a bit shorter to give you the time you otherwise may not have to do your final Christmas shopping.  If you wonder how come I have the time to write this post when I probably should be shopping feverishly, well, it’s simple: I don’t. Period. Now don’t jump to the conclusion that I—or, rather, my wife and I-- are cheapskates. Remember: before you judge, if at all, be sure you have all the facts at your command. That fact is that we have decided this year to spend our gift money on persecuted people, including refugees. We see little sense in spending fortunes on gifts no one among our family and friends needs. Writing a few cheques or sending monetary gifts online or by Paypal takes off a lot of pressure—and allows me the time to write this post.

The Denison Forum recently featured a story by one Nick Pitts under the heading “250 Mcdonald's Drive-Thru Customers 'Pay It Forward'.” Since it’s a Christmassy kind of story, it is a fitting  post in this Christmas week. In Pitts’ own words, it goes like this:

·          

Marisabel Figueroa probably started her shift at the Lakeland, Florida McDonalds where she works expecting that day to be like any other. However, one woman's generosity set off a chain reaction that, several hours later, would leave her saying that she'd "never experienced something like that before." It all started when Torie Keene decided to pay for the order of the car behind her and specifically asked Figueroa to tell the driver Merry Christmas, rather than Happy Holidays, when she delivered the news of the free meal. 

As the cashier described, when the other driver was told that her meal had been paid for, she was so grateful that she decided to do the same for the driver behind her. The pattern continued for almost the entirety of Figueroa's six-hour shift, as some 250 customers decided to "pay it forward." 

"I just kept giving everyone the same message, and they were all so stunned and so happy,” Figueroa explained. “One lady even paid for the meals of the next three cars behind her."

After a local news station picked up the story, Keene contacted Figueroa via Facebook to express her surprise, saying that she was "only trying to brighten someone's day." It seems clear that she did that and more as the story has now made national headlines. 

I don’t know just where Pitts’ story ends and where Denison of the Forum takes over. The next few paragraphs amount to a kind of Biblical application of this apparently true story.

The thing is, most of the people that experienced the gift of a free meal and decided to continue it paid roughly what they expected to pay when they arrived at the drive-thru window. The difference is that, because someone had already covered their debt, their actions from that point forward became voluntary rather than necessary. They were given the freedom not to pay but chose to use that freedom for the betterment of others rather than just themselves. 

It's a living example of the mentality Paul describes in his first letter to the Corinthians when he spends the majority of the Epistle writing on the need to think of others before yourself and to place their rights above your own (1 Corinthians 6-14). He is clear that we are not called to make that choice out of an obligation to them but in order to simply be better representatives of Christ in their lives. As he wrote to the Galatians, "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery" (Galatians 5:1). 

Because of Christ's sacrifice, we have been set free from the burdens of the Law. Will we use that freedom to model the kind of life to which He has called us or will we view his grace as a license for disobedience? How we answer that question speaks volumes about the nature of our relationship with God, and an unbelieving world is watching closely for our response. 

So this Christmas season, let's be intentional about using the freedom that God has granted us for His purposes rather than our own. Our heavenly Father has given us the gift of unhindered access to Himself through Christ and asked us to "pay it forward" by helping others to understand that offer as well. Will you?

The only thing I question in the above few paragraphs is that italicized clause that there was/is no obligation at work here. Presenting ourselves as better representatives of Christ is our obligation. True, it’s also our privilege, but you cannot eliminate the obligation part. And what is the problem with that?  

Maybe this “little” is a reflection of a divide between Lutheran and Calvinist thinking with the former tending towards a negative attitude towards obligation and law while the latter emphasizes that law and grace always go together. 

Perhaps the non-obligatory part is also a reflection of the influence of the general Western antipathy to law that stems way back in our history to the so-called Enlightenment.  The roots of our thought patterns go so deep and long to the point that most of us are not even aware of them; we just act, speak or think along those patterns without any further second thought. 

One of the purposes of this blog is to lay bare for you readers the reasons and roots of our accepted thought patterns or worldview. This obligation thing may be one of those unexamined items in our Western culture. 

I guess I ended up not so short after all nor so light. Next time just read the story without the comments, enjoy it and ponder it for yourself. Maybe even go to Burger King and initiate the same story to see what happens, Christmas or not. Oh, sorry, it was McDonalds, not BK. No matter, for when it's spring, can summer be far way? When you see Big Mac, can BK be far away?