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 However, neither do I like to waste time writing stuff I do not publish.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 102 Conversion in Christianity

Today’s subject is a follow-up to that of Post 100, but Isaiah 56 intruded—for a valid, though not necessary, reason. Consider it an extra gift, even if an intrusion. So, in view of their related subjects this one is really the follow-up to Post 100.

At the beginning of Post 100…. 100?  Wow, that’s worth a celebration for me. I have started three other blogs at different times and never made it up to a hundred. In fact, I always stopped—perhaps “dropped” is a better word here--far short of it. I was always preoccupied with major writing projects that squeezed out any time I thought I had for blogs.  So, I would simply drop them by not publishing any more posts.  But they are still there and people are still accessing them. One of these days, I should summarize what each was/is about. This time I was able to stick with it and made it up to 100, 101 in fact! No, with the last intrusion, 102!—the very one you’re reading right now. I’m proud of myself for having made it thus far and, not the least, grateful to God for giving me the stamina to carry it through.

The reason for the current situation is that I have no more major writing projects going that require a lot of serious research, energy and time. So, now I can relax a little and have more time for writing posts. Now this is one of my major writing projects.  So, celebrate? Yes, by all means. Treat yourself to a McDonald double cheese.  You won’t be out much!  If you find yourself in my neighbourhood, I will even buy you one. Now, how’s that for generosity?  Do I sound like a Dutchman? Of course, if a McDonald double cheese is not your kind of thing, I’m not sure where we’d go. I can’t afford more than $1.85 or so per reader! And then only if you don’t all come at once!

That said, back to Post 100. I wrote there that I would write about conversion in both Christianity and Islam, but ended up writing only about Islam’s view, Nigerian Islam, to be more specific. Some people, especially Asian and Arab Muslims, apparently don’t take Nigerian Islam seriously or consider it important. I make that statement on basis of their uninterested reaction when I tell them about my Christian-Muslim series about Nigeria. But that’s for another blog some day. (Why am I so easily diverted today from the announced topic?  Is it because “conversion” and “reversion” rhyme so well with “diversion”  that it becomes a perfect fit?)

The WCC conference in Post 98 demanded that Christians, along with others, drop their “obsession” with conversion. Stronger than that, actually: They are to “heal” themselves of that obsession! Apparently, it is a sickness to desire someone to convert. Psychologists, here’s your excuse to add another psychological problem to your official list of diseases and specialists. What shall we call this new specialty? How about  “conversionitus?” I have a history of coining new words and consider myself good at it. Another “–itus” term I once coined is “change-itus,” referring to the interminable decades of administrative changes to which my church has subjected its staff, especially its overseas missionaries like me. (If you’re curious, you may go to my memoirs, Every Square Inch, vol. 2, p. 148, on the Boeriana page of my website < www.SocialTheology.com >.)

At the same time, WCC always maintains that genuine inter-religious dialogue—and that was the essence of that conference—requires that no one feels threatened or that any religion should give up part of their core. Those requirements to drop that “obsession” and to retain your core are not easy bed partners. Both Christianity and Islam regard conversion (or reversion) as part of their core. You eliminate that part and you end up with a distorted, truncated, shriveled up version of the religion. It is no longer true to itself. One great missionary statesman of a century ago, Karl Kumm, whose legacy consists of millions of Christians in northern Nigeria and for whom I have the greatest admiration, wrote that the church must obey the Great Commission to go and make disciples or it must perish. Obeying that Commission is its life blood.

That Commission of Matthew 28, Jesus’ parting shot in Matthew, simply cannot be wished away. And, having been a professional missionary throughout my career, I feel put on the defensive. Did I misdirect my life, waste my time?  Should I have done something more constructive?  Were all the books and articles I published and all the lecturing I did—and they were many; just check out my website—useless or, worse, damaging to inter-religious dialogue and to everything else?

Indeed not! That Muslims could go along with that demand, I understand somewhat. See Post 100.  But that Christians should have gone along with that, is in some ways amazing to me.  However, knowing the WCC mentality somewhat, it is not totally surprising to me, for there always has been a lot of wishy-washy thinking in that organization, not to say liberalist thinking, that has been quick to play down the uniqueness of the Christian message and opt for a “soft” egalitarian view of all religions.

But I hasten to pre-empt a conclusion on your part that I totally dislike, disagree with or even condemn WCC. I have argued on the Boeriana page of my website that my church, the Christian Reformed Church, should join WCC, both to learn from it and to contribute to its programmes out of our own tradition; We have much to give—and much to learn. Over the decades, I have cooperated with WCC from my Nigerian perch at various fronts and have generally appreciated their input. But especially in the dialogue section, there has been that negative aspect, even though there, too, I cooperated with them appreciatively.  

But it does not fit well for Christians to drop their “conversion obsession,” or to “heal” themselves from it. Conversion to Christ is not a missionary obsession; it is the greatest gift I can offer to people. Bringing people to believe in Christ is the most liberating thing you can do. Just ask anyone who has made the transition. I am not suggesting that I need to prevent them from going to hell. I frankly cannot conceive of all of the world’s non-Christians going to hell. That would render the Kingdom of God a dismally failed enterprise.  All these billions to hell? Sorry, I simply cannot accept that.  It neither fits my concept of a large, gracious and generous God nor my view of the scope of Christ’s accomplishments.  He did enough to cover all or, at least, by far most of us.

I don’t know about the Hitlers and Stalins among us or the oppressive religious leaders of Jesus’ own day, but I’m glad I don’t have to make those decisions. If it were my responsibility, I might have no compunction about assigning our Hitlers and Stalins c.s. to hell. But move away and “heal” myself from urging folk to repent or convert is hardly an obsession that Christians can drop at will without the church itself perishing, shriveling up into a dry creek. I would rather argue that the Christian church is increasingly in need of healing from lack of interest in conversion! 

Oops! I’m already quite far beyond my maximum goal of 750 words. I haven’t finished the job. See you in 103.

In the meantime, today, the day of this posting, we are both mourning and rejoicing the crucifixion of Christ. It’s Good Friday, an ambiguous day for us. But the resurrection is just around the corner and that’s what it’s all about. So, Happy Easter to all of you. The Lord has risen!—the traditional Christian Easter greeting, to which the usual response is “He is risen indeed!”

Post 100—Conversion in Islam

Though Muslims, as I explained in Post 99, use the term “reversion” for anyone converting to Islam, call it what they may, others, including myself, consider it “conversion” plain and simple. So, our topic for today is the place of conversion in these two religions, which is not quite the same as defining the term, for they do not quite mean the same thing in the two religions.

Conversion is, of course, usually the result of a mission or evangelistic outreach by a Muslim or Christian, whether individual or organization, to another individual or community, usually with the explicit goal to bring someone or a community to conversion.  I say “usually.” It does not always come about that way. For example, many are the Muslims throughout the world who dream of a person dressed in a white robe who invites them to come to Him, who is often then identified as Jesus. Thousands of Muslims the world over have such dreams and they usually end up in accepting His invitation. There are entire books written about this kind of conversion invitation. These are not the result of any human outreach or other effort and certainly not of any “obsession” that WCC talked about in Post 98.

 There are indeed forms or styles of mission outreach to convert that are objectionable to people who do not adhere to the religion practicing it but that are usually perfectly acceptable to the adherents themselves. Muslims often quote the Qur’an that says there is to be no compulsion in religion, but they employ all kinds of compulsion and force. You ought to read the Christian volumes of my Studies in Christian-Muslim Relations to see how frequently Muslims use force to “revert” people to Islam according to Christian complaints (www.SocialTheology.com/islamica, volumes 3, 5 and 7).                                                 

Allow me one example from Nigeria. A Nigerian pastor friend of mine borrowed money from the government to establish a chicken farm. He was not able to keep up with the payment schedule and ran the risk of losing his business along with his investment. Christians did not offer to help him out with loans. When the Muslim community heard about this, they offered to pay his entire debt provided he become Muslim. Being desperate, my friend accepted and became Muslim. This has been years ago and he has not changed his mind ever since. The moment he does change his mind and returns to Christ, the Muslim community will demand repayment and, failing to come through, he will be hauled to court. (For the full story see our memoirs Every Square Inch, vol. 2, pp. 59-62 on our website < www.SocialTheology.com/boeriana >).  If that is not force, I don’t know what you call it. And if that is not a contradiction to that earlier statement about no force in religion, I don’t know what that is either.

However, you must be careful about accusing a religion not your own of contradiction, for I find that when non-Christians accuse us of contradictions, it is usually due to ignorance or, using more gentle language, misunderstanding. It is easy for us to fall into the same trap with respect to Islam. The above story is typical, not an exception. Muslims use both the stick and the carrot methods to induce “reversions” in all kinds of ways. As I said above, read my series and you’ll find a dizzying range of variations of force and “tricks” on their part. Another clever way is to surround a Christian business with such stiff competition that the owner either becomes a Muslim or closes his business—all perfectly legal!  And on and on and on…. Muslim authorities all over the world are known to create legal demands and restrictions on the Christian community with respect to registration of churches and building permits.  We have arrived at the border here between persecution and a campaign to “revert.” It’s a very thin line and it all smells of compulsion, even if called “reversion.” Word juggling does not change all of reality!

But do understand the Muslim position. If you are convinced that being a Muslim is the greatest gift you can wish for a person, then such tactics may seem minor in comparison to the magnificent gift they turn into. After all, adults punish wayward children in love for their own good.  An adult non-Muslim may not be a child, but she is in a state of jahiliya, an Arabized Hausa word for “ignorance.” She doesn’t really know what she is doing. A little push in the right direction seems a small price to pay for the end result that can only be described as magnificent. My experience in Nigeria as I record it in my series is that Muslims just don’t comprehend why not everyone wants to become a Muslim. What greater good can you possibly imagine for yourself?

So, they really are obsessed by wanting to con—or revert everyone, but that’s a good obsession and not a negative you would ever think about giving up on.  However, when someone is obsessed about trying to convert his neighbor or community to another religion, say Christianity, well, yes, such an obsession is unhealthy and must be let go. And so Muslims signed that declaration in all seriousness and good faith. To adherents of other religions this may seem like duplicity and hypocrisy; to a Muslim it is the only way to go. You have to think yourself into the other’s skin in order to understand correctly and not judge wrongly. 

In other words, to expect Muslims to give up on conversion is to ask them to give up on a core component of their religion.  That is not what the WCC conference that published the declaration expected of any religion.  The religions were not expected to surrender any part of their core; they were to remain true to themselves. Whether the declaration and the expectation can co-exist, is another question. 

Post 99—Conversion: An Obsession?

A Peek Behind the Scenes 

You may be wondering how I choose my subjects for these posts. It may seem to you that I move from pillar to post without any obvious rational. To some degree that’s true. I do not have a well worked out schedule of topics that rationally follow each other. It goes like this. I come across a discussion or opinion during the course of my readings and find myself reacting, “Oh, I should do a post on that subject.” Or an important event takes place. I have a whole list of subjects waiting to be tackled. Then, as I write on it, the subject itself calls up a related subject that then needs attention to round off the one I am working on. And so I move today from a WCC interfaith conference to conversion. Before I even begin writing on it, the subject has already led to a consideration to, of all things, total depravity for a next post.  And so it goes. If I’ve made you curious, then I’ve succeeded!

Conversion among Religions

So, conversion. In the light of the above paragraph it will not be difficult for you to understand why I take on that subject. That conference called on all the faithful of all religions to do away with their “obsession” with conversion.  That decision is not difficult to follow for some Eastern religions or Judaism and others, for those are not traditionally missionary religions. They are more like tribal religions that are restricted to and identified with one distinct people, like the Jews. Or they may largely be concentrated in one geographical region like Hindus and Buddhists.

My Christian reading of the Old Testament (OT) makes me wonder why Judaism is not a missionary religion. I read in the OT that God’s plan for Israel was temporarily to focus on Abraham’s offspring. But the long-range plan was for Abraham’s seed to become a blessing to the entire world. Well, don’t have the space to treat this more extensively. The last half century, Buddhism, one of the Eastern religions, has become quite active in the West, not only following its immigrant adherents, but finding ready soil among fall-outs from either Christianity or secularism. For these and other non-missionary religions, it is not difficult to follow the demand to drop the obsession to convert. They never had it to begin with, except then this recent exception.

Conversion in Islam--No/Yes

Two religions that are particularly missionary minded both in theory and practice are Christianity and Islam. For these two religions, a call to drop their “obsession” with conversion amounts to considering the religions themselves as “obsessions,” for their missionary character is part of their core or essence. You take away this missionary thrust and you end up with a stultified version no longer true to its deepest core.

I can somewhat understand Muslim leaders signing on to this declaration. They do not talk of conversion so much as reversion, that is a coming back, a coming home.  That is to say, to them everyone is by nature and by birth a Muslim. When a person leaves another religion to become a Muslim, he does not convert but revert. She returns to what is the created natural religion; she returns home where she belongs. Secondly, calling people back to Islam, though a drive deep within the religion, is also considered a natural pose. Of course, you want people to become Islam. That’s not an obsession; that’s the best thing you have in mind for them, the greatest gift one can offer to your neighbor or entire nation. So, when Muslims sign on to such a document, they are thinking not of themselves but of Christians with their aggressive missionary approach. When they sign but nevertheless continue to preach their gospel, to Christians that seems like duplicity and hypocrisy. Not so to Muslims. They merely do what comes and is natural. According to Muslims, it is Christians who are doing the unnatural, which thus amounts to an obsession.  

However, when Muslims are busy urging folks to "revert," to other religions they are converting, while they pledged to quit. It's one of the many reasons people tend to mistrust the words of Muslim leaders. 

Concluding Remarks

Well, too late in this post to start talking about this Christian and, as other people see it, Muslim “obsession,” even though I have not yet reached the quota of 750 words. But I’ll let it go for now and come back to the subject in the next post.  This implies that the subject of “total depravity” will be pushed ahead one slot.  I think you can live with that, for it is not a very pleasant subject! No one is eager to think about that subject, let alone talk about it!  BBBRRRR! How awful!