“I have a friend whose wife suffers from Alzheimers. She doesn’t even recognize him anymore, and, as you can imagine, the marriage has been rough. My friend has gotten bitter at God for allowing her to be in that condition, and now he’s started seeing another woman. He says that he should be allowed to see other people, because his wife as he knows her is gone… I’m not quite sure what to tell him. Please help.”

Here’s the helpful advice Robertson offered:

“That is a terribly hard thing. It is… I hate Alzheimers! It is one of the most awful things because here is the loved one, this is the woman or man that you have loved for 20, 30, 40 years, and suddenly that person is gone! They’re gone! They are gone! So–what he says basically is correct… I, I know it sounds cruel, but if he’s gonna do something he should divorce her and start all over again, but, you know, to make sure she has custodial care, somebody looking after her–”

At this point the moderator interjected:

“But isn’t that the vow that we take when we marry someone, that it’s for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer–”

Robertson continued:

“Yeah, well I know, is–if you respect that vow, but if you say that till death do us part, this is a kind of death. So that’s what he’s saying, is that she’s like–This is an ethical question that is beyond my ken… to tell you, but I certainly wouldn’t put a guilt trip on you if you decided that, you know, you had to have companionship, you’re lonely and you’re asking for some companionship as opposed to–what a grief! I know one man who went to see his wife every single day, and she didn’t recognize him one single day, and she would complain that he never came to see her, and it was just… really hurtful, because they say crazy things. And… well… she–she finally died, I don’t know what he’s done, but nevertheless its–it’s a terribly difficult thing for somebody, and I–I can’t fault them for wanting some kind of uh, um, companionship, and if he says in a sense she’s gone, he’s right, it’s like a walking death. But, I–get some ethicist besides me to give you the answer [laughs]. I recognize the dilemma, the last thing I’d do is condemn you for taking that kind of action.”

Pat Robertson is taking a running jump down the slippery slope to euthanasia, and scandalously denying Christ’s teaching on divorce and adultery. This clearly shows that he does not believe in the inherent dignity, humanity and worth of the human body. If a person is not enough of a person to stay married to–if she is the walking dead, if she is “gone,” why should you provide “custodial care?” If the person has actually departed, why keep her body alive? But, if marriage is to be honored both “in sickness and in health,” according to the marriage vows, then it does not matter how diseased the person’s mind is, or how much they have forgotten. As long as they are alive, the marriage covenant must not be broken whether by adultery or divorce, and they must be cared for with love and tenderness.

I am getting married in two weeks. If the marriage vows meant no more to me than this, I should have to call off the marriage. It is unjust and immoral to treat a spouse this way.

Robertson’s theology is the false “theology of glory” that is at odds with the “theology of the Cross.”  The theology of glory gives us false hopes of health, wealth, and happiness–and then leads us into temptation when its promises don’t pan out. The theology of the Cross promises us only Christ–but assures us that whatever may happen, His grace will be enough for us. Robertson had a chance to preach this true Gospel, and he blew it. Again. He has no business speaking for Christ and the church, and should retire.

See my previous post on Pat Robertson here.

UPDATE: Russell Moore says it better than me. Read his article here.

While I don’t want to discount the veracity of anyone’s conversion experience, it seems this practice of the altar call attempts to meet needs in fundamentalist Christianity which have for most of the church’s history been met through the practice of the sacraments.

1. The need for reconciliation with God, salvation, and public profession of saving faith in Christ.

This is the basis of the altar call. Sinners cannot be reconciled to God unless they will turn from their sins, place faith in Christ, and acknowledge His lordship over their lives. The altar call places this choice clearly before them. Will they come to Jesus, or will they remain in their seat and refuse His call?

2. The need for continual public confession, repentance and re-dedication to Christ.

As Carpenter notes, though originally for the unsaved, the altar call was so agreeable as to be extended to believers as well, who, though they were already saved, felt the need of fresh unction and commitment. Revival moments served to encourage them also in their faith.

3. The need to feel unified with the Body of Christ.

The altar call is always practiced in places where the church is assembled. A private altar call is an impossibility. It unifies the church and encourages the members that they are in fact members one of another in Christ.

Doubtless, the altar call is a source of much spiritual encouragement to many people. Yet every single one of these needs is met, in a fuller and more meaningful way, in the practice of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, the two ordinances given by Christ to believers as means of grace.

Baptism.

The Gospel call in the book of Acts is consistently joined to baptism. “John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4). “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27). “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:4), and finally, “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21).

These scriptures shouldn’t be dismissed. It is folly to count a person’s entry into the Church happening at any time other than their baptism. How many people must raise their hands or ‘go forward’ at an altar call who never end up being baptized? Why are people permitted, just as I was as a teenager, to go for years professing Christ without being baptized? And yet they are counted as converts. Conversely, how many people ‘convert’ at altar calls who have already received the sacrament of baptism?

The Lord’s Supper.

Those looking for confirmation of their salvation, forgiveness of sin, and confirmation of their membership in Christ’s body should not have to seek out rare revival moments, since the sacrament of Communion is offered to them regularly in church. In the Lord’s Supper, Jesus offers the Christian his own body and blood, the means by which saving grace has been procured, as a reminder of his death and resurrection and the believer’s continuing life in him. Communion is practiced with other believers, preserving the unity of the Church. Communion is also accompanied by confession and absolution, so that the Christian may have nothing to prevent him from following Christ with a whole heart.

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.   
(1 Corinthians 11:23-26)

The altar call, I believe, arose within fundamentalist environments that were hostile to the historical understanding and practice of the sacraments because they viewed them as superstitious–or else had simply forgotten why they were significant. What we need now is not more experimental piety, but to return to practicing the gifts of God which Christ has ordained for the use of his Church.

Indeed, conversions were fundamentalists’ most powerful experiences of the holy. Even though they had other channels of divine encounter and fellowship, nothing could match the wonder that fundamentalists expressed at the experience of being born again, or in seeing another person come to Christ for salvation. Unlike sacramental Christians, for whom the holy presence of God comes most commonly in the Eucharist, or pentecostals, whose encounters with the Holy Spirit involve a variety of signs and wonders, especially speaking in tongues, fundamentalists have looked to the New Birth to satisfy their yearning for miracles, for signs of God’s visitation with them. Fundamentalist preachers regularly gave the invitation for people to step forward and publicly profess Christ as their savior, and many pastors insisted on giving this “altar call” at every service. Their reason for doing this was that it was their evangelistic duty, but this ritual, performed with the musicians softly playing, the congregation singing or praying, and the leader speaking in an almost liturgical cadence, had become the high and holy moment of the fundamentalist church service, the time when miracles happened. For many fundamentalists, the experience of walking the aisle was so inspiring that doing it once was not enough. Surely people might feel encouraged in their faith and be charged with holy joy when others responded to the gospel, but there was nothing like experiencing it personally. Since conversion happened only once, fundamentalists developed ways for born-again Christians to “come forward” more often. By broadening their altar call into an invitation for believers to receive further assurance of their salvation, to dedicate or rededicate their lives to God, to surrender themselves to God’s service, or to testify to a “definite call” to a particular field of service, fundamentalists found a way to meet their thirst for holy moments. “Going forward” became a fundamentalist sacrament.

From Joel A. Carpenter, Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism, Oxford UP 1999, p.77.

A god is offering a fantastic nostrum for eternal health and well-being.  Sign up as a distributor now and reap the benefits. Right now you can ‘get in on the ground floor’ of this literally cosmic opportunity, and start a planet of your own one day, where your wife(s) and spiritual children will comprise your own ‘downline’ of glory.

It’s no wonder that so many of these MLMs are based out of Salt Lake City.

Here are a couple of excerpts from the print edition to whet your interest. Patrick Henry Reardon offers non-partisan musings on the “immigration problem” and ends with the following as a sort of coda:

“. . . if the conflict in Mexico is truly a war, it is a war in which the United States has assumed the burden of financing both sides: Every dollar that goes from our national treasury to support the anti-gang efforts of the Mexican government is matched by another dollar from some United States citizen who purchases illegal drugs. That is to say, our northern drug problem has spilled over, violently, into Mexico. To put the fact as brutally as the circumstances warrant, the poorest people in Mexico are paying, with their lives, for the vices and self-indulgence of their northern neighbors.”

“It should be obvious that there is no political solution to this disaster. It is a clear case where politics and economics lie very much downstream of culture. The abuse of narcotics in this country is, first of all, a spiritual and moral symptom, not a law enforcement problem.”

Meanwhile, S.M. Hutchens suggests one reason why Christian-raised young people seem to like Ayn Rand: it allows them to have their moral cake and eat it too:

I have had some opportunity to observe Randian objectivism among young people raised in conservative Christian homes, and cannot escape the impression that for these it serves as a freestyle substitute for button-down conservatism (religious or political) which allows them to sit loose to the sexual mores of Christianity. They find it better than modern liberalism because it permits them to maintain a modicum of reason with regard to the nature and operations of the real world, but is less demanding than Christianity. It is a practical answer to the hardships imposed by their parents’ religion, chief among them constant confrontation with sin and guilt with scant present opportunity to enjoy the consolations of superior righteousness (that being rejected as Pharisaical). Objectivist philosophy provides them this righteousness at a cost they are able to pay.

This issue of Touchstone also includes Patrick Fagan writing on “The Cultural Marxists’ Strategic Assault on Religion, Life & Family,” and, of course, much, much more!

DRAMATIS PERSONAE

Judge:
Mario Molina, Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1995

Prosecutor:
Will Steffen, Professor and Director, Climate Change Institute, Australian National University

Defender:
Garry Peterson, Professor, Stockholm Resilience Centre at  Stockholm University

Jury:
Werner Arber, Nobel Prize in Medicine 1978
Peter Doherty, Nobel Prize in Medicine 1996
Jim Mirrlees, Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1996
Carlo Rubbia, Nobel Prize in Physics 1984

Witness:
Paul J. Crutzen, Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1995

Moderator:
Christine Loh, Co-founder and CEO, Civic Exchange, Hong Kong

I’ve never heard of a trial featuring a moderator. She was probably added to balance the otherwise all-male cast. Yet while this probably marks the first time three Nobel laureates have been on a jury together, the trial court itself has no standing. God may judge us, certainly. Nature herself may deliver judgments with all the force of her constant and unbending laws. But there is no way the human race can be indicted in a human court.

Courts and trials presuppose the existence of laws, remedies, and punishments. But law, to have authority, must carry an authority higher than what is being judged by it. Here we have a small number of self-appointed humans judging the entire human race according to their own idea of justice. Even if they were the legitimate and sole representatives of humanity, which they are not, they could not pass judgment on humanity itself for violating a law that cannot be said to be in any sense human. Nor can they prosecute humanity on behalf of the laws of nature. This would be like prosecuting a person in civil court for blasphemous statements as a violation of the law of God. A human court has no standing to adjudicate or prosecute either the law of God or the law of nature.

May I ask you to let me know sometime what you think of Mr. Popper. He gave a lecture here, on the task of social philosophy, that was beneath contempt: it was the most washed-out, lifeless positivism trying to whistle in the dark, linked to a complete inability to think “rationally,” although it passed itself off as “rationalism”–it was very bad. I cannot imagine that such a man ever wrote something that was worthwhile reading, and yet it appears to be a professional duty to become familiar with his productions. Could you say something to me about that–if you wish, I will keep it to myself.

Warmest greetings,
Leo Strauss

Voegelin replies:

April 18, 1950

Dear Mr. Strauss,

The opportunity to speak a few deeply felt words about Karl Popper to a kindred soul is too golden to endure a long delay. This Popper has been for years, not exactly a stone against which one stumbles, but a troublesome pebble that I must continually nudge from the path, in that he is constantly pushed upon me by people who insist that his work on the “open society and its enemies” is one of the social science masterpieces of our times. This insistence persuaded me to read the work even though I would otherwise not have touched it. You are quite right to say that it is a vocational duty to make ourselves familiar with the ideas of such a work when they lie in our field; I would hold out against this duty the other vocational duty, not to write and to publish such a work. In that Popper violated this elementary vocational duty and stole several hours of my lifetime, which I devoted in fulfilling my vocational duty, I feel completely justified in saying without reservation that this book is impudent, dilettantish crap. Every single sentence is a scandal, but it is still possible to lift out a few main annoyances.

1.  The expression “closed [society]” and “open society” are taken from Bergson’s Deux Sources. Without explaining the difficulties that induced Bergson to create these concepts, Popper takes the terms because they sound good to him; [he] comments in passing that in Bergson they had a “religious” meaning, but that he will use the concept of the open society closer to Graham Wallas’s “great society” or to that of Walter Lippmann. Perhaps I am oversensitive about such things, but I do not believe that respectable philosophers such as Bergson develop their concepts for the sole purpose that the coffeehouse scum might have something to botch. There also arises the relevant problem: if Bergson’s theory of open society is philosophically and historically tenable (which I in fact believe), then Popper’s idea of the open society is ideological rubbish. For this reason alone, he should have discussed the problem with all possible care.

2.  The impertinent disregard for the achievements in his particular problem area, which makes itself evident with respect to Bergson, runs through the whole work. When one reads the deliberations on Plato or on Hegel, one has the impression that Popper is quite unfamiliar with the literature on the subject–even though he occasionally cites an author. In some cases, as for example Hegel, I would believe that he has never seen a work like Rosenzweig’s Hegel and the State. In other cases, where he cites works without appearing to have perceived their contents, another factor is added:

3.  Popper is philosophically so uncultured, so fully a primitive ideological brawler, that he is not able even approximately to reproduce correctly the contents of one page of Plato. Reading is of no use to him; he is too lacking in knowledge to understand what the author says. Through this emerge terrible things, as when he translates Hegel’s “Germanic world” as “German world” and draws conclusions from this mistranslation regarding Hegel’s German nationalist propaganda.

4.  Popper engages in no textual analysis from which can be seen the author’s intention; instead he carries the modern ideological clichés directly to the text, assuming that the text will deliver results in the sense of the clichés. It will be a special pleasure for you to hear that, for example, Plato experienced an evolution–from an early “humanitarian” period still recognizable in the Gorgias, to something else (I can’t recall any more if “reactionary” or “authoritarian”) in the Republic.

Briefly and in sum: Popper’s book is a scandal without extenuating circumstances; in its intellectual attitude it is the typical product of a failed intellectual; spiritually one would have to use expressions like rascally, impertinent, loutish; in terms of technical competence, as a piece in the history of thought, it is dilettantish, and as a result is worthless.

It would not be suitable to show this letter to the unqualified. Where it concerns its factual contents, I would see it as a violation of the vocational duty you identified, to support this scandal through silence.

Eric Voegelin

Strauss responds:

8.8.50

My dear Mr. Voegelin,

I have never thanked you for your interesting letter dated 18.4. In confidence I would like to tell you that I showed your letter to my friend Kurt Riezler, who was thereby encouraged to throw his not inconsiderable influence into the balance against Popper’s probable appointment here. You thereby helped to prevent a scandal.

I actually became interested in political theory through reading Popper and other questionable moderns, although I have since mended my ways. As a college freshman I read Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, as well as Voegelin’s The New Science of Politics, which both helped me to ground my political philosophy more carefully. Both are indispensable. The Strauss-Voegelin correspondence excerpted above would also be incredibly enlightening to anyone who wishes to understand either thinker. Strauss and Voegelin generally discuss the points in which they differ, and their exchange is fun to read. The excerpt above is actually uncharacteristically harsh; the two men reserve a great deal of gravity and respect for each other and for others even when they disagree, as they often do. It is probable that the strong terms in which Popper is described reflect the way in which Voegelin and Strauss feel he discredits their profession through his sloppy work, yet is unaccountably fêted for it. We have all experienced this feeling.

10:1 For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. . . . 14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

1 Corinthians 10:1-5; 14-17 ESV

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

1 Corinthians 11:23-32 ESV

These are some striking passages. Some of the implications:

1. By receiving the bread and wine together, Christians are partaking of the redemptive body and blood of Jesus Christ.
2. This term, the “body,” appears to have multiple simultaneous meanings. It refers both to the elements, which are by Jesus’s institution his own body, and to those partaking in them, who by grace participate in and become the body of Christ, i.e., the Church.
3. Participation in the sacraments is akin to the participation of Israel in God’s collective acts of redemption. Likewise, Paul is very clear that the Lord’s Supper is something Christians must participate in together.
4. To rightly partake of a sacrament, Christians must acknowledge its true nature, to the extent that they are able. Infants and children have very little rational understanding, but even a child can understand that it is “the body of Christ” and that it requires he forgive his brother.
5. Sacraments could be called symbols, but the word fails somewhat, because the physical elements really convey the substance of what they represent.
6. An essential meaning of the Lord’s Supper is the unity of the church in one Body, which is why ‘private communion’ is almost an oxymoron.
7. An equally essential meaning of the Lord’s Supper is that Christ presents himself to believers by grace through the elements, when received in faith.
8. Christ is apparently present in the elements even when someone does not “discern the body,” because in partaking without faith, the undiscerning person may incur judgment which he would not otherwise have suffered.
9. The sacrament of the table is thus a means by which Christ sanctifies and unifies his Church, in a way that has to be regarded as more than symbolic, metaphorical, or psychological.

In addition to the Bible, the writings of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Augustine of Hippo, Melito of Sardis, and Gene Edward Veith have been very helpful.

It seems as if the Islamic terrorists were able, by acts of symbolic violence, to subject us to the Dar-al-Harb, the Islamic version of Hobbes’s “state of war,” from which islam, absolute, unquestioning submission to Allah, is the only escape.

The universality of Christianity is worlds apart from the universal claims of Islamism. Unlike most religions, Christianity is not a religion that is tied to a particular place or culture, whereas Islam is impossible to imagine without Mecca or the Arabic language. The political imagination of Islam is completely caught up in political victory accomplished in this world, whereas Christianity follows St. Augustine in professing primary allegiance to a kingdom which is ‘not of this world.’ This kingdom is represented in the Church, but will not become fully realized on earth until the resurrection of the dead. Christians are not required to withdraw from worldly affairs, but they are not permitted to exalt them as matters of ultimate importance. When Christianity became a universally welcoming faith immediately following Christ’s resurrection, it abandoned Zealous dreams of political power.

Thus, Christianity adapts much more easily to various places and their various cultures. It is able to coexist with family and community ties, laws, and the accidents of location, mutual dependence, and shared history. Christianity is the most racially and culturally diverse religion, with converts from all nations. Its scriptures are translated into every language, and converts are encouraged to learn how to live as Christians within their own contexts.

One thing distinguishes the zealot from the communitarian. The latter is primarily concerned with the welfare of those around him, and only secondarily interested in ideologies and non-local political matters.

The racist is not a communitarian. His predisposition to ally himself primarily with a dispersed population of co-racials (as he imagines them) impairs his love for the people near him who are not like him.

The political partisan may still be a communitarian, but only to the extent that his disposition does not lead him to sacrifice the well-being of his fellow citizens, especially those with whom he lives. What is his first allegiance? One can be a loyal “American” and hate his brother.

But can a Christian be a communitarian? Christianity is, after all, a universal and absolute religious commitment, one that brooks no rivals in the human heart. The Christian’s allegiance is held first by the kingdom of Heaven, which does not exist on earth. Yet the teaching of Christianity is fully compatible with living in a local community. While unbending in its ethics, Christianity is very generous toward the unbeliever in a way that most ideologies–both religious and secular–are not. It puts the opportunity for salvation before each individual, while leaving the outcome to God alone. Christians even deny that apart from the work of God any person can come to faith by himself. Conversion is a sign of special Divine intervention. Thus, compulsive conversion is not an option for Christians.

In Islam, the profession of faith is more important than a genuine belief in and love of God, because Islam is a political religion. By contrast, the Christian always hopes that even the ‘vilest sinner’ may be savingly ‘found’ by God. The Christian does seek the kingdom of God, but it is a ‘peaceable’ kingdom that cannot be realized in the political sphere. Rather, it is the rule of God to which the Christian submits his own heart, and is lived out in his daily work in seeking the well-being of those around him.