(A Couple More) Reflections on "Restoring Honor"

I have just got off of the phone with a friend with whom I've discussed the Restoring Honor rally in some detail. He's a Southern Baptist minister who agreed with me that Russell Moore's column was spot on. As we talked, I was reminded of a couple of things that built upon what I wrote last night:

1. When there was some discussion regarding Mitt Romney's Mormonism in 2008 I said at the time that I could vote for him if he got the nomination (I was a Fred Thompson backer from the beginning but when he dropped out after a lackadaisical campaign -- long after the South Carolina primary -- I hoped that Romney would be the candidate) because I was voting for my President, not my Bishop. It was, and is, a matter of sphere sovereignty; I could easily vote for a candidate whose positions were in line with a Christian worldview despite their having a heterodox theology over against a candidate with whom I was in theological agreement but whose politics were less than sound.

Ironic, then, that much of American Evangelicalism is ready to elevate Glenn Beck to something uncomfortably close to its episcopate.

2. I also recalled a conversation that I had years ago in college with a professor -- now deceased -- who leaned to the left both politically and ecclesiastically (a Southern Baptist, he was an early member of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and complained about what had become of his Alma mater, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in the "Fundamentalist Takeover*"). I studied under him at a state university and, while our theological differences became more stark over the years, I learned much from him and counted him a friend until his death. As we were talking it came up that the Army curiously classifies LDS chaplains as "Protestant." He retorted, "I guess they don't have a category for 'cult!'"

Ironic that my liberal friend got what many of the Evangelicals in the United States seem to be missing!

*As an aside, when trying to determine the theological position of a Southern Baptist, a good indicator is to see how they refer to what happened in the late 1970s through the early 1990s. If it is called the "conservative resurgence" then they are reliably conservative/evangelical. If they call it the "Fundamentalist takeover" they are almost certainly a liberal. Another quick indicator is to casually work the name of Al Mohler into the conversation. If they get visibly angry, they're probably a liberal. If they smile, they're probably a conservative/evangelical, if they get puppy dog eyes, they're almost certainly of a Reformed stripe and are probably members of the Founder's Movement.

I hope all of my Southern Baptist friends know that the above was written in good natured fun, accurate though it may be!

Reflections on "Restoring Honor"

First of all, if you want to read the definitive reflections on the "Restoring Honor" rally, read the Rev'd Dr. Russell D. Moore's "God, the Gospel, and Glenn Beck." I can't improve on what Moore says and won't even try; I'm in essential agreement with his reflections.

I've been listening to Glenn Beck on and off since 2003 -- when he first aired on one of the local talk stations and have generally found him informative and entertaining. I have from time to time somewhat jokingly referred to him as "my favorite Mormon," and while I have never gone to one of his shows nor have I bought any of his books, I did consider purchasing one and taking it to be autographed when he made an appearance at the Barnes & Noble that is across the street from my office (the crowd was unbelievable and I didn't have the time or the inclination to endure it to see him). When he launched the 9-12 Project I gathered with some friends at a local bar for a viewing party (I've not been to any meetings since then so I'm hardly a "member," but I so share some of their concerns and have attended a couple of Tea Parties [not the same thing, but there is certainly some overlap there]). I have friends who were on the Mall on Saturday; most of them will probably disagree with my thoughts.

Mr. Beck is an unapologetic member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It is certainly his right to belong to that sect, and my disagreements with it -- which are substantial -- don't prevent me from enjoying his show (they also wouldn't have prevented me from supporting his fellow-Mormon Mitt Romney [which I did for a time in 2008, after Fred Thompson had withdrawn from the race for the Republican Presidential nomination)]. Harry Reid being a notable exception, most of the Mormons that I have encountered have been very traditional, family oriented, and pro-life -- people with whom I naturally have much in common and with whom I'm happy to stand politically and socially.

Why, then, am I less than enthusiastic about Restoring Honor, an event that I actually considered attending? Sarah Palin, who made voting for the 2008 Republican Presidential ticket acceptable to me and of whom I continue to be a fan, was there, as was Alveda King, whom I heard speak eloquently and with conviction at a banquet for the Lowcountry Pregnancy Center here in Charleston several years ago. One would think that this would be my must-attend event of the summer, something to which I would flock like a moth to a flame. One would, it turns out, be mistaken.

Mr. Beck called for a renewed emphasis on family and faith -- with which I completely agree. "The Kingdom of God will not arrive on Air Force One" may or may not be original to Cal Thomas, whom I first heard say it in 1994, but it is completely true. If the Republic is to be preserved politics will indeed play a part, but it will be a bit part as hearts are turned to God and renewed individuals, families, and churches proclaim God's truth and live transformed lives. Again, shouldn't I be completely on board with Glenn Beck?

It turns out I can't be. Time and again I heard people -- Christians who are on the right side of the battles raging in their churches regarding doctrine and manner of life -- say that Glen Beck says what pastors don't have the guts to say and that what he says is what he need to hear in the churches. While some of that may be true (the cultural mandate is very real and Christians are called to declare the whole counsel of God), one can hardly be said to be doing so if one gets all of the family values messages right and then gets the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures, and the Holy Trinity wrong. Mr. Beck, as a faithful Mormon, gets all of these and more wrong -- despite how right his message may sound and despite how attractively it may be packaged, I cannot pretend that those issues are inconsequential. I do not claim to have watched all of the rally (I was in a class for most of it), but I do know that time and again Mr. Beck referred to himself as a Christian (he frequently does so on his radio program) and time and again speakers who hold to the historic Christian faith did so as well either directly or by implication.

Mr. Beck proclaims another faith. A faith that is similar to Christianity (therein lies much of the danger) but different on key points. As Dr. Moore so aptly points out, the problem is not with Glenn Beck, the problem is what it says about American Christianity. Dr. Moore writes, "It’s taken us a long time to get here, in this plummet from Francis Schaeffer to Glenn Beck" -- true indeed and very damning, as Glenn Beck couldn't be dubbed the leader of America's Christian Conservative movement with approbation from many of those Christian Conservatives unless there was a huge vacuum at the helm; there is, and his ascendancy to that spot indicates just how vivid it is.

Do I think Christians should be active in the pro-life movement? Absolutely! I have been and will continue to be so. Do I think that Christians should be active in the political process, seeking to apply their faith in the public square? You bet. Do I think that Christians should work with those of other faiths in the political sphere? Yes, if they can do so without compromise. But most certainly do not think that Christians should be willing to sacrifice the essentials of the faith in so doing. Katharine Jefferts Schori , John Shelby Spong, and others are rightly taken to task when they preach a liberal universalism that denies the uniqueness of the Gospel; a conservative universalism that does exactly the same thing is just as bad -- maybe even worse. If the Church wins the culture war but denies historic Christianity in so doing, it will be no victory at all.

A Response to Will Moredock

For background, see: "Fear of the Future: Fundamentalism began as a reaction to modernism" by Will Moredock (Charleston City Paper, 16 December 2009, 8) -- DC+

To the Editor:

Will Moredock did a fairly good job of outlining the origin of the
term “Fundamentalist” and discussing the essays, later published as a
collection entitled The Fundamentals (“Fear of the Future:
Fundamentalism began as a reaction to modernism,” Dec. 16), but his
analysis is predictably biased and many of the implications that he
draws have the flavor of a straw man.

As one who actually owns the four-volume collection of essays, I was
surprised to read him charge that they “. . . encapsulated a lot of
free-floating ideas that had been inhabiting the fringe of American
theology for generations.” The five fundamentals upon which the
essays were based (Scriptural inerrancy, the virgin-birth and deity of
Christ, the substitutionary atonement [that salvation is by grace
through faith in Christ], the bodily resurrection of Christ, and the
authenticity of Christ's miracles to include the expectation of His
bodily return at some future point) were mainstream Protestant
doctrine since the Reformation and, with some nuances regarding
substitutionary atonement would have been uncontroversial among Roman
Catholic and Orthodox Christians as well.

The notion that “. . . the important thing for the fundamentalist is
to get right with God and prepare to be whooshed up in the Rapture.
The world and the people in it are not worth saving” is also not a
major theme in The Fundamentals. While it is true that C.I.
Schofield, one of the major originators of pre-millenial,
pre-trubulational Dispensationalism, was a contributor, Old
Princetonian and post-millenialist B.B. Warfield was also a
contributor. Warfield's colleague at Princeton Seminary, Charles
Erdman, authored the essay on “The Coming of Christ” and took an
historically pre-millenial – but not Dispensational – tone.

Many of the Fundamentalists whom Mr. Moredock eschews – for instance,
Jerry Falwell – showed an appreciation for the cultural mandate that
contradicted their Dispensational views, founding schools and colleges
and seeking to articulate a distinctively Christian worldview that
applied faith to all of life to include the political sphere – Mr.
Moredock might well hope for some of the old-time pietism that sought
to withdraw from society!

The Rev'd Charles A. Collins, Jr.
Goose Creek