Chuck Colson and Me

When I prayed the evening office tonight I remembered Charles Colson, in extremis, for reports have been received that Colson -- better known to many as "Chuck" -- is near death after having fallen ill several weeks ago and undergoing emergency surgery for a blood clot. I owe him a debt of gratitude on a number of counts.

I was raised in a nominal Christian family in a nice respectable church that, quite frankly, didn't talk much about my sinfulness or need for redemption, but I did spend a good deal of time at the now-demolished Myrtle Square Mall because Collins Department Store, owned by the family and (in the case of that one) managed by my dad (it's gone now too -- we sold them in 1981). We'd go there shopping and I was let loose to roam at a fairly early age. The Word, a Christian Bookstore located right by Sears (people of a certain age who were raised in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, will know exactly where I'm talking about) was owned and operated by the Herdons, good folk whom I knew from church, and sold (among other things) Spire Christian Comics. They were simplistic but actually conveyed the stories that they intended to tell pretty well and one of them was an adaptation of Chuck Colson's autobiography, Born Again. While it wasn't high art it was the first time that I can remember hearing of my need for a saviour and the concept of new birth in Christ. I later read the book and saw the movie, but that comic book was the first clear presentation of the Gospel that I can remember and was used to bring me to faith in Christ. Really.

Some years later, after commissioning and while still in college, I began considering a vocation to ordained ministry and read a number of Colson's books including The Body. While not a scholarly tome it did impact how I viewed the Church and its mission in the world -- the first ecclesiology I read. It was through his works that I first learned of a Christian world and life view, and for that I'm very thankful; his thoughtful Breakpoint commentaries fleshed that out. Charles Colson was also one of the leaders in the Manhattan Declaration, a great statement of Christian conscience of which I was pleased to be the 4177th signer (if you've not done so I encourage you to sign it as well) and continued to promote Christian engagement with culture -- all of this, in addition to his primary work reaching men and women in prison with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

In 1997 I got to hear Colson in person at the dedication of Reformed Theological Seminary's Charlotte Campus and I regret that I didn't meet him that night (the crowds were considerable). Barring the miraculous, I probably won't get a chance to thank him in person in this life but want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation for the impact that he's had on my life and the Church of Christ at large.

A Few Thoughts on Taxes

Since I use the original 1928 Book of Common Prayer Lectionary, the first lesson for Morning Prayer this morning was Genesis 41:15-37, where Joseph -- having been hauled out of prison to interpret Pharaoh's dream -- delivers the bad news that seven years of prosperity are to be followed by seven years of famine. In response to this unfortunate news, Joseph advises Pharaoh that he should set up overseers who will take one-fifth (20%) of the produce and put it in storage so that when the lean years come the people of Egypt will not starve but will instead be cared for. That -- and the fact that my income tax return needs to be filed soon -- got me thinking about taxes.

What Joseph established was a de facto tax, but it was a tax that was dealing with a specific coming crisis. The 20% that was gleaned would pay rich dividends in the future when famine came to the land. In contrast to this, too much of the taxes that are payed today go to servicing debt -- debt that continues to grow, and grow, and grow with the printing of fiat money. Elsewhere in Scripture, when the people clamor for a King, Samuel warns them about some of the things that this King -- Saul -- will do. Among the warnings that he lists are that the King will take a tenth of their grain and flocks (1 Samuel 8:15, 17). Clearly, he sees a 10% tax as excessive. That's even lower than the 20% that Joseph advised -- when, after all, he was dealing with an emergency.

In comparison, many in the United States pay between 32-40% in taxes once the direct and indirect (the so-called "hidden taxes" that are embedded in the products and services that we buy) are taken into account. That's considerably more than the sub 10% rate that Samuel seemed to hope for! Furthermore, taxes in the United States are progressive, meaning that if you work hard and earn more money you get more taxes, meaning that a raise can quickly morph into a pay cut. For people in the top tax bracket of 40%, they can easily pay more than 10% in local taxes, meaning that most of the fruit of their hard work is taken from them. That's an effective way to disincentivize success. It's interesting to note that when God established the Census tax in Israel, progressive taxation was forbidden.

There are numerous other problems with the way that we do taxes and I'll try to address those in the near future. Suffice it to say, though, that the current system isn't working. Perhaps returning to the old paths outlined in Scripture are worth more than a passing glance.

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