John H Armstrong

My Journey to Rome

In a few days I will have the pleasure of accompanying members of Christian missionary communities, in which evangelicals and Roman Catholics minister side-by-side among the poor and marginalized, on a pilgrimage to Rome.  The founders of InnerChange and Emmaus, and their members, have discovered a new ecumenical springtime in forgotten places, among the likes of gang members and men and women caught up in prostitution.  In prayer they have felt led to travel together to Rome and meet with key figures in the ecumenical world, in order to share this vision, and to learn from the ongoing quest for Christian unity as it actually exists in practice around the globe.  The vision of missional-ecumenism that I expressed in my recent book, Your Church Is Too Small, is something these brothers and sisters practice everyday among the despised of this world.  We have mutually found a common bond, a shared heart and vision, and together have sensed the Spirit's timing in leading us all to gather in Rome.  Most of us will actually meet there face-to-face there for the first time.

Our hopes for this time are quite modest.  We will meet with professors at Pontifical universities, with staff at the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU), the Centro Pro Unione, the Director of the Anglican Centre in Rome, and the European President of the World Council of Churches. Our goal is rather simple---to humbly share friendship and vision as fellow pilgrims on this journey.  We come not as experts, nor as grand theologians, but simply in response to the impulse of the Holy Spirit, in the hopes of sharing how 'Missional Ecumenism at the Margins' is bearing fruit in the hidden corners of the world.  We hope to listen and learn from champions of unity and to try to discern together how the Holy Spirit is at work today in drawing Christians together. 

Cardinal Kasper, the former President of the PCPCU, said recently that what is needed now in the ecumenical realm is a "New Pentecost.”  This is our humble prayer, that in some small way we might be a part of a new work of the Holy Spirit to break down the dividing walls of hostility between followers of Jesus, so that the world might believe.  Please join us in this prayer, as we gather in the ancient city of Rome for a forward looking time of fellowship, prayer and conversation about the renewing of Christ’s catholic church.

For me this trip involved a number of providences that led me to conclude that God wanted me to go. After being open to the idea I felt led to back out. After being implored to pray more and seek God I saw the Spirit leading me to go. I had several obstacles and God removed them all. First, I could not afford the flight and need to fly business class so I could actually sleep (a medical necessity in my case). A friend gave me 150,000 miles to fly and that was taken care of perfectly. Then I need money and a place to lodge. Two donors gave the money, one even before the trip was actually agreed upon. The other felt led to ask me how he could help before I told him the whole story. Finally, Acton Institute became involved in my planning. I am speaking for their Rome ministry, the first Protestant guest they have hosted I think. Finally, I needed an OK from my physician who said, “So long as you do not carry on a rigorous teaching schedule you can go!” (I think I speak formally only twice.)

I am not sure what God has in store for me in Rome but I fully expect that my life is about to profoundly change. I am not going in order to convert to Catholicism. I am going to open my life to my brothers and sisters in Christ’s mission to see how he wants to use each of us, and all of us, to bring about the New Pentecost we earnestly seek. I believe he alone could have arranged this trip so I go in faith with a deep growing love for all the church of Jesus Christ. As I look back over the course of my life I would never have seen myself in this role even a few years ago. God is truly amazing.

Governor Bobby Jindal: A Devout Christian and Faithful Catholic with a True Vision of our Greatest Need

It is fairly well know by now that the governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal (R.), is a Hindu convert to faith in Jesus Christ as his Lord. Jindal told Christianity Today this last week about his conversion, which he says extended over a seven-year period which included reading the Bible as well as works by modern writers like Charles Colson and C. S. Lewis. Jindal has sometimes been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate but he has not shown the kind of charisma many expect in a national candidate. He is widely praised for his initiatives in leading his state and yet remains a fiscal and social conservative with compassion and moral credibility. Whether you agree with the governor on his policy or not you will find him an impressive person if you get to know more about him as both a person and a leader. A devout convert to Jesus as Lord the governor is also a faithful, practicing Roman Catholic.

At the end of his interview with Christianity Today the governor was asked about his hope for America’s future. He responded in a way that is most atypical of political leaders. His hope for our society is clearly not in politics or leaders like himself.

I do think our society is hungry for revival. Many institutions we traditionally put our faith in have crumpled, and people realize that material things are not ultimately the source of our salvation. I can't promise you that just because you're a believer the hurricanes won't come, that there won't be an oil spill. As Christians, we're secure in the knowledge that in the Book of Life, our God wins. He gets off that cross. He beats Satan. We're not called to be despondent. We are called to be salt and light and to be planting the seeds of the gospel.

Amen Governor Jindal!

I may not always agree with you my brother. I may not even think that you are a viable presidential candidate, which time will tell anyway, but I promise that I will pray for you. And I hope more Christians will speak up as openly and as faithfully as Governor Jindal. The real hope for our nation and people is in the Son of God. We can protect the proper separation of church and state, we can refuse to make Christianity a state religion but we can also see righteous men and women in leadership with a vision that transcends the politics of self-promotion and ideology alone. 

A Myth Too Many of Us Believe

I have heard it said over and over, from conservatives and liberals (theological and political): “The system is broken and we must fix it!” Or, “The government is broken so we should fix it.” From pastors and lay leaders I hear: “The church is broken so we surely should fix it.” Or parents and children: “Our family is broken so how do we fix it?” On and on this goes. I recently read this exceptional and insightful quotation from the book The Practice of Adaptive Leadership. It made me wonder about this common complaint and what we really mean when we invoke it as frequently and broadly we do.

There is a myth that drives many change initiatives into the ground: that the organization needs to change because it is broken. The reality is that any social system (including an organization or a country or a family) is the way it is because the people in that system (at least those individuals and factions with the most leverage) want it that way. In that sense, on the whole, on balance, the system is working fine, even though it may appear to be "dysfunctional" in some respects to some members and outside observers, and even though it faces danger just over the horizon. As our colleague Jeff Lawrence poignantly says, “There is no such thing as a dysfunctional organization, because every organization is perfectly aligned to achieve the results it currently gets” (The Practice of Adaptive Leadership, Ronald Heifetz, Alexander Grashow, Marty Linsky. Harvard Business Press, 2009).

On the Amazon book site the following description of the leadership approach of these authors can be found: “We live in a time of danger and opportunity. Individuals, organizations, communities and countries must continuously adapt to new realities to simply survive. Wanting more, wanting to thrive even under constantly shifting and often perilous conditions, people in all sectors are called upon to lead with the courage and skill to challenge the status quo, deploy themselves with agility, and mobilize others to step into the unknown.” I so deeply concur with this statement. As a leader my goal is reject the myths about organizations and apply what is true, good and just.

These three authors seem to believe that what we really need is a practical set of stories, techniques and activities that will help us to actually assess and address the toughest challenges that lie ahead. I have not yet read their book but I resonate with this idea.

If no organization is, in itself, dysfunctional then none of us does a bit of good by complaining or blaming the church as the church. The problem is in us. If I am a leader then I must do something to bring about change and not simply blame the system. If I am not a leader I should interact with those who are and pray for them. I love the church, with all its flaws and problems. Why? Because it belongs to Christ. I believe that if you love the church you will not continually attack it but rather respond to it in deep love.

Discipleship

No word has more often vexed Christians than the word discipleship. The word disciple occurs 28 times in the New Testament. The word disciples (plural) occurs 245 times. The possessive word disciples’ and the words fellow disciples one time each. Depending on the translation you use that is somewhere between 270-280 times the idea occurs. The word is mathetes and comes from the root word manathano, which means “I learn.”A disciple is one who learns from another person. It carries the idea of mentoring in our modern usage.

The word disciple is used to refer to the 12 apostles of Jesus, one of whom fell away. Other followers of Jesus are also called disciples. Even the broader circle of his friends, his companions, were disciples. Consider also Acts 6:1ff. 9:1,10; 11:26; 14:20ff to see how the early church employed the terminology. Even Moses is said to have had disciples in John 9:28.

The emphasis in the New Testament is not on formal education when it speaks about discipleship. This does not mean formal education is unimportant. But it is not a requirement for being a disciple. What is required is fellowship with Christ and the teaching of someone, or many, who follow Christ as well.

Such disciples derive more than information. They get inspiration from others. And the disciples of our Lord learned their Teacher’s entire outlook on life, not just the stories he taught and the doctrines they might have heard.

Two facts mark discipleship biblically:

1. Fellowship with a teacher is necessary.

2. The disciple carries on a tradition, namely the life of Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit.

When a discipler died his followers carried on the tradition they got from him/her.

We learn in the Gospels that the disciples of Jesus sometimes failed. They did not comprehend his teaching easily. They also failed to recognize his power. And they surely did not see his role at all. But once the Spirit comes, in the Book of Acts, we see things change. These disciples, the term used to collectively describe what we would call Christians, were marked by insight, power and joy. If I had to pick one attribute I think it would be incredible, supernatural joy.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer once write: “Happy are they who know that discipleship simply means the life which springs from grace, and that grace means discipleship.”

Robert Coleman, who has influenced me by his writing and by our relationship, adds, “The kind of manpower Christ needs does not happen by accident . . . Christians must be reached and trained to become effective disciples.”

The church needs to take seriously, in a whole new way, that we are not called to get decisions for Christ but rather to make disciples of Christ. This will require that we who lead focus on this process, not on winning arguments or debates. It will require more than information and books. It will require that we sacrifice ourselves and mentor real people. Far too many of us talk a lot about discipleship when far too few of us have ever made real disciples in the biblical sense of the term. I am convicted to work even harder at this process. I hope you will join me.

The Pastor and His Children

Nothing has vexed me, in serving churches and pastors, quite like the way discussions about the pastor and his children have developed over the course of my lifetime. Let me explain.

1 Timothy 3:4-5 says the bishop/overseer “must manage his household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way—for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church?”

Assuming the overseer is the same office as that of the pastor/elder (I do assume this and some Christians will not agree) then such leaders must “manage” their own household, or their family, well. Later, in 1 Timothy 3;15 Paul refers to the church congregation as a household/family. This is clearly the language of analogy. As a parent leads in the family so that same parent, if given leadership in the church, leads in the spiritual family. The ability to “manage” in one sphere is connected with the ability to do the same in the other sphere; e.g. 3:12; 5:17; Romans 12:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:12. This conclusion seems straightforward.

The context of this text is the Greco-Roman household where familial bonds united people in mutual responsibilities, roles and stewardship. This household included blood relatives but often other dependents, even slaves. Against this background the New Testament texts on this subject make much better sense.

The problem comes when conservative Christians apply this text in a rigid, hierarchical manner. The father is seen as the king of the household and he rules. If rebellion exists in his home then his rule has failed. If he fails to rule well then he should not rule, or govern, in the spiritual realm, the church. The logic is simple but wrongly applied and misplaced.

The key word in this portion of Paul’s letter is in 3:2. Paul says a bishop/overseer must be “above reproach” or “blameless.” What Paul is doing here is simple in my view. He is saying that every Christian should strive to have such a household but an overseer must meet these basic conditions of family discipleship if they are to lead well.

Does this mean the overseer never has family struggles? Or children who step out-of-line? Does it mean there is some super standard for leaders that makes them really spiritual in some unusual way? Obviously, it does not. It does, however, mean those who lead the church must be mature (whole), good leaders. If their family is in chaos then they should not be in the ministry of overseeing the church family. The principle is obvious. The application, however, is not made by a set of rules to be followed. This is not law. It is a simple standard given so that the church will always be careful to have good leadership. If the leader, or leaders, of the church is/are continually dealing with destructive family patterns that makes church leadership ineffective. In some cases, after careful consideration and counsel, such leaders should not serve, at least not until the issue at hand is resolved. The application of this principle requires wisdom, as I mentioned yesterday from the Proverbs. This is what I find so often missing in the way this text is used. Every situation requires care, counsel and much concern for the person and the church, not just for meeting a rule.

The idea here seems to me to be fairly obvious. The overseer should lead a life that is admirable and Christ-like. People should be able to look at this person and say, “There is what Christian maturity looks like spiritually, financially, socially and morally.” The leader’s children will never be angels and no one should expect that they should be. Trying to produce angelic children can be the death knell for grace in the homes of pastors. Great wisdom is needed and the church needs to help, not make the shepherd’s work that much harder. Teens will struggle, even in the best homes. The question is not: “Are my children perfect but rather can I say that I am leading well in the situation in which I find myself at this time?”

To summarize, this text is not a strict code of conduct so much as a broad statement about maturity. Leaders should be mature. In fact, good ones must be all the more mature and this will show in their leadership in their home life.

Titus 1:6 says that elders must have children who are “believers.” By the way, the use of “elder” (1:5) and “overseer” or “bishop” (1:7) indicates, I believe, that these were one and the same office. The terms are here used interchangeably (cf. Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:1-2).

So how can it be a requirement that a pastor/elder have children who are all “believers” in the biblical sense of this word? Note that in this same verse Paul links the word “believer” to children who are “wild and rebellious.” Perhaps he is using “believer” in a more generic sense and one that is not rigidly theological, as in “regenerate.” (I think this is likely the case.) Many see this as a reference to the Cretans and their cultural patterns, which were ungodly through and through. Paul’s concern was that Christians not live like Cretans, but be distinct in their lifestyle.

Over the years I have read numerous attempts to sort this text out. Some write about the age of children in this text (no mention is made) while others appeal to 1 Timothy 3 and say that little children are in view there and older ones in view here. Still others protest that you cannot make regeneration a requirement for office, which seems patently obvious to me. But none of this solves the problem. What is Paul saying?

I think we do far better to read these kinds of verses in their broader context and to keep in mind the proverbial nature of these sayings. Paul is not saying that a pastor must resign if his 18 year old son is not living as a believer in Christ. Nor is he saying that if an overseer has a 40 year old son or daughter, who long ago left the church, they are disqualified from present pastoral leadership. To make this text fit into something like that, thus a kind of ecclesial rule, seems to miss the intent by a thousand miles. Context, context, context. This is everything in the pastoral letters, especially here.

Make no mistake about it. Being a leader in the church requires a mature, godly, Christ-centered lifestyle that is essentially consistent. This plainly touches on the family of the leader. In some cases leaders should step back and deal with their family issues while in others they need time off, with support, to serve their family first while they get things in order. Each situation is different and no one rule fits every person and context perfectly. Wisdom is needed. But this is precisely what God promised to those people, and those congregations, who truly ask for it; cf. James 1:5-8.

Misusing the Proverbs

Perhaps no part of the Holy Scripture has been more frequently abused, at least in my background, than the book of Proverbs. In reading the Bible Through in 90 Days I read Proverbs last week in two days. I was struck again at the obvious: proverbs are general statements that affirm godly values and virtues. The proverbs are not promises but rather sayings that are meant to inform the life of the wise. Wisdom is the foundation of a godly life and these sayings will help you gain wisdom in daily living and decision making.

The classic illustration of the way to understand Proverbs is found in Proverbs 26:4-5.

Do not answer fools according to the their folly, or you yourself will be just like them.

Answer fools according to their folly, or they will be wise in their own eyes.

So which is it? Should we answer, or not answer, a fool?

It should be noted that Proverbs 26:1-13 describe the condition of a person who has little or no discernment. Such a person is spiritually bankrupt. But discernment is the crown of all of wisdom’s virtues in the Proverbs. The person who possesses wisdom is spiritually rich. In this example the wise person knows when to answer the fool and when to not answer. Thus there is real wisdom in these two proverbs but the person who applies them must also “have wisdom” to make a judgment that is wise about when to apply the first or the second. Bottom line: Wise words are used wisely by wise people!

I am reminded of Proverbs 26:7: “Like the useless legs of one who is lame is a proverb in the mouth of a fool.”

Quoting and using sayings from Proverbs has revealed almost as much foolishness as any portion of the entire Bible. Caveat emptor!

Let me illustrate. Proverbs 22:6 is one of the best know verses in all the Bible: “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.” I heard this text for decades. I heard it used in various ways too. Some treated it as a clear, simple promise that if you raised your child to follow Christ then even if they drifted away someday they would surely come back. Guaranteed!

Another view, one that became especially popular when my kids were growing up, argued that wisdom was to know each child has “a way” (one unique and distinct to them) and the parent should seek to discover this way and raise each one accordingly, If this was done then the results would be good. This still misses the point though it is an improvement on the first. This view relies more on valuable psychological insight, so it seems to me, than biblical wisdom.

What this text is saying is not a promise in any sense. It is a proverb. As such it is saying that children will generally adopt the ways they are taught. The proverb also advises wise parents to raise their children well. It offers, I think, a sense of confidence that the child will become a reasonable adult if well taught. But there are exceptions and Christians, of all people, must recognize these and NOT judge parents by children who turn out badly.

Combine this with 1 Timothy 3:4 and Titus 1:6 and you have a context in which even greater harm has been done in applying these types of texts to church leaders; e.g. bishops, pastors, elders, etc. More on this tomorrow.

Christians for Biblical Equality

I am happy to be a member of a wonderful group committed to the equality of men and women called Christians for Biblical Equality. I happily encourage you to check our their special membership campaign and even sign up today or tomorrow and save some money in the process. CBE produces a number of helpful resources and makes a real different for many of our sisters in the church-at-large.

Chicago Events on Immigration and the Church

Dr. Richard Land, head of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, will be giving a talk at Wheaton College on the evening of Wednesday, March 2, discussing “A Moral and Just Response to the Immigration Crisis.”  Dr. Land, who leads the public policy arm of the largest evangelical denomination in the U.S., was named by Time as one of the 25 most influential American evangelicals.  An unabashed conservative, Dr. Land does an excellent job of articulating the need for just and compassionate immigration reform to individuals from across the political spectrum.  This free event is open to the public and sponsored by the Wheaton College Republicans, the J. Dennis Hastert Center, the Department of Political Science and International Relations, and World Relief DuPage/Aurora.  For more information, see http://bit.ly/e4Uujp. I plan to attend and hope to see some of you there next week.

On the evening of Friday, March 4 and on Saturday, March 5 in West Chicago (IL), the annual Mission on Your Doorstep conference will be focusing on the issue of immigration.  This year’s conference, “God’s Kingdom without Borders,” will include talks by nationally-prominent teachers and leaders, including Christians at the Border author Daniel R. Carroll.  For those of you who had the opportunity to hear Danny speak last August, this is a chance to go more in-depth and to encourage others in your church to learn more about immigration from a biblical perspective.  Full information and registration is online at www.missiononyourdoorstep.com.

Finally, there is a new online movement that World Relief has helped to cosponsor called http://UnDocumented.tv.  The site includes a short film called A NEW DREAM, various experiences that will help people to better understand the immigration issue, and a regularly updated blog that World Relief hopes will be useful to churches, student groups, and others in helping to wrestle with the complex issue of immigration from a Christian perspective.  Please check out the site and help spread the word. 

Joel Osteen on Divine Providence: Amazing

For many years I have been asked again and again, “Is Joel Osteen a heretic?” In many instances the question itself reveals more about the questioner than it does about this sometimes controversial preacher. Let me explain.

First, we need to ask: “What is heresy?” A modified (and helpful) answer from Wikipedia provides the following (slightly edited) insight:

In Christian history and practice heresy is the rejection of one or more established beliefs of orthodoxy. Christian heresy refers to non-orthodox practices and beliefs that were deemed to be heretical by one or more of the Christian churches. In the West, the term "heresy" most commonly refers to those beliefs which were declared to be anathema by the Catholic Church prior to the schism of 1054. In the East, the term "heresy" most commonly refers to those beliefs declared to be "heretical" by the First Seven Ecumenical Councils. However, since the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation, various Christian churches have also used the concept in proceedings against individuals and groups deemed to be heretical by those churches. The Catholic Church considers the Protestant denominations to be heretical and considers the Eastern Orthodox schismatics. [Since Vatican II this statement has clearly been understood in a different way!]

Heresy is a controversial or novel change to the essentials found in a Christian system of beliefs that conflict with established dogma. Heresy should be clearly distinguished from apostasy, which is the formal denunciation of one's previously confessed faith and blasphemy, which is irreverence toward Christian faith.

If this understanding is applied to Joel Osteen one could make a case that his “prosperity” message is heretical. But if we press this far enough, and are exposed broadly enough to the global Christian church, we soon learn that this prosperity error is taught in many places and by many Christian teachers who faithfully preach Christ. In spite of this error many such preachers do immense good for the gospel. This doesn’t make their error acceptable but it should make us pause and be more cautious about throwing a heresy bomb at them.

Let me go further. Osteen is controversial because his message is at times jumbled and seems to not be clearly thought out. He is not a biblical scholar nor a student of systematic theology. Those who attack him, and there is a lot of ammunition for them to use to launch such an attack, will find him a relatively easy target. Take something from a portion of a book, a clip from one of his sermons. or a poor response from a Larry King Live program. You will find a lot of smoke and you all know the proverb: “Where there’s smoke there will be fire!” But is it wise, and right, to attack Osteen in the public media? I think not. Let me explain.

There is a huge unofficial “heresy police” force roaming around the media of America, online and in print. It brings in huge support. The facts are plain. As much as Osteen makes through his positive messages you can also make a great deal by attacking him. Besides this there is a personality type that feeds on the chub of this kind of heresy ministry. Point out who preaches error and you can thus prove your own orthodoxy. Few ever realize how wrong this approach is, both ethically and theologically. For starters it is not wholistic but modernistic. (By this I mean it lifts bits and pieces and makes them the whole!) Most of us who teach publicly will be labeled heretics by someone else over time. (I heard Harold Camping say last week that everyone in every church who has not heeded his call to leave the church before the Second Coming on May 11 is a heretic and truly damned!) I know this business of broad charges of heresy firsthand since several noted evangelical leaders have used the term for me and my teaching. I have appealed to my open confession of the creeds and confessions of the church that I am ordained by as a minister (Reformed Church in America) but this means nothing to the typical conservative heresy hunter. I suppose this all makes me even more cautious about the attacks on Osteen from these same types of people.

Let me be clear about this. I am not endorsing everything Joel Osteen says or does. I have no horse in this race. I simply question the methods employed in attacking him for denying Christ and the gospel. If I was asked to grade him on solid theological curve I would not give him a high grade in some areas. If I was asked to grade him on whether or not he helps a lot of hungry Christian people then I think the answer would be quite different. I am not sure I completely understand how this works but God seems pleased to use all kinds of people to serve his flock. Joel Osteen is my brother and as such I pray for him and seek to see how the good he does can be acknowledged. If there are errors to expose then I would do that within a relationship, not by attacking him in broad daylight. If he had been disciplined in a proper way then my response would also be different. I just do not believe in the discipline produced by the process of public opinion.

I was in Houston several years ago and met with one of the most theologically astute persons that I know. He had firsthand experience of Osteen, his church people and his staff. He knew people whose lives had been transformed by the power of Christ in this congregation and through this brother’s ministry. This brother, like me, is not a big fan of the teaching of Joel Osteen but like me he sees much more good than bad. He was, in other words, cautious to throw bombs. He allowed love to rule his words and responses while he also retained a deep theological conviction himself.

I suppose that is my big concern here. We need to be much more cautious in throwing these bombs. I am committed to building bridges myself! I believe bomb throwers are people who generally love themselves and their beliefs much more than Christ and real flesh and blood people.

I began to think about Joel Osteen again last week when I saw a video clip on my Facebook page. I then went on to look at several of his YouTube clips and found one that really blew me away. In this sermon Osteen says that you and I live in a “controlled environment.” His ideas are a little over the edge at the corners but in the big picture he paints a glorious and strong view of divine providence. I actually wanted to call this blog: “Joel Osteen the Calvinist” but I chose to not be too sensational. Watch this and see for yourself. Forget the things you’ve heard and just watch.

As I said the ideas here border on a form of hyper-determinism (“God pulls the strings!) but if you see this in context you have to conclude, if you are fair-minded at all, that this man really believes in personal divine providence. Osteen says, “Nothing in life happens by chance, by happenstance.” That’s pretty Christian stuff folks.

After watching this video I went back to my own confessional tradition and read Chapter 13 of The Belgic Confession. I do not know if Joel Osteen has ever read this paragraph but he sure seems to believe it based on this sermon. Here is chapter 13:

Article 13: The Doctrine of God's Providence

• We believe that this good God, after he created all things, did not abandon them to chance or fortune but leads and governs them according to his holy will, in such a way that nothing happens in this world without his orderly arrangement.

  Yet God is not the author of, nor can he be charged with, the sin that occurs. For his power and goodness are so great and incomprehensible that he arranges and does his work very well and justly even when the devils and wicked men act unjustly.

  We do not wish to inquire with undue curiosity into what he does that surpasses human understanding and is beyond our ability to comprehend. But in all humility and reverence we adore the just judgments of God, which are hidden from us, being content to be Christ's disciples, so as to learn only what he shows us in his Word, without going beyond those limits.

  This doctrine gives us unspeakable comfort since it teaches us that nothing can happen to us by chance but only by the arrangement of our gracious heavenly Father. He watches over us with fatherly care, keeping all creatures under his control, so that not one of the hairs on our heads (for they are all numbered) nor even a little bird can fall to the ground^20 without the will of our Father.

  In this thought we rest, knowing that he holds in check the devils and all our enemies, who cannot hurt us without his permission and will.

  For that reason we reject the damnable error of the Epicureans, who say that God involves himself in nothing and leaves everything to chance.

  ^20 Matt. 10:29-30

God in America: A Series Worth Your Time

The PBS television series God in America was aired in 2010. I did not see it when it was aired on television. I finally saw it last week on DVD. It is simply superb. The series consists of six parts, each about 55 minutes long when the various trailers and ads are skipped. The subtitle is very accurate: “How Religious Liberty Shaped America.”

The series, which features both actors who are cast in bit roles as famous American figures and scholars who teach about various issues in the history of religious history, sets out to give the viewer an accurate account of religious liberty in America. How has religious liberty been used, abused and developed over the past four centuries plus? Religion professor Stephen Prothero (photo) is clearly the most frequent voice in all six episodes but shorter appearances include well-known evangelicals such as Grant Wacker, Harry Stout and Mark Noll. Randall Balmer, who grew up in an evangelical background, also has a prominent role in several of the episodes relating to the twentieth century. The bottom line is that religion matters deeply in America and this series will actually show you why. Indeed, religion matters in America more than anywhere else on the planet.

For the first time on television, God in America explores the four centuries old intersection of religion and public life in America, from the first European settlements to the 2008 presidential election. The series examines how religious dissidents helped shape the American concept of religious liberty and the controversial evolution of that ideal in the nation's courts and political arena; how religious freedom and waves of new immigrants and religious revivals fueled competition in the religious marketplace; how movements for social reform--from abolition to civil rights--galvanized men and women to put their faith into political action; and how religious faith influenced conflicts from the American Revolution to the Cold War.

Interweaving documentary footage, historical dramatization and interviews with religious historians, the six-part series is narrated by actor Campbell Scott. Executive producer Michael Sullivan says, "The American story cannot be fully understood without understanding the country's religious history. By examining that history, God in America will offer viewers a fresh, revealing and challenging portrait of the country."

The series explores various themes through emblematic stories of our religious history. It uses the political and spiritual journeys of some of America’s most important historical figures to do this. Some of these are well known; e.g. Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr., and John Winthrop. Some are less well know; e.g. Reform Rabbi Isaac Meyer Wise, Presbyterian scholar Charles Briggs, Frederick Douglass, Anne Hutchison and the Pueblo leader Po’pay.

What is the role that religion has played in social reform in America? This series offers us the finest documentary available on this question. What role has religion played in politics, especially since World War II? Again, this series is as good (and as fair) as anything I have seen.

Let me give you one example. Following World War II America, especially under the influence of President Dwight Eisenhower, adopted strong civil religion as a means for fighting against “godless communism” and the Soviet Union in the Cold War era. In the 1950s we added God to our coins and to our pledge of allegiance. But in the same decade the first attempts to remove overt teaching about God and faith in the public schools also began. I believe the fifth episode (“The Soul of a Nation”) of this series is simply the best presentation of these oft-misunderstood matters that I’ve ever watched. I would urge churches and small groups to see the last two episodes if you want to understand the complicated issue of church and state separation, an issue badly misunderstood on both sides of our present political divide.

One of the most striking contrasts shown in episodes five and six is the difference between the Moral Majority and the Civil Rights Movement. Martin Luther King, Jr. stands out as a prophet of righteousness who appealed to faith while he sought to bring justice through our legal system. At the same time MLK refused to be “used” by political leaders, as in his opposition to LBJ when Johnson felt he would not support him as he should with regard to the Vietnam War. King handled power with great caution.

On the other hand the leaders of the Moral Majority desired to elect a president and sought to remain close to government’s power (Reagan and later Bush). Their goal was to overtly control the outcome of issues that mattered to them. many of which had little to do with righteousness. If you’ve ever wondered about the right way to bring the claims of Christ to bear on a civil society then these two episodes will provide plenty of helpful insight for great discussion and fruitful response.

Most Americans have little or no appreciation for the delicate balance that we’ve experienced when it comes to the way church and state relate to one another in our constitutional republic. This  series will show you how our thinking and practice has developed over the course of our long history. It will also prepare you for some of the new challenges that we face as newer (non-Judeo Christian) religions move into the civic arena of our shared national life.

There are some minor mistakes in the series but this is not entirely surprising. For example, in the first episode the Puritans and Pilgrims are treated as if they are one and the same. And there are notable absences in the story, such as that of the Mormons. But the official Web site will tell you a great deal about how certain decisions were made regarding what to include and what to leave out.

You can actually watch the entire six-part series online. It would be well worth your time. You can also buy, rent or borrow DVDs. I got mine, as always, from my public library. A plethora of online resources will also help discussion and interaction with the series.