Calvin University

, , , , , , , ,

Want a tough, newsy 'theodicy' question? 'If God is good, why do animals suffer?'

, , , , , , , ,
Want a tough, newsy 'theodicy' question? 'If God is good, why do animals suffer?'

QUESTION:

If God is good, why do animals suffer?”

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

This question was the sub-headline for a recent cover story in Christianity Today magazine (“Why Does Creation Groan?”) by Calvin University theologian John R. Schneider. It’s a twist  on the age-old problem defined as follows by the eminent Christian intellectual C.S. Lewis in his best-selling classic “The Problem of Pain”:

“If God were good, He would wish to make His creatures perfectly happy, and if God were almighty He would be able to do what He wished. But the creatures are not happy. Therefore God lacks either goodness, or power, or both.”

Early in the COVID-19 scourge, The Religion Guy attempted to scan the current discussions in a field known technically as “theodicy” — as here. The issue is as ancient as the Bible’s poetic masterpiece from thousands of years ago, the Book of Job, which provides no snappy formulas to answer these mysteries.

Regarding humanity and its problems, theologians have blamed evils on humans’ free will that necessarily allows dire events to occur, and/or on Satan and demonic minions. However, the scale and depth of, for instance, the mass extermination of the Nazi Holocaust  raised the persistent but unanswerable question in both Jewish and Christian circles of why God did not miraculously intervene.

Writing just prior to that and other World War II atrocities, and his own battle wounds from World War I, Lewis advised us to be careful in thinking about God as “all-powerful” because He obviously cannot do things that by their nature are impossible to do. Along similar lines, leading contemporary philosopher Alvin Plantinga at the University of Notre Dame proposed that we cannot logically conceive of any possible universe where the Creator allows human free will to operate and at the same time our existence lacks all sin and consequently all suffering.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , ,

Do trends in Grand Rapids tell us something about religion, evangelicalism and the GOP?

, , , , , , , ,
Do trends in Grand Rapids tell us something about religion, evangelicalism and the GOP?

Tuesday was a good night for Kansas abortion-rights campaigners and for many Republicans blessed by Donald Trump. Democrats are calculating that both factors could foretell a good night for them on Election Day.

Whatever, journalists attuned to the potent though oft-neglected religion factor should especially focus on the Michigan Republican U.S. House primary win by neophyte John Gibbs, a Trump-endorsed 2020 election denier.

In this significant showdown, Gibbs edged incumbent Peter Meijer (pronounced “Meyer”) with 52%. It helps to remember that Trump staged his final campaign rallies in a very symbolic location — Grand Rapids — in 2016 and 2020.

As a brand-new House member, Meijer voted to impeach President Trump for attempting to overthrow President Biden’s Electoral College victory. (Meijer’s predecessor in the seat, Justin Amash, had backed the 2019 Trump impeachment, quit the Republican Party and retired.)

Among last year’s 10 pro-impeachment House Republicans, five others sought party re-nomination. At this writing two of them led Trumpite challengers in Washington state’s Tuesday “jungle primary,” Jaime Herrera Beutler and Dan Newhouse. North Carolina’s Tom Rice lost big, California’s David Valadao won and Liz Cheney faces Wyoming voters August 16. Four decided to retire.

Underscoring hopes to flip the Michigan seat, House Democrats’ campaign arm horrified some party stalwarts by spending $435,000 on ads to boost Gibbs’s name recognition, while undercutting Meijer as the far stronger November opponent. In what turned out to be an obituary, a Monday Meijer blog post denounced Democrats’ “nauseating” violation of “moral limits.”

This brings us to the obvious GetReligion question: Why religion-beat buzz about Michigan District 3?

Simply because it centers on Grand Rapids, as much as any northern town a buckle on an established Bible (especially Calvinist) Belt outside of the South.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dear religion-beat pros: Sometimes small religious denominations merit a bit of attention

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dear religion-beat pros: Sometimes small religious denominations merit a bit of attention

With American public space monopolized by furor over abortion and also about sexual abuse in the huge Southern Baptist Convention, it seems eccentric to mention small Protestant denominations. But sometimes these flocks produce news and highlight developing trends that may merit news attention.

Consider actions in recent days by the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and Christian Reformed Church (CRC). [Disclosure: The Religion Guy is a longtime CRC member though not directly involved in the matters at hand.] These two bodies, generally similar in terms of Calvinist theology, exercise influence in the wider American evangelical marketplace of ideas that far exceeds their modest numbers.

The CRC, founded in 1857, has declined to 205,000 members in the U.S. and Canada. The PCA, launched in a 1973 southern breakaway among Presbyterians has added northern go-getters to reach a U.S.-only membership of 378,000. More liberal “mainline” Presbyterians dropped from 4 million in 1970 to a current 1.2 million.

The CRC and PCA were the largest church bodies in the conservative North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council until 2002, when the council terminated CRC participation for allowing female pastors and lay officers. Both denominations remained members of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) until last week, when the PCA quit the cooperative organization. Oddly, NAE President Walter Kim (contact: walter.kim@trinitycville.org), a Harvard Ph.D., is a PCA minister who led an important PCA church in Charlottesville, Va., and is now its “teacher in residence.”

Politics is involved in all of this, of course.

The PCA cited Presbyterians’ Westminster Confession of 1646, which declares that church bodies deal only with internal religious issues and “are not to intermeddle with civil affairs” except in “extraordinary” cases. The NAE indeed addresses many societal topics. The PCA lamented its policy statements on the environment, immigration, the death penalty and, especially, support of proposed “Fairness For All” legislation to acknowledge LGBTQ legal protections in return for religious-liberty guarantees.

Yet the PCA itself has issued statements on abortion, AIDS, alcohol, child protection, education, homosexuality, medical insurance, nuclear power, pornography and race relations. Does PCA separation from NAE-style evangelicals move it toward what we used to call cultural and religious “fundamentalism”?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: What happens at Calvin doesn't stay at Calvin. True, so what now for LGBTQ wars?

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: What happens at Calvin doesn't stay at Calvin. True, so what now for LGBTQ wars?

Back in the spring, we did a GetReligion podcast that was accompanied by a post with this title: “What parents (and journalists) can learn from LGBTQ debates at Calvin.”

The Big Idea in that podcast was that Calvin University isn’t just another Christian college — it’s the base camp for a kind of Reformed intellectual A-team that punches way, way, way above its weight in the Council For Christian Colleges and Universities (the global network in which I worked and taught for a quarter of a century or so). Thus, I stated: “What happens at Calvin doesn’t stay at Calvin.”

If you have followed Calvin closely in recent decades, you know that a significant chunk of its faculty believes (this is my summary) that those who truly honor and teach the great Reformed Tradition of Calvinism know that it’s time for new Reformers (that would be them) to reform the out-of-date theological conclusions of their ancestors. You can see similar streams of thought among Methodists, Anglicans, Catholics and even (in a few zip codes) the Eastern Orthodox.

With that in mind, it’s time for this week’s “Crossroads” episode (CLICK HERE to tune that in), which offers an update on Calvin and tensions inside its denomination, care of a Religion News Service story with this headline: “Christian Reformed Church codifies homosexual sex as sin in its declaration of faith.” Actually, if you read carefully, the CRC affirmed 2,000 years of Christian teaching that (a) sex outside of marriage is a sin and (b) Christian marriages unite a man and a women. Here is the overture of that RNS story:

(RNS) — The Christian Reformed Church, a small evangelical denomination of U.S. and Canadian churches, voted … at its annual synod to codify its opposition to homosexual sex by elevating it to the status of confession, or deration of faith.

The 123-53 vote at Calvin University in Grand Rapids, Michigan, caps a process begun in 2016 when a previous synod voted to form a study committee to bring a report on the “biblical theology” of sexuality.

The vote, following a long day of debate, approves a list of what the denomination calls sexual immorality it won’t tolerate, including “adultery, premarital sex, extra-marital sex, polyamory, pornography and homosexual sex.”

“The church must warn its members that those who refuse to repent of these sins — as well as of idolatry, greed, and other such sins — will not inherit the kingdom of God,” the report says. “It must discipline those who refuse to repent of such sins for the sake of their souls.”

Just asking: That “what the denomination calls” language is interesting. Doesn’t that kind of imply that these teachings belong to the CRC alone — as opposed to being doctrines affirmed by the world’s largest Christian bodies, such as the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, Third World Anglicans and most evangelical and Pentecostal believers.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , ,

Podcast: What parents (and journalists) can learn from LGBTQ debates at Calvin

, , , , , , ,
Podcast: What parents (and journalists) can learn from LGBTQ debates at Calvin

Any list of the two or three most influential evangelical Protestant colleges and universities in America has to include Calvin University in Grand Rapids, Mich.

Hang around at Council of Christian Colleges and Universities gatherings (I was a senior fellow and journalism professor for 20 years) and you’ll hear chatter about the “Calvin mafia” that has long provided intellectual clout shaping trends and programs nationwide. In other words, what happens at Calvin doesn’t stay at Calvin.

You could say that was the Big Idea in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), which focused on a Religion News Service story with this headline: “Fallout over LGBTQ spouses at Calvin University captures broader evangelical divide.” The second line: “A same-sex wedding led the university to split with its longtime research center over Christian teaching on sexuality.” Before we look at the overture, let’s jump down to a crucial passage in this story:

Provost Noah Toly did confirm that all faculty and staff, including those at the center, are required to follow the school’s employment policies, which bar sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman. He also said that hiring managers and supervisors are required to enforce the policy.

“Employment policies” is a rather secular way of stating that Calvin has a doctrinal statement linked to its ties to the Christian Reformed Church. It’s safe to assume that, at some point, faculty and staff sign a copy of that statement or a “lifestyle covenant” that states the doctrines in practical terms. At some schools, faculty and staff reaffirm that doctrinal statement/covenant every year.

When we are talking about defining the boundaries of a voluntary association of this kind — an explicitly Christian liberal-arts university — “doctrines” are more important than “policies.” Keep that quote from the provost in mind as you read the top of this RNS story. This is long, but crucial:

For years, Calvin University, a leading evangelical school in Grand Rapids, Michigan, has tried to walk a fine line of being welcoming to LGBTQ students while still enforcing traditional Christian Reformed Church views on sexuality.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , ,

New podcast: Reformed Church in America split points to rising tensions in Calvin country

, , , , , , , , , ,
New podcast: Reformed Church in America split points to rising tensions in Calvin country

Growing up as a Texas Baptist (long ago) I was predestined to know next to nothing about what some have called the great “northern kingdom” of American evangelicalism. Yes, we can debate whether “evangelical” is an accurate description of the Calvinist world based in Grand Rapids, Mich., and other cities and towns in the Midwest.

I had to learn some of this lingo when I moved to Central Illinois and then when I broke into religion-beat work in Charlotte, N.C., a city with every imaginable form of Presbyterian and Reformed church life.

As I mentioned in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to listen), I quickly learned that the Reformed Church in America was a rather centrist flock, while the Christian Reformed Church was much more conservative, in terms of doctrine and culture. I would not have called either of these bodies a “Mainline Protestant” denomination.

Things change. Eventually, the RCA started arguing about the familiar subjects that have divided so many religious bodies — biblical authority and sex. This leads us to a Religion News Service report: “Reformed Church in America splits as conservative churches form new denomination.” Here is the overture:

(RNS) — On New Year’s Day, 43 congregations of the Reformed Church in America split from the national denomination, one of the oldest Protestant bodies in the United States, in part over theological differences regarding same-sex marriage and the ordination of LGBTQ clergy.

The departure of the theologically conservative congregations to the new group, the Alliance of Reformed Churches, leaves some who remain in the RCA concerned for the denomination’s survival. Before the split, the nearly 400-year-old denomination had fewer than 200,000 members and 1,000 churches.

At least 125 churches from various denominations are in conversation with ARC leaders about joining.

“Various denominations?” Hold that thought.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Think pieces: Why are evangelicals evolving on doctrines linked to LGBTQ issues?

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Think pieces: Why are evangelicals evolving on doctrines linked to LGBTQ issues?

Yes, this is an unusual “think piece,” in part because it is best to consider it an online debate between two major voices shaping debates in contemporary evangelicalism.

One one side is the Rev. Denny Burk, a biblical studies professor at Boyce College, which is linked to the giant Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville.

On the other side is historian and gender-studies specialist Kristin Kobes Du Mez of Calvin University, who is best known as the author of the much-discussed book “Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation.”

Let’s start with a short comment from Burk, who posted:

… I had an important exchange with Kristin Kobes Du Mez on social media. I won’t rehash the entire back and forth here. Some of it is linked below for your reference if you are interested in following the threads. If you boil it all down, she asked me a question, and I asked her one. She asked me whether I thought her book Jesus and John Wayne contains false teaching (to which I answered “yes”), and I asked her if she believes that homosexuality is sinful (to which she answered that she doesn’t know yet).

Hers is my question: What does it mean to state that “homosexuality is sinful”? Is this a discussion of homosexual orientation or of sexual behavior?

In other settings, people have been arguing about whether it is sinful, or perhaps simply spiritually dangerous, for celibate LGBTQ Christians to publicly and enthusiastically proclaim a gay identity. Thus, their sexual behavior does not violate centuries of Christian doctrine.

There are important lines between each of these stances and, frankly, other variations on these themes.


Please respect our Commenting Policy