21 Monday Nov 2005
Posted in a happy God
Yep, I’m an insignificant microbe in the TTLB Ecosystem but I really appreciate hearing from MM and Tim Challies about the posts I made concerning their sites. The exchange with MM follows the “Problem of Pain post of a couple of days ago.
I’ve got to work on my brevity. Too verbose. I’ll hope to do better, especially if I start getting some welcome complaints!
20 Sunday Nov 2005
No doubt any Christians who read my yesterday post would wonder how I could seem to face the loss of morality in our culture with equanimity. I do not. I share George Washington’s view, that religion and morality are the foundation of political prosperity:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.
My point is that the time of political prosperity is over; the time of social peace is past. It is now God’s time to clear the land for a new government, established in righteousness.
The United States, with its public education, its early infusion of enlightened, relatively tolerant Christian and Jewish minds, and its early spirit of freedom, was a great gift to human history. But the wineskins established by Washington are now old and worn, our current population is much more diverse culturally and spiritually, and freedom or license has multiplied in ways that would be shocking to George Washington.
What I was trying to say yesterday, is that true Christianity should not, (and, I believe, does not) identify with this or any other government, because the practice of true religion is an individual matter of conscience. Nowhere in the Bible do I see the imprimatur of governance handed to Christians. That is held in abeyance, until our personal obedience is complete. I think it is fact of history that morality cannot be legislated by human governments, and in a fallen world those who govern cannot always act squarely on the side of true religion and true morality — partly because of the limitations of human judgment and discernment; and partly because a government that is egalitarian and free must allow freedom of expression to those whose religion is different and whose morality is different. The first amendment is a good thing in a government in which immature and evil people are permitted to dwell with mature and good folks… even though the first amendment often creates conditions which are violations of the 9th commandment.
For example, it is the law of the land in the United States that a fetus does not have rights; that the mother can end its life if she chooses. A president swears to uphold the law of the land. Therefore a president must place his hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the right of a mother to kill the unborn child within her. From the first moment of a president’s tour of duty, he is thus a sworn opponent of what the Bible says in Exodus 21:22. (And no credible leader today would think to enforce Exodus 22:20).
Christians are taught to allow their experiences in life to humble them, to bear up under injustice, to submit to authority, for the purpose of learning lessons that will equip them to be merciful and humane “priests” and “kings” in a future age. Christians can live effectively as aliens and strangers, as guests in the countries where they reside, taxpayers and encouragers of what is good and noble and pure… but to grab the wheels of power and attempt to bring about the kingdom of God on earth has been proven to be a mistake in fact, as it is warned against in the Bible. Christ’s kingdom is not “of this world”.
So as society crumbles, and the elemental, foundational principles of social order (such as marriage, respect of parents by children, love of children by their parents, respect for law and order, etc.) melt away as Peter predicted they would, Christians have lots of work to do. Not by campaigning for power and attempting to turn back the clock on the United States — but by telling people not to worry, that the future will be tough but God is working to teach the world the lessons they need to learn — bitter at first, but sweet later.
20 Sunday Nov 2005
Posted in a happy God, evangelicalism, religion and politics, Theodicy
Tags
I’m an odd bird, and this post is an example of that oddness. A Christian who opposes “Christians”. A believer who enjoys dialog with unbelievers. The issue in the thread cited above is the propensity of Christians to be judgmental of others, and hypocritical in the process. My take, quoted at that site, includes some comments about what useful things unbelievers are doing in this world, which Christians are incapable of doing in their present state of mind. The touchstone of Christians ought to be Galatians 6:1, as I state in my post.
19 Saturday Nov 2005
Posted in a happy God, Christian trends, christianity, eschatology, Theodicy
The Christian community in the first century was outside, and in many ways opposed to, the power-struggles and values of the society of their day — both Jewish and Roman. Yet the Christians were culturally relevant — they understood the weighty issues of the day, and respected and honored their hearers.
What they offered was intensely interesting to virtually every segment of society. Jesus was intensely interesting to Pilate, to Herod, to Caiaphas the High Priest, and to the Scribes and Pharisees, the leading religious thinkers of Israel. Paul was intensely interesting to Agrippa and Festus. In Ephesus, Paul was spared from almost certain death by the intervention of the leading (pagan) committee of Asia (“The Asiarchs” – Acts 19:31)
Kings and governors chose to hear from them because so many people were violently opposed to their teachings, and the recent events in Jerusalem had gotten the notice of leaders throughout the civilized world. Christians were a pain to leaders, partly because they did not fear the only real powers the State could muster: economic sanctions or lethal force. Still, Christians weren’t competing to grab the controls of temporal power. They were taught by their leaders to be submissive to the “higher powers” — the State. They were relevant but not worldly; involved but not confrontational. They were a bit prickly at times, because they also acknowledged a higher order, and the freedom of thought and action in religious matters that they believed had come from God to be the ultimate guide of their conscience — not the decrees of an unbelieving State. But they went to prison and the cross with songs on their lips.
Not so today. Now, the Christian community to a large extent has intertwined itself with the world system, and attempt to use money and political processes to gain access to the wheels of power. Everywhere I turn, I see Christians whining about the supposed restriction of Christian freedom by a State that, well, the Christian right feels has betrayed them. This brand of my fellow-Christians seems to have imbibed the notion that the State should be a partner of religion in the institution of morals, in the guiding of children, in the upholding of religious “norms” such as Christmas, prayer at public events, pledging allegiance “under God”, presiding over a religious marriage rite, etc.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I believe that all western governments, including the United States, has indeed become an ally of a number of elements in society that, in Biblical terms, are by definition immoral. I believe the Bible condemns murder, and specifically gives rights to the unborn fetus in Exodus 21:22 and following. (Though I acknowledge that most Jewish interpreters disagree with my reading of that passage). I agree that Biblical marriage is indeed between a man and a woman. I agree that the foundation of all human society in this fallen world is indeed the family unit, and that the integrity of marriage lies at the heart of that social foundation. I agree that children need to respect and honor their parents if it is to be well with them in life, and in their relationship with God. I think decent people in a democracy have a right and indeed a duty to try and keep their government moral.
But what I am taking issue with here is the notion that true Christian faith has somehow secured a place in the governance of the free world, at least in America. From a historical point of view, I believe that this idea is very dangerous to true Christianity, and very dangerous to the spread of true Christianity. Whenever Christians have gotten their hands on the controls of power, bad things have happened. Well, not always — a few leaders have from time to time been a little less vicious, a little less immoral than your run of the mill tyrants. But mostly, the worst leaders in history have been popes and quasi-religious emperors. These have been venal, corrupt, rapacious, and viciously evil. Among the most notable in this pantheon of “Christian” leaders has been Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain (who expelled the Jews from Spain in 1492), Pope Innocent III, who persecuted the Albigensians and Waldensians, and launched the Inquisition and the Crusades; institutional “Christian” escalation and support of African slavery from the 16th to the 19th centuries; and the 20th century’s own King Leopold II, who decimated the Congo in the name of Christianity and set the stage for Rwanda just a few years ago. Taken together, the number of souls killed by “Christian” leaders certainly must number in the hundreds of millions. And I believe God has been keeping this list, and is now in the process of bringing retributive judgment upon Christian institutions that have been involved with these evils. (Revelation 18)
I am an American, and thankful for the comparatively humane record of the United States over the last two centuries; (I believe the U.S. was in part the “Open Door” of opportunity to oppressed Protestants mentioned in Revelation 3:8) but I am not blind to the many ways we have failed to help the poor, and have at times been conspirators in oppressive actions by religious and political leaders around the globe. The point is, that the United States is not, and never has been a theocracy — a government truly ruled by God. It is a republic or a democracy — ruled by the people who are partly good, partly bad, partly religious, and partly secular; and its strength for good has come as much from its Thomas Paines and Thomas Jeffersons and its Abraham Lincolns (agnostics or deists) as from its George Washingtons, Jimmy Carters, or George Bushes (openly religious men).
But I digress. My main point in this essay is this: what is so strange about recent trends is that the first century relevance and yet alienation from the halls of power by true Christians has been replace by irrelevance, insensitivity to the poor, and a pawing after the privileges of power on the part of “Christians”.
And equally amazing: concern for the poor, concern for the environment, interest in checking governmental abuses and advancing the rights of human beings on all fronts has been taken up by agnostics, atheists, unbelievers of every stripe.
Today “Christianity” is less likely to be identified with the poor and oppressed, and more likely to be today the preferred religion of many powerful, educated people. Partly because Christianity identifies with morality and “family values” — which in my opinion is noble and good. But also partly, because “Christianity” confers power and privilege and social advantage in the United States, if not in many places on the globe.
Today the preservation of the environment is more likely to be advocated by atheists and agnostics than by Christians. The reality of human-induced global warming is being ridiculed by “Christians” — why? Is it because of the weight of scientific evidence, or the advantages to our privileged ways of life and the disdain they hold for environmentalists?
The rights of oppressed people are more likely to be championed by secular or irreligious voices than by Christians. And even the cause of “truth” — logic, investigation, true science — instead of being advanced by true Christians as it was during the Reformation — is now becoming, embarrassingly to some of us Christians, the domain of the skeptical, the atheist, the unbeliever.
Gotta run. Truth and justice demand that I finish my Work in time to watch the Ohio State/Michigan game.
18 Friday Nov 2005
Posted in eschatology, Theodicy
Tags
MM writes in her “Theology of the Body” blog yesterday that as many philosophers have noted, there are two primary issues relative to evil that we must lay at God’s feet: the “acts of God” that involve human suffering in an incomplete or unfriendly planet, and the “moral failures” that flow form human free moral agency.
She writes an interesting conclusion:
I would submit also that people tend to become uncomfortable with these explanations of pain as resulting from a broken world and moral failure; such an answer seems incomplete. In fact, such an answer is incomplete, until both you and your audience have acknowledged your own “breaking” role in the broken world. May I suggest that such a conversation about the problem of pain is a good opportunity to recognize (gently) the sin and brokenness of the one who brings these troubling questions about the reality of pain, and the consequent need for the Savior?
The approach advocated by MM, it seems to me, may come across as insensitive — sort of like blaming the victim. (as Anonymous seemed to be saying). Yes, we all need to repent. But even after we have repented we will still hurt. And hurt even more on behalf of those who are darkened and discouraged by the prevalence of invincible evil, while the only invincible force in the universe does not interfere. So to force people to wait for an answer about the goodness of God, until they have personally taken full responsibility for their troubles, is both incomplete and unnecessary.
Unnecessary because the Bible is full of answers on this topic of God’s goals and ultimate designs. Incomplete, because the process of repentance and growth toward Godlikeness is a long journey, not a single step. In fact, when we envision the world as it will be toward the end of Messiah’s rule — a world that by today’s standards will be a paradise, with scarcely a problem visible anywhere, victory over evil will still be quite incomplete. In that world, all the people who have ever lived will be back, outwardly obedient and living happily. They will have acknowledged the Savior, and learned substantially much more about how to live and love, freely … and yet the probability of a major explosion of evil will still exist. And it is predicted that evil will indeed come roaring back at the end of the Millennium, in the “little season”. Jesus puts his finger on why in his parable of the Sheep and the Goats. There, when queried as to their sins of omission, exposed at the end of Messiah’s rule, both categories of people are unconscious of what they omitted. Or at least they say they are.
I therefore submit that what God is working toward, the goal he has laid down of complete victory over evil, will only come when all human beings and angels will have fully learned how to be unconsciously, constantly good. So good that they will not only avoid transgression, their love for others will not miss opportunities to do good. This level of character growth will require God’s mighty help, and it will begin to be extended while people are weak.
At the moment, the weak are still saying they are strong. The proud are still “happy”. But God will intervene, he will cry, yea, roar. He will defeat every human rival institution, including and especially the “Christian” ones.
Yet God will also be winsome in victory, and even with the toughest cases of wickedness, God will rise to the occasion by revealing his judgments in an educational way, and by attacking the wickedness of the wicked, until he finds no more wickedness. (Psalm 10:15)
This will take some amazing teaching on God’s part, and some long experience with the subtleties of human and angelic pride. But it will happen, and it is promised. And so I would disagree that God did the ultimate good by creating free beings who can and do sin. If that is all he did, he would be the author of confusion, bitterness and death. But God will make the anger of man, the sin of man, the wilfulness of man, praise him by turning it into a learning opportunity, and nurture every willing heart toward complete victory. All godlike creatures carry destructive possibilities within their hearts and minds — so pain and suffering at the present time is only a problem when viewed shortsightedly. In the long view, it is a necessary part, and everyone will be able to graduate with honors from this long and arduous class.
16 Wednesday Nov 2005
Posted in a happy God, love of God
Tags
When a father begets a son, he sees his own image there. He sees the similarities, and yet the distinctive qualities. He sees the potential for unique and individual achievement, as well as the stamp of resemblance and inheritance.
I think that is what makes God happy as he contemplates his human and divine family. One family, in his name, in heaven and in earth. Myriads of sons and daughters, each bringing a spark of unique intelligence and character to the symphony of praise which is still tuning up.
Copyright 2005 by Richard Kindig — This photo may not be used without my express written permission. Family and friends may copy to their own computers for viewing enjoyment.
13 Sunday Nov 2005
Posted in eschatology, Zionism
Tags
The part of Israeli society which finds itself unable to believe the promises of Moses and the Prophets, has selected a new leader. They’ve gone from Peres to Peretz. He has already stated that he will consider bringing Arabs into his government.
At a rally held in memory of Yitzhak Rabin, former US president Clinton spoke. Among his words, as quoted by Arutz, are these:
“Do what Jews have done throughout history: Grieve, laugh, remember that God gives no guarantees, and get back to greening the desert of despair, one tree at a time.”
I suggest that my Jewish brethren, whether they believe in God at this time or not, can get better advice than that. They should stop having a passive attitude about their situation, merely grieving or laughing in the face of incredible provocations, and should instead take control of their land and their destiny. And they should forget the notion which their years of frustration has generated: that God gives no guarantees. On the contrary — God does indeed give guarantees, and the Jewish people need to do their part to claim and defend what God has guaranteed is his will: the re-establishment of Israel on its ancient homeland. God guaranteed it, and it has happened.
As Jews struggle for strength against the constant pressure of immoral, unbelieving, Gentile nations against the legitimacy of the state of Israel, they will be strongest when they choose to trust in the strength God has guaranteed he will supply. And they should remember, especially, another of God’s guarantees: that he will curse anyone who works against Israel and its God-given land.
11 Friday Nov 2005
Posted in a happy God, eschatology
Tags
Yesterday I got to do two things that are part of Grandfather’s role, as I am discovering it. The first is fixing up the family’s house. Yesterday, it was a frustrating little plumbing leak. Also, looking into a refrigerator problem. And getting to hold the baby and help with its bath.
Guess what. These are fun things for a grandpa to do.
And for me they are insights into what God has in mind for the future. First he has to bring all those people, who had the potential of being his sons, back from the grave. He has to teach them his ways as he has promised he will do. If we think of Jesus and has bride as the first generation of God’s children, the spiritual generation, the fruitage of the rule of Messiah who gain their life from the Second Adam and the Second Eve will be…. God’s grandchildren.
Jesus and the church will have the heavy job, all the diapering and disciplining of those masses of mankind. But God will be enjoying the role of Grandfather, it seems to me. He’ll do special things to make their home better after so many years of being a shambles. He’ll anticipate the needs of all these children, and look for ways to show them grace and glory.
Looking forward — past the current Federal Reserve woes and debt troubles and energy fears — makes me happy, and it helps me to see why God is happy. Everything is under control and moving according to plan.
03 Thursday Nov 2005
Posted in a happy God, love of God, prophecy
Tags
I’ve been discovering that one of the pleasures of fatherhood is watching to see what your children will do for their own home. Where will they settle? What kind of home will they choose? How will they furnish it?
Traveling anywhere with our family has always involved a running commentary about the houses we pass. “There’s a nice house!” “I hate that house.” “Cute house — lousy location.”
What’s emerging as great fun for me is to help the kids move, do little things to help them adapt the house to their needs, give them meaningful mementos to furnish or decorate their home as they see fit; and above all, join them for the creation of memories in their new abode.
It’s also fun for a father to notice the values which guide their children’s decisions. When I see my kids wait a bit longer to buy, or opt for a smaller, less extravant house than they can afford, or use the home to share guest quarters with friends and strangers … it fills me with the pleasure of kindred sentiments. “They’ve learned to be frugal, patient, and cautious.” “They’ve discovered what it means to entertain angels unawares”. When I see them excited about the proximity of a park, or a great climbing tree in the yard, it shows me they are valuing nature, and thinking of the enjoyment of the people who will share that lace with them.
Surely these are the kinds of thoughts God, the Father, entertains, as he enters into the joys of his children. So far, my children’s choices have been quite evidently guided by the Heavenly Father, as my kids and their spouses looked carefully, waited patiently, and sought God’s leading in prayer. By committing their way to His guidance, they entered into their eventual commitments with the full assurance that God was pleased, and had provided. Still, the choice was their’s — honored by God but not dictated by Him.
Looking forward, I can see another important reason why God is a happy God. At present, the housing arrangements of the vast majority of mankind are woefully inadequate. But God knows his plans, and knows that as surely as He is God, the time will come when all people will enjoy his handiwork. And they will augment it with handiwork of their own. “They will build houses, and dwell in them. They will not build and another inhabit; they will not plant, and another eat…. Before they call, I will answer, and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.”
01 Tuesday Nov 2005
Posted in a happy God, Calvinism, eschatology, love of God, orthodoxy, prophecy, religion and politics
I’ve been a Civil War buff for years, and a Lincoln buff. I’ve never read anything that would indicate what my evangelical brothers would call “saving faith” in Lincoln’s life. A few who knew Lincoln claimed him to have such faith. Some of Lincoln’s own words are laced with religious language. His mission in life was certainly, on balance, a moral mission. But as the above article documents (though with evident bias), Lincoln could not find in orthodoxy a creed that he could subscribe to without reservation. For example, the above article (lifted directly from a 1936 book by Franklin Steiner called Religious Beliefs of our Presidents, quotes Curtis:
“Abraham Lincoln’s belief was clear and fixed so far as it went, but he rejected important dogmas which are essential to salvation by some of the evangelical denominations. ‘Whenever any Church will inscribe over its altar as a qualification for membership the Saviour’s statement of the substance of the law and the gospel, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbor as thyself,” that Church will I join with all my heart and soul.'” (Abraham Lincoln, p. 375.)
Like me, Lincoln was troubled by the inability of orthodoxy to provide a reasonable explanation for all the misery in the world, or for the redress of wrongs that are obvious on all sides in human history. It troubled Lincoln that, on the one hand, orthodoxy teaches that a man can escape all consequences of a lifetime of debauchery or exploitation, simply by saying a few words on his deathbed. Steiner documents that Lincoln was equally troubled by the orthodox concept that a person who, like Lincoln himself, finds the traditional church’s formula for salvation inconsistent, or unconvincing, will be remanded to an eternity of torment as a result.
For example, Steiner quotes William Seward’s recollection of a time when Lincoln read a newspaper clipping to make a joke in one of their meetings:
“I recall President Lincoln’s story of the intrusion of the Universalists into the town of Springfield.
“The several orthodox Churches agreed that their pastors should preach down the heresy. One of them began his discourse with these emphatic words: ‘My brethren, there is a dangerous doctrine creeping in among us. There are those who are teaching that all men will be saved; but, my dear brethren, we hope for better things.” (Travels Around the World, p. 545.)
No question about it, there just seems to be an aversion to any success on God’s part in doing what God has stated to be his will: the salvation of all people. (1 Timothy 2:4)
The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry argues on this text that God only wishes or desires men to be saved, but that man’s choices will trump God’s preferences; and they present the idea that the only opportunity to avail oneself of the sacrifice of Christ is in this life. According to them, once you die, it’s too late.
They say:
Does this verse prove that God will save all people? No, it simply states that God “will have all men to be saved.” The word “will” in Greek is “thelo.” It means “will” (1 Cor. 7:36), or “desire” (Mark 9:35; Phil. 4:16). God desires that all people be saved. But, not all people will be saved.
I need to respectifully disagree here. Let’s talk about “thelo” first. This is what the Blue Letter Bible lexicon says (Strong’s #2309):
1) to will, have in mind, intend
a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose
b) to desire, to wish
c) to love
1) to like to do a thing, be fond of doing
d) to take delight in, have pleasure
The word count in the KJV for the use of thelo is as follows: will/would 159, will/would have 16, desire 13, desirous 3, list 3, to will 2, misc 4; 210
So, out of 210 occurrences of this word, the vast majority are translated “will”, meaning, most commonly, to will, have in mind, intend; to be resolved or determined, to purpose.
Now, if this were a man we were talking about, I don’t suppose it would make much difference whether we said “will” or “wish”, “desire” or “intend”. But this is God we are talking about. This verse is saying that God purposes, or intends, or if you prefer, takes delight in, the idea that “all men be saved.”
Those who ascribe to God greatness, sovereignty, all power, etc. can’t have it both ways. Either he has the power to do what he wills or purposes to do, or he does not. To those who read the Bible and take it as God’s word, there is a real challenge here. God states that he will accomplish all he says (Isaiah 55:11); that he will do all he intends, indeed, all he pleases.
In fact, an excellent source for just how much God claims the power to accomplish what he intends, is the Calvinist listing of God’s sovereignty at mslick.com
I readily concede that many verses also indicate that in the end, there will be unrepentant sinners who will not be saved eternally, that is, will not gain everlasting life. But I think there is a much better way to understand the 1 Tim 2:4-6 verse and many others. The key is in looking more closely at what is meant most often by the term “saved” or “salvation”.
In mainstream Christian teaching, when it says “saved”, it is assumed to mean “given eternal life irrevocably”. I don’t agree that this is what is meant by most scriptures on the topic. For example, the 1 Tim. 2:4-6 verse introduces an apositive phrase that restates the meaning in different words. It says, “to come to an accurate knowledge of the truth.”
I believe that is the solution to the problem. God has willed or intended, purposed since the beginning of time, that mankind will be saved and come to an accurate personal knowledge of the truth. Salvation is not, in this limited sense, a guarantee of eternal life, but rather a guarantee of release from “the fall” and “original sin” as a Calvinist would put it. In Adam’s fall, we sinned all. In Christ, we are restored all. All. A-L-L. Jesus Christ tasted death for every man. All people will experience this “good tidings of great joy.” The Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces. The ransomed of the Lord will return, the stumbling blocks will be removed, the highway will be a wide, easy road of holiness, which the unclean shall not pass over, but it is FOR the UNCLEAN. The wayfaring, man, though a fool, (though an unbeliever or atheist or backslid Christian or worldly Christian or unregenerate Christian or violent, nasty quasi-Christian, or Nazi or Moslem or Buddhist or Satanist in previous times) will not err therein.
Now, once the people learn God’s ways, learn to speak the language of God’s grace, come to bow their knee to Christ and acknowledge God’s glory, then there will still be a test, as Jesus describes in Matthew 25 and Revelation 20. It is not a foregone conclusion that all those who know the truth, and have the ability to obey the truth, will indeed pursue and love the truth. Some will choose to forget God, and they will be returned to sheol — oblivion. (The Psalm 9:17 text just cited clearly refers to people who come to an accurate knowledge of the truth, and then turn away from that knowledge. You can’t forget unless you have already known.) Only this time, the 2nd death, will be permanent. No resurrection.
There is so much more. Another day to explore it some more.
But in summary, I am happy, and I believe God is happy, because there is a plan in place that is sensitive and generous in spirit, as Lincoln was. It is a plan that includes the likes of Lincoln, who did not apparently arrive at a conviction that Jesus was his savior, but who did hope that God is good. As Steiner put it:
An old edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica says: “His [Lincoln’s] nature was deeply religious, but he belonged to no denomination; he had faith in the eternal justice and boundless mercy of Providence; and made the Golden Rule of Christ his practical creed.” The 14th edition of this great Encyclopædia speaks more precisely: “The measure of his difference from most of the men who surrounded him is best gauged by his attitude toward the fundamentals of religion. For all his devotion to his cause he did not allow himself to believe that he knew the mind of God with regard to it. He was never so much the mystic as in his later days and never so far removed from the dogmatist. Here was the final flowering of that mood which appears to have lain at the back of his mind from the beginning — his complete conviction of a reality of a supernatural world joined with a belief that it was too deep for man to fathom. His refusal to accept the ‘complicated’ statement of doctrines which he rejected, carried with it a refusal to predicate the purpose of the Almighty.
Happy God 