Thoughts on Why
There are likely numerous intersecting reasons for why so many Mainline pastors and parishioners work so diligently to convince their fellow Christians to be always “meek and mild.” If there is one uniting theme it is that of control. In the following sections I will explore two of these dimensions of control enabled by this partial and therefore false Gospel teaching.
We ended the previous post on this topic with the point made by J. I. Packer that the new gospel is focused on making humans “feel better.” It is obvious that by confronting another person with accusations of misbehavior or incorrect ideas we will most likely (in the short run) make them feel worse rather than better. This goes double (at least) for one Christian confronting another Christian. Thus, a gospel centered on humans and focused on advancing their self esteem will need a savior who teaches that we must always be “meek and mild” in order to be a true follower.
Now consider how this new (false) gospel intersects with the victim-based morality of identity politics and intersectionality. By virtue of their claims of victimhood entire groups of humans are placed beyond criticism regardless of their behavior. For Christians who have been conditioned to be always “meek and mild” there are virtually no intellectual or theological defenses to the acceptance of these ideas. Thus, any demands by these groups (or by those claiming to support them), no mater how non-Biblical or even anti-Christian are given the presumption of validity.
This strategy has been utilized to drive Christians to abandon the definition of Christian marriage and to justify the superposition of secular neo-Marxist ideologies ( for example, Critical Race Theory) onto Christian theology. We “meek and mild” Christians dare not resist lest we find ourselves accused of being mean to the certified victim groups in whose supposed interests these ideas are being advanced.
Scriptural Distortion and Dishonesty
Once the “meek and mild” Christian imperative has been internalized it is much easier to smuggle false doctrines into Christianity. It’s also far more difficult to defend true but “not nice enough” doctrines.
On the false doctrine side, all that has to be done to create credibility is to show that the new (false) doctrine makes people feel better and/or advances the interests of certified victims. With regard to Biblical justification even a single verse can be extrapolated to cover the entire ideological scope.
Thus, we are confidently told by environmentalist that since The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. (Genesis 2:15) we are therefore compelled to accept their positions on “global warming” or the number of parts-per-million of a given chemical in the air. After all, to not agree means that we don’t care about “the poor” or “the children.” It doesn’t matter if their policies actually harm, say, the poor by denying them the electric power necessary for economic advancement in order to limit carbon emissions. What matters is that we can “feel good” about our commitment to environmental justice.
In other cases Bible verses can be twisted into saying the opposite of what they actually meant or even created from thin air. One infamous case is Barack Obama’s claim that the Bible teaches us to be “our brother’s keeper” as a justification for his Progressive policies. Here’s one example”
“But part of that belief comes from my faith in the idea that I am my brother’s keeper and I am my sister’s keeper; that as a country, we rise and fall together.”
But the actual Biblical passage has nothing to do with one person being another’s keeper. No, it has to do with the first murderer attempting to hide his guilt from God (Genesis 4).
8Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.” While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. 9Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?” “I don’t know,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” 10The Lord said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.
But, since the then President was presumed to be helping people he is given a complete pass.
The most egregious use of false Scripture was by Presidential Candidate Pete Buttigieg in an attempt to justify abortion up to the time of delivery. Here’s the quote:
“Right now, they hold everybody in line with this one piece of doctrine about abortion, which is obviously a tough issue for a lot of people to think through morally. Then again, there’s a lot of parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath, and so even that is something that we can interpret differently,”
In fact there is no place in the Bible where life is defined to begin only at an infant’s first breath. But there are dozens of verses in the Bible that define the unborn to have life. But, since Mr. Buttigieg claims to be a “nice” supporter of women’s rights (to abort their child at any time they wish) he gets to make up Biblical teaching out of whole cloth.
All of this Scriptural falsehood and much more is smuggled in under the cloak of “being nice” or “being helpful.” By these means our Christian theology has been twisted to support secular, partisan political ideologies. And it is by this means that Christians are shamed and fooled into seeing support of these secular ideologies as requirements of their faith.