Quotations of Commoner Mark (2)
Christian Pacifism
The SBC’s Civil War and the Church’s Chaos (3)
I continue commentary on the transcript from The Sword and The Trowel discussion between Tom Ascol and Mark DeVine. Professor DeVine provides an excellent and concise description of the Mainline Protestant view of Scripture.
Mark DeVine: The original Protestant liberals rejected their theology. They admitted that they come to the Bible with [an] understanding about what modern man can believe and not believe. What can modern man find relevant and what can they not find relevant. And so, they scrapped their confessions of faith and wrote new confessions of faith they believed modern men and women could stomach. They admitted that when they come to the Bible they bring that norm, if you will, on what modern man can hear and find relevant and then they separate wheat from chaff and use what the Bible has in it that can scratch the itches, if you will, and not offend modern men and women.
In the PCUSA this rejection of their historic theology was certified by acceptance of the Confession of 1967. This Confession is the headwater for much of the heresy and apostasy that now permeates the denomination.
But the more insidious consequence is the careful curating of Scripture by pastors and elders whereby it becomes a tool for justifying their secular political goals. That is, they carefully select and utilize only those parts of Scripture that, legitimately or not, can be used to justify their political positions. Thus, Jesus Christ becomes a Democratic Socialist who supports every policy of that secular ideology. Helping the poor can only be accomplished by supporting and massively expanding the welfare state. There is never any justification for violence unless in is in support of “racial justice” or other goals of the Progressive Left. The government must be “resisted” if a non-elite, non-Progressive wins office but slavishly obeyed if an elite Progressive is in charge. This all adds up to the conversion of Jesus Christ from who the entire scope of Scripture says He is to a pathetic avatar for Progressive elite ideology.
This curating occurs for the entire Bible. So, only those verses from the Old Testament that can be twisted into support of Progressive ideology are quoted and discussed.
By this means a pastor can appear to be providing Biblical instruction while actually distorting Biblical truth and deceiving the congregation. Only by a deep, broad understanding of Scripture can this deception be reliably detected. However, there are situations in which this deception becomes obviously apparent.
For example, consider the case of the Christian definition of marriage. Let’s say that you belong to a denomination or local church that claims to have a high view of Scripture and a goal to “follow Christ,” and the definition of Christian marriage becomes an open issue. If that denomination’s or local church’s leadership avoid and ignore Jesus Christ’s explicit, unmistakable teaching on the definition of Christian marriage (i.e., Matthew 19:4-6) then you can be pretty certain that the whole enterprise is a fraud (unless the reason is ignorance and incompetence at an unimaginable level).
That is, they have demonstrated by their action that “following Christ” and “trusting the Bible” aren’t foundational principles but rather are camouflage for a censored Bible and a politically domesticated Christ. And, it must be pointed out that for both the Mainline denominations and the Evangelical Industrial Complex (EIC) the controlling group for that censoring and domestication is the “blue communities” (i.e., “college educated, Democrat-voting denizens of the nation’s cities and blue enclaves”). So what is selected from the Bible and what is preached is what will not offend but rather scratch the itch of the socially and economically dominant “blue communities.”
Obviously this censoring and domestication goes in the other political direction(s) as well. And I’ve been clear in my position regardless of which direction this polarization of Christianity goes.
The point is that using Scripture in this manner trivializes and demeans it. Scripture becomes seen as simply a tool by which I can justify my political beliefs and policy choices. Under this interpretative regime there is no way for the Authority of Scripture to be upheld. We become Scripture’s master, deciding that certain passages are legitimate and binding while others are not.
We must rediscover the understanding that Scripture judges us, not the other way around. Scripture doesn’t exist to justify what we haven chosen to believe, but rather judges those beliefs within context of God’s ultimate, perfect Truth. Were we to recover this understanding we would likely remain Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians, Progressives, Independents, etc. But we would be far more humble, far more willing to listen to other points of view and far more careful about the thought process by which Scripture is applied to the problems of this fallen world.
But in our current situation it is the “blue communities” who have taken control of virtually all our institutions of power and are using that power to drive anyone who disagrees into submission (or destruction if submission is not offered). The “non-blue communities” are fighting a desperate defensive battle to maintain their beliefs and commitments in the face of this proto-totalitarian onslaught. Perhaps in future generations the roles will be reversed (pray that this is not our fate). But for now it is the relentless, pagan Progressive Movement that seeks to destroy the Christian Church. Yes, they are attacking God Almighty, who needs not our support. But yes, God Almighty has given us the privilege of testifying to His grace and justice in this fallen world. So, live not by lies but rather testify without fear or favor.
The Pacification of the Christians (3)
Were it necessary to be always meek and mild to “follow Christ” then we would expect to see this characteristic prominently displayed in the Church being built by the Apostles. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, lists of Bible verses on the topic of “Church Discipline” include many dozens of examples. It turns out that the Apostolic Christian church was riven by conflict, and by the exercise of discipline in many forms (some drastic). And yet most of our contemporary pastors pretend that somehow this is all ignorable because there are other Biblical passages that do indeed teach peacefulness.
But they err greatly in presuming the right to pick and choose which aspects of God’s Word are worthy of inclusion and which are not. In a Mainline denomination the institutional pressure is to do just that. This pressure must be resisted and rejected by clergy and laity alike if we truly want to know and follow Christ.
So, let’s look into a few of these Biblical passages that are carefully ignored by our teachers of “meek and mild” Christianity. I will limit myself to the New Testament, not because the Old Testament isn’t relevant, but rather because of the false assumption that the New Testament is the reason for the “meek and mild” uniform standard of conduct.
The Apostles
Galatians 2:11-14 (NIV)
The most important incident of open conflict in the early church was between no other than the Apostles Paul and Peter!
But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong. When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile believers, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision. As a result, other Jewish believers followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
When I saw that they were not following the truth of the gospel message, I said to Peter in front of all the others, “Since you, a Jew by birth, have discarded the Jewish laws and are living like a Gentile, why are you now trying to make these Gentiles follow the Jewish traditions?
In this incident the Apostle Paul openly confronted the Apostle Peter (The Rock upon whom Jesus Christ said His church would be built) for error and hypocrisy. He did not meekly accept what was clearly an anti-Gospel act on Peter’s part. And yet, we are taught to meekly accept anything taught by our Mainline leaders because that is “the Christian thing to do.”
This post could go on to thousands of words were we to document and discuss all of the other Bible passages that deal with conflict and discipline. So, for brevity here are just a few selected passages for you to read and consider.
Matthew 18:15-17 (ESV)
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”
The Apostles were clearly following this teaching by Jesus as they built the church. Note that Jesus is expecting conflict in the church and therefore is describing how it should be handled, including the last step of excommunication.
1 Corinthians 5:5 (ESV)
You are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
This is an example of utilizing extreme, harsh measures in the hope that a soul can be saved. We allow souls to run unopposed towards perdition rather than cause any worldly discomfort.
Romans 16:17-18 (ESV)
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.
Ah yes, the smooth talker who convinces us that they are teaching the Gospel while they are actually pursuing godlessness, power and worldly position. Remember, the Gospel is a scandalous insult to our human pride.
1 Timothy 5:19-20 (ESV)
Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.
Obviously this is understood to cover extreme cases. But make no mistake, there are far more extreme cases than there should be because of the false “meek and mild” piety taught and accepted in our congregations.
Acts 5:1-11 (ESV)
But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it.
Peter didn’t hesitate to confront a church member who was deceitful.
Titus 1:10,11,13b,14 (NIV)
For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. … Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth.
My denomination (the PCUSA) is saturated with “rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception” who shamelessly distort and deceive. I have written a 300+ page book documenting this scandal.
This all brings us back to J. I. Packer’s thesis that the “old gospel” has been supplanted by a “new gospel” that is so purposefully partial that it has become a fraudulent gospel. And the entire purpose of this fraudulent gospel is nothing less than to replace God with humankind as the center of Christianity.
But in the new gospel the centre of reference is man. This is just to say that the old gospel was religious in a way that the new gospel is not. Whereas the chief aim of the old was to teach men to worship God, the concern of the new seems limited to making them feel better. The subject of the old gospel was God and His ways with men; the subject of the new is man and the help God gives him. There is a world of difference. The whole perspective and emphasis of gospel preaching has changed.
From this change of interest has sprung a change of content, for the new gospel has in effect reformulated the biblical message in the supposed interests of “helpfulness.”
(J. I. Packer’s introductory essay to John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ)
This “gospel” may be more pleasing to our prideful sin, but it is a lie that must be confronted, not meekly accepted.
The Pacification of the Christians (2)
No Mainline Christian needs be reminded of all the many Scriptural passages that teach meekness and peacefulness. Thus, there is no doubt that Jesus and His Apostles did indeed teach these virtues as the preeminent aspects of Christian life.
However, we must ask if this preeminence is absolute or conditional. That is, are there occasions in which strong argument, even denunciation are appropriate in Christian life? Are there even times when physical violence in defense of others or yourself is allowed? It turns out that as you look at all of Scripture you will find the answers to both of these questions is a clear YES.
The following Scriptural passages show that for Jesus Christ Himself (and His Apostles in a following post) the normative virtues of meekness and peacefulness are not absolute. In fact, there are occasions in which it would be sinful to meekly and peacefully accept the power of evil.
Jesus Christ
The most well known example of Jesus responding in anger and even violence to a evil situation is “the clearing of the temple.” This incident is recorded in both the Gospels of Matthew see below) and John (2:13-17).
And Jesus entered the temple of God and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer’; but you make it a den of robbers.” (Matthew 21:12, 13)
Too many of our pastors have viewed this as an isolated, unfortunate incident that can be ignored with regard to understanding how to live a Christian life. This situation was well analyzed by Wilbert F. Howard in his Interpreter’s Bible exposition on John 2:13-17. He uses this occasion of Christ’s wrath to discuss how Christ’s true nature can be utterly distorted by a selective, partisan interpretation of Scripture’s teaching.
But the mind of men is ingenious in fashioning difficulties for himself and finding ways of thwarting God’s gracious purposes towards him. And what if we so misread Christ that the portrait of him in our minds is not authentic, but a caricature? What if our misconception of him makes Christ himself an idol that hides the true God from us; because we accept only such facts about him that happen to appeal to us, and blandly overlook, or stubbornly refuse to see, others no less evidently there, but which we choose to think less worthy of him, and which will not fit into the conception to which we have come, less by diligent and humble study of the Scriptures than by excogitating for ourselves an idea and an ideal of what the Christ should be?
The fact is that it’s easy to find other striking examples of Jesus Christ responding with the opposite of meekness and peacefulness to a situation. In Matthew 23, He verbally assault the “teachers of the law and Pharisees” with a withering denunciation.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? (Matthew 23:27, 28, 33)
The above is only a partial excerpt of this harrowing verbal attack. And yet, our pastors claim that to “follow Jesus” is to be always meek and mild, always accepting of any situation or statement.
But perhaps you are still holding out by thinking something along the lines of “Sure, Jesus was violent towards unbelievers, but He would never behave in this manner towards fellow Christians.” I must tell you that you would be completely wrong.
Shortly after the Apostle Peter declared Jesus to be “the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16) Jesus predicted His death. Peter responded to Christ’s statement, saying ““Never, Lord! This shall never happen to you” (Matthew 16:22). This resulted in the following powerful reprimand by Jesus.
Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” (Matthew 16:23)
These are only selected examples of Christ responding in anger. Others can be found in Mark 3:5 and Luke 13:32. Finally, take note of the Apostle Paul’s explicit confirmation of this aspect of God’s nature in Romans 11:22.
Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.
So, when our pastors tell us that a Christian, to truly “follow Christ” must always be meek and peaceful, they are communicating only a part of the Gospel. The undeniable fact from Scripture’s testimony is that Jesus Christ, when faced with situations of open rebellion against God’s will, reacted with both physical and verbal violence. The “meek and mild” pushers want us to ignore this fact, or, if we insist on taking note claim that these incidents are Jesus somehow behaving out of character.
Here we return to Wilbert F. Howard in his Interpreter’s Bible exposition on John 2:13-17.
Surely our understanding of what Christlikeness is must be gathered, not from such incidents that we choose to select and to regard as typically Christlike, but from the whole of his life and character and conduct. For not only now and then, but always and in every situation, Christ did the perfect thing to do. He was as Christlike here in the temple as when dying for us on the Cross. Here to he was revealing God as truly as on Calvary. For, declares Paul with assurance, in God there is kindness–and severity (Rom. 11:22). And the one is as divine and glorious as the other. For what if he were not: were only flabbily good-natured, ready to make no fuss about our sins and to pretend that they do not matter greatly, and so push us through! …
And as for ourselves, if Christ is always to be followed, it is clear that while our usual rule of conduct is a frank, free, patient forgiveness, there are times when we must not forgive; when, as Hugh Mackintosh says bluntly, “Lack of indignation at wickedness is a sign, not of a poor nature only, but of positive unlikeness to Jesus Christ.” We must not so misread Christ that he becomes an ugly idol, blinding our understanding, and hiding the true God from us. The wrath of God is never thought of in scripture as opposed to his holiness. It is a necessary part of it.
In the next post I will turn to the Apostles after Christ’s Ascension to see if they lived as the always meek and mild Christians pressed upon us by our pastors.
The Pacification of the Christians (1)
Introduction
Were someone to demand the single most dominant tenet of Mainline Christianity, numerous credible responses come to mind. One might be that Jesus Christ showed unconditional love and equality for all people. Another could be that the Bible, though inspired by God, is “the words of men, conditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions of the places and times at which they were written” [Confession of 1967, PC(USA)].
However, the tenet that easily has similar credibility to these two is that Jesus Christ was uniformly gentle, meek and mild; and therefore a true Christian must adhere to this pattern at all times. This idea is a generalization of Christian pacifism, which relates specifically to the use of force in human conflict. That is, the pacifism when faced with physical aggression is generalized to passivity when faced with less extreme forms of aggression (e.g., verbal conflict).
The issue isn’t that this tenet is explicitly false, but rather that it is purposefully so incomplete and constrained that it leads to a false conclusion. Over fifty years ago, J. I. Packer discussed this issue in the introductory essay to John Owen’s 1959 book, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.
However this may be (and we shall say more about it later), the result of these omissions is that part of the biblical gospel is now preached as if it were the whole of that gospel; and a half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth.
If “gentle Jesus, meek and mild” is only a “half-truth masquerading as the whole truth,” then we are bound to ask of what this “whole truth” consists. The best summary that I have found was written by Jonathan Edwards (“The Admirable Conjunction of Diverse Excellencies in Christ Jesus,” 1736).
If Christ accepts of you, you need not fear but that you will be safe, for he is a strong Lion for your defense. And if you come, you need not fear but that you shall be accepted; for he is like a Lamb to all that come to him, and receives then with infinite grace and tenderness. … Though he is a Lion, he will only be a lion to your enemies, but he will be a lamb to you.
None that Pastor Edwards describes Christ as both a Lamb and a Lion. The Lion metaphor originates in Genesis 49 where Jacob speaks final words to all of his sons prior to death.
“Judah, your brothers will praise you; your hand will be on the neck of your enemies; your father’s sons will bow down to you. You are a lion’s cub, Judah; you return from the prey, my son. Like a lion he crouches and lies down, like a lioness—who dares to rouse him? The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he to whom it belongs shall come and the obedience of the nations shall be his. He will tether his donkey to a vine, his colt to the choicest branch; he will wash his garments in wine, his robes in the blood of grapes. His eyes will be darker than wine, his teeth whiter than milk” (Genesis 49:8-12)
It is generally agreed that this is a prophecy that Jesus Christ will arise from the House of Judah. And He did through King David.
Christ is also referred to as a Lion in Revelation, where this tie of the eternal Messiah to the House of Judah is explicitly expressed.
“Then one of the elders said to me, ‘Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals’” (Revelation 5:5)
C. S. Lewis uses Christ the Lion as a pattern for Aslan in the Narnia series, where this striking description is rendered.
“Aslan is a lion- the Lion, the great Lion.” “Ooh” said Susan. “I’d thought he was a man. Is he-quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion”…”Safe?” said Mr Beaver …”Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.”
Christ is indeed infinitely good, but He is certainly not safe, as explained by the Apostle Paul:
“Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he ‘has put everything under his feet’ ” (1 Corinthians 15:24-26)
Christ the Lion will return in glory to judge the quick and the dead. For those not found to be In Christ that judgement will be terrible.
For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.” …
“Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.” (Matthew 24:21, 30, 31)
This is Christ the Lion who is ignored, hidden or explained away by most of our contemporary pastors. This aspect of Christ is by no means limited to the End Times, but rather was displayed in His actions and words while here on earth.
So, the contentions to be explored are that:
- Many of our contemporary Christian pastors preach a “part of the biblical gospel … as if it were the whole of that gospel; and a half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth.”
- The part of the gospel very often left out is the understanding of Christ the Lion who is good but not safe.
- These exclusions and evasions lead Christians into great error concerning their response to evil and injustice in this life.
I will not demand that you take my, J. I. Packer’s, Jonathan Edward’s or C. S. Lewis’ word for these contentions, but will rather explore the Bible’s actual testimony as demonstration.
A Preview of Next Week’s Posts
I’d like to address an issue that has repeatedly come up recently, that being the concern that to be angry at the recent election events and people behind them is somehow less than Christian. I’m going to begin publishing a series on my blog tomorrow titled “The Pacification of the Christians” that attempts to address this issue. The specific belief under examination is that Jesus Christ was uniformly gentle, meek and mild; and therefore a true Christian must adhere to this pattern at all times.
What concerns me is the general idea that a “good Christian” shouldn’t get angry at or respond in anger to events that are clearly unjust if not downright evil. I think it’s also the case that we Christians who are more politically conservative / libertarian have been singled out for special enforcement of this falsehood.
I’m certainly not encouraging anyone to lash out at family, friends, church members or strangers. However, I am saying that there are occasions in which a strong, even angry response to destructive people and ideas is within Christian morality. I will go even farther, and say that there are occasions in which to not respond strongly is itself unChristian.
If you are interested you can visit my blog throughout the week (currently there are four posts in development, but I may add one more). For now, I have addressed this issue in my eBook Christ and Cornelius: The Biblical Case Against Christian Pacifism, with a few excerpts following.
Jesus Christ certainly taught that we should reach out in love to all people. After all, the Great Commission is the climax of Matthew’s Gospel. However, careful study of Scripture’s testimony yields a far more complex picture. Jesus’ teaching and actions were indeed sometimes dominated by unconditional love and equality for all people. At other times they were dominated by a fierce judgment and anger against the stubborn sinfulness of people or situations.
***
Clearly the “meek and mild” characterization of Jesus Christ is incomplete. Secular interests (supported by their religious fellow travelers) in our culture like the “meek and mild” idea because it simultaneously renders Jesus impotent and un-differentiable from the crowd of human “wise teachers.” Christians must face up to the truth that Jesus Christ is far more than a “meek and mild” enabler of the comfortable life. To truly follow Him we must know Him in completeness.
***
The reason that there is a Western Civilization at all is because Christians of earlier ages didn’t falsely turn God’s Word into an excuse for cowardice and defeatism. This statement pertains to a time as recent as decades ago and extends back through centuries. If Western Civilization is destroyed and replaced by Political Islam or resurgent Communism, the resulting death and destruction across the planet will be far worse than if we had stood and fought.
***
My primary purpose in taking up David’s life as revealed in 1 and 2 Samuel was to reestablish the undeniable connection that exists between this king’s temporal reign and Christ’s eternal reign. Although this connection is utterly obvious and thus unavoidable, yet our contemporary theologians, pastors and parishioners all too often have attempted avoid it. Although they are motivated by numerous and sundry causes, one of the most prevalent is that David’s reign is related to Christ’s as a foreshadowing in time of what God has done in eternity. Thus, when it is found that David’s life was at utter variance from the “officially approved” contemporary Christian model, powerful and deeply disturbing questions are raised about the credibility and truthfulness of that model. So, rather than bringing their model into alignment with the testimony of Scripture, they all too often attempt to diminish if not outright discredit it.
***
The dominant Western culture has told us that, simply by being a citizen of the West we bear all of the sins of that civilization, and therefore have no right to oppose anything, including ideologies of monstrous evil. This is a monstrous lie in the service of a monstrous evil. Yes, we must continue to use our freedoms to think, speak, criticize, debate and, ultimately, improve and reform that which is wrong with Western Civilization. However, were we to succumb to the elite’s ultimate vision, there may be no speech, thought or action that falls outside the control of whatever inhumane, totalitarian ideology occupies the place once held by Western Civilization.
The Death of Beauty (9)
Yes, indeed…and so much more.
Celebrating Past Beauty (7)
Arthur John Gossip’s Interpreter’s Bible Exposition on John 2:13-17 (2)
If you seek to draw your readers into a new discovery about the nature of Jesus Christ, one that many of them would prefer to avoid, how to begin?
But there are other aspects of him no less deniable; and it is fatal to ignore them, or to pretend that they are not there.
The chosen path is to directly identify the issue, face it and then state its moral import.
“And he looked around at them with anger.” (Mark 3:5), so we read. Those who knew him best remembered that his eyes could be as a flame of fire, and spoke with bated breath of something awesome in him which they tried to describe in the strange phrase “the wrath of the Lamb.” There was nothing gentle in that fierce message that he sent to Herod, “Go and tell that fox.” (Luke 13:32). Nor was there any trace of mildness in him at that tremendous moment when he turned upon his best friend, who had meant only kindness, with the terrific rebuke, “Get behind me Satan!” (Matt. 16:23).
This accounting of the instances where our Lord and Savior demonstrated anger and condemnation is meant to startle the comfortable Christian into a state of recognition that things may not be as simple as they had previously seemed.
If it is true, as it is true, that nothing does he underline more heavily than the duty of forgiveness–and this not once but over and over, declaring bluntly that salvation offered in the gospel is not unconditional, but that, as he says, if you forgive men not their trespasses, neither will your heavenly Father forgive you (Matt. 16:15)–nonetheless, he himself did not always forgive. The Pharisees did not find him gentle or meek or mild when he pursued them, ruthlessly and remorselessly, with those blistering denunciations as scorching as anything in literature. “You whitewashed tombs” (Matt. 23:27); “you serpents” (Matt. 23:33); “You make him [your proselyte] twice as much a child of hell as yourselves” (Matt. 23:15). Rather than make peace with such men acting so, he chose to go to his death. And when the traders would not cease from polluting the temple of God with their unseemliness and noise and chaffering, there came a time when he said that if they would not go then he would drive them out. And he rose up and did it.
Here the Rev. Gossip addresses the core of the Christian pacifist creed. For though forgiveness is an unalterable foundation of Christianity, it is demonstrated by Christ’s own words and deeds that forgiveness is not an excuse to accommodate evil.
Desperate attempts have been made by some who feel uncomfortable over it to tone down and edge out this incident. … And this was a wild scene, with cowering figures clutching desperately at their tables, as these were flung here and there; or running after their spilled coins, as these rolled hither and thither; or shrinking at the lash that had no mercy till the holy place was cleansed. For though it is possible to read this account as if only the cattle were actually struck, that seems very unlikely; and in the reports as given in the other Gospels, quite impossible. If this incident had been recorded of anyone else in history, it would universally have been accepted as the scene of violence it was. And those who try to explain it away do so because they feel unhappily that it will not fit into their preconceived idea of what Christ should do or be; that here somehow he acted for once out of character, and fell inexplicably below himself, forgot his own law of life, lost his head and his temper. All of which is painful and regrettable. And the best thing to do is to say as little about it as one can, and look the other way, and rub this unfortunate episode out of our minds, and think of him only at the great moments when he was his real self.
This is the crux of the issue. Too many of we Christians want to “control the narrative” on the character and purpose of Jesus Christ. We want all the benefits of comfort and forgiveness without any of the responsibilities or complexities. Jesus Christ must be who we wish Him to be rather than who the Bible actually says that He is. The good Reverend places his arm around our trembling shoulders and gently walks with us towards the precipice of our failure.
But that is foolishness. Surely our understanding of what Christlikeness is must be gathered, not from such incidents that we choose to select and to regard as typically Christlike, but from the whole of his life and character and conduct. For not only now and then, but always and in every situation, Christ did the perfect thing to do. He was as Christlike here in the temple as when dying for us on the Cross. Here to he was revealing God as truly as on Calvary. For, declares Paul with assurance, in God there is kindness–and severity (Rom. 11:22). And the one is as divine and glorious as the other.
Now that we have been shown the error of our ways, the process of recovery can begin. And that recovery can only be effective if we begin to understand that God’s Word is not something from which we can pick and choose. Rather, it is something before which we must bow and offer up our preconceptions and corrupted desires.
For what if he were not: were only flabbily good-natured, ready to make no fuss about our sins and to pretend that they do not matter greatly, and so push us through! “Ah, God,” cried Luther, “punish us we pray Thee … but be not silent … toward us.” A fearsome prayer! For what if he hears and answers it? But what if he does not, and lets us sin on undisturbed! For nothing do we owe Christ more than for the magnificence of his hopes for us, and his refusal to compromise with us, and the severity that pulls us up with sharpness.
The presented alternative is a world in which Christ has become a false idol to whom we sacrifice our children, fellows and selves to obtain license to sin.
And as for ourselves, if Christ is always to be followed, it is clear that while our usual rule of conduct is a frank, free, patient forgiveness, there are times when we must not forgive; when, as Hugh Mackintosh says bluntly, “Lack of indignation at wickedness is a sign, not of a poor nature only, but of positive unlikeness to Jesus Christ.” We must not so misread Christ that he becomes an ugly idol, blinding our understanding, and hiding the true God from us. The wrath of God is never thought of in scripture as opposed to his holiness. It is a necessary part of it. Christ would have lost my soul if he had not refused to compromise with me.
When Christ in His fullness is apprehended the soil is made ready to nurture a mature Christian conscience.
I look at this beautiful passage as a bookend to that of Jonathan Edwards’ sermon on Christ’s gentleness of heart towards us poor lost sinners. Edwards stresses Christ’s gentleness while acknowledging His wrath. Gossip stresses Christ’s wrath while acknowledging His gentleness. Between these two beautiful meditations on our Lord and Savior we begin to discern His full glory!
The Death of Beauty (8)
Christ Driving the Money Changers out of the Temple Valentin de Boulogne
Celebrating Past Beauty (6)
Arthur John Gossip’s Interpreter’s Bible Exposition on John 2:13-17 (1)
The beauty found in this extensive passage has to do with the courage to stand against a powerful prevailing falsehood with compassion, conviction and power. The Reverend Gossip is likely unknown to the vast majority of my readers, so here is a short biography.
Arthur John Gossip
Arthur John Gossip (1873-1954) was Professor of Christian Ethics and Practical Theology at the University from 1939 until 1945.
Born in Glasgow, Gossip graduated MA from the University of Edinburgh and was licensed as a Free Church of Scotland minister in 1898. He was minister of a number of churches before coming to St Matthew’s United Free Church in Glasgow in 1910; he served as a chaplain in Belgium and France during the First World War, and he returned to Scotland as minister of Beechgrove Church in Aberdeen.
In 1928, Gossip was appointed Professor of Christian Ethics and Practical Training in the United Free Church’s Divinity school in Glasgow (known as Trinity College after the reunion of the United Free and Church of Scotland in 1929, and the amalgamation of the Divinity schools at the College and the University). The University’s Chair of Ethics and Practical Theology was suppressed after Gossip’s retirement in 1945.
The expository passage is long, but must be discussed in its entirety for the full impact to be felt. Therefore, this is part one of a two part discussion.
The First Epistle of John ends thus: “We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true; and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols.” (1 John 5:20-21). As if to say: Here has been revealed to you God as he really is. Hold it firmly in your mind and do not let yourself be wiled away from it. Keep your eyes on Jesus Christ, and you will think rightly about God.
The Rev. Gossip opens with a Scripture passage that sets the context for and the parameters of what follows. The theme is that Christians must hold firm to seeking in Scripture “God as he really is” by keeping their “eyes on Jesus Christ.”
But the mind of men is ingenious in fashioning difficulties for himself and finding ways of thwarting God’s gracious purposes towards him. And what if we so misread Christ that the portrait of him in our minds is not authentic, but a caricature? What if our misconception of him makes Christ himself an idol that hides the true God from us; because we accept only such facts about him that happen to appeal to us, and blandly overlook, or stubbornly refuse to see, others no less evidently there, but which we choose to think less worthy of him, and which will not fit into the conception to which we have come, less by diligent and humble study of the Scriptures than by excogitating for ourselves an idea and an ideal of what the Christ should be?
We are now drawn into the core of the dispute. The reader is not browbeat as dull or dishonest. Rather, by a series of pointed questions we are led to the idea that well meaning, good faith Christians can yet fail to perceive Jesus Christ in His fullness. This failure is tied directly to our fallen state, thus asking us to look more deeply into our own motivations and preconceptions. In effect the Rev. Gossip is gently asking us to consider a possibility that we would rather avoid, but that is of the greatest importance to our Christian lives. Surely some will turn away at this point. But, due to the gentleness of the approach and the demonstrated weightiness of the issue, many will travel further down this path.
That is precisely what too many have done, with disastrous consequences, not for themselves alone, but for the world. The “gentle Jesus, meek and mild” idea has been so overworked that many preach and follow a Christ who has small resemblance to the Christ of the N.T.; a Christ who is not loving, but unkindly indulgent; weakly good-natured, immorally so; whose great aim seems to be to get us off. Undoubtedly he himself claimed to be “meek and lowly in heart” (Matt. 11:29). And that he was and is so, incredibly so, stares at us from a dozen passages in the Gospels; and is proved daily in our experiences of his unbelievable patience and lack of exasperation with impossible people, imprudent and inexcusable.
Note that the Rev. Gossip doesn’t deny the gentle, forgiving aspects of our Savior’s character. No, he affirms them as first things to both accept and be eternally thankful for. So the purpose is not to deny that which the reader may already believe true (because it is gladly embraced as true). The issue is that it is at this truth that so many Christians have stopped. This truth is so appealing, so comforting that we are tempted to wish that it encompasses the whole truth about Jesus Christ. But this is simply not the case, which necessitates what follows.
Taking Stock at the 500th Post
General Comments
So here I am writing the 500th post on this blog! The first post is dated November 25, 2014 and titled “Opening Thoughts.” My first paragraph is:
This blog will focus on my sense of sojourning through a foreign land as an orthodox, Reformed Christian. This sense has been a longstanding one with regard to the popular culture here in the United States. I am by no means isolated from this country’s entertainment, political and business cultures. In fact, I am an active participant in them all. Though many aspects of these cultures are troubling, I am accustomed to dealing with the challenges and benefits that they provide.
Looking back 499 posts later I’m reasonably comfortable with my adherence to this framework. That being the responses of an orthodox Reformed Christian to a wide variety of issues within the United States.
I am shocked by the speed that this “foreign land” has expanded over these mere four and a half years. At the start my sense of alienation was clear but not central. Now I find myself fundamentally alienated from my Christian denomination, the culture and the political environment. Therefore this blog has transformed from one centered on exploration to one focused on identifying and exposing the myriad of insane ideas that are driving our civilization towards destruction.
Thus what began as an exploration focused on the PCUSA has expanded into areas such as environmentalism, philosophy, economic systems, politics, heresy, literature, abortion and anti-Semitism, among many others. I have published three eBooks, all focused on topical issues addressed through Biblical exposition and meditation. Most recently I have added satire as a means of communicating my concerns.
I have identified the prime driver of civilizational destruction to be Progressive ideology as practiced by both secular and religious institutions. Therefore I have focused strongly on a critique of this ideology’s foundations, strategies and results. Some of the major themes of this critique are:
- to demonstrate that their pretense of moral and intellectual superiority is nothing more than a wafer-thin veneer covering a set of utterly contradictory, shifting ideas that have only one organizing principle: the acquisition and maintenance of raw power;
- to demonstrate that they must resort to obfuscation and outright deceit to advance their ideas;
- to give voice to those many people (particularly Christians) who oppose the Progressive project;
- to encourage those in opposition to push back on the ground of ideas and examination of their merits;
- to show Progressives the error of their ways and to encourage them to reengage on humane, honorable terms with their fellow citizens.
I’ve also attempted to understand and then explain the philosophical underpinnings of the Progressive project (e.g., postmodernism, nihilism, Marxism, multiculturalism, intersectionality, pacifism, Gnosticism, identity, etc.). My goal is to enhance our ability to counter their positions and to unmask the shocking evil that hides beneath that wafer-thin veneer of moral and intellectual posturing (many people who parrot the Progressive ideology have no idea what they are actually supporting).
Although I have expanded my scope far beyond the PCUSA, I still maintain a regular focus on this my denomination. The only way that I can maintain my Christian conscience is by a posture of opposition and rejection. Yes, there remain many faithful pastors, elders, deacons and members in the denomination. However, the theology and behavior of the dominant Progressive leadership has been so outrageously apostate and dishonorable that to remain silent is tantamount to support. My voice is small, yet I will not choose silence. So, as long as I’m in this denomination I will speak out as necessary.
I’m currently working on a new eBook provisionally titled A Denomination’s Debacle. The book pulls together much of the PCUSA information and associated commentary from this blog with the addition of new material to fill-out the story. It’s currently over 300 pages long, which is almost twice the length of my previous longest eBook. It troubles me that through exclusive use of publicly available information such a substantial case for the PCUSA elite’s apostasy and corruption can be made.
The “God is Dead” Christian Elite
Throughout this blog’s existence I have occasionally paused to discuss why our elite Christian leadership believes and behaves as it does. Along these lines I have explored postmodern Christianity, the Social Gospel, Gnosticism and raw power politics, among others. However, identification of a single unifying principle for this phenomena has to this point eluded me.
Perhaps the foundational principle is that these “Christian” elites agree with Nietzsche that belief in “God” as a reality upon which Western Civilization can base its religious/moral world view, “is dead.” Let’s think through the consequences of this hypothesis.
Let’s say that you are a pastor or elder who has personally lost faith in the Christian God (or any god for that matter). And, you find that there are many others in the church who hold similar views. So, you all find yourselves in an organization (i.e., the church) whose fundamental reason for existing has, in your opinion, vanished. Yet the church has many remaining members and wields moral power in the civilization. What then to do?
Well, you could work to dissolve the church by openly arguing that it has become obsolete and useless. However, given that tens of millions still (foolishly in your opinion) believe in God’s existence you would likely fail and be expelled. Therefore you would have to create a new organization to advance your philosophy. That’s a very heavy lift with a small likelihood of success. Far better to remain in the church but work for its transformation into an institution that does “social good.”
Of course, if “God is dead” and the Bible is thus null and void, how to find the social good to pursue? The answer was found in the most aggressive, organized and presumptive human ideology supposedly pursuing the “social good,” that being what we now call Progressivism (which has its roots in Marxism, as contemporary Progressives are finally admitting). Thus the elite Christian leadership of Mainline Denominations turned their churches from the Gospel of Jesus Christ to “the gospel of social change and justice” as defined by the secular Progressive political project.
For decades this stealth-coup was hidden behind multiple complex theological smoke screens that orthodox Christians had great difficulty penetrating. However, with the advent of gay ordination and marriage the chasm between orthodoxy and heterodoxy became so vast that no amount of smoke could obscure it. Thus we have seen the parting of ways where so many orthodox members and churches have exited.
Yet some orthodox members and churches have so far decided to remain. If they do so with the clear understanding that they are missionaries to a now pagan, post-Christian denomination then perhaps they can successfully maintain their orthodox Christian identity.
However, if they pretend that they remain part of a “Christian” denomination then they will almost certainly be eventually converted and then absorbed. This will occur because they grant legitimacy to the denomination’s dominant post-Christian ideology and thus will increasingly fall prey to its influence. If that be their end then they have no excuse, for they have been warned and their consciences will testify against them at the time of accounting.
The Death of Beauty (7)
Celebrating Past Beauty (5)
Paul Ramsey Article (2)
Make no mistake, Mr. Ramsey had a partisan position with regard to participation in World War II — he was for it. However, the means by which he pressed his point of view could hardly be more different than those used by today’s Progressive Christians. For, nowhere in Mr. Ramsey’s article will you find accusations of mental illness in his opponents manifested as a “phobia.” Nor will you find dark intimations of evil motives due to some sort of “ism.” Finally, you will not find all of the talking points for his secular political position cobbled together with a throwaway reference to Jesus in order to claim that the piece is Christian.
What you will find is a profound meditation on the nature of the human condition in general and sin in particular. Along the way he will acknowledge truth and error on both sides of the debate. But the essential fact here is that Mr. Ramsey seeks to convince those in disagreement or on the fence by the quality of his arguments. That is, he treats those not or not yet on his side as moral and intellectual equals.
By his own words Mr. Ramsey is in disagreement with “Liberal Protestantism” on the issue at hand. His opponents apparently were scandalized by the fact that prosecution of the war required people to engage in unrighteous acts. Of this there can be no dispute, and Mr. Ramsey does not attempt to do so. Rather, he points out that by so completely focusing on sin as “unrepentant unrighteousness” they fall prey to the less obvious but far more dangerous and destructive sin of “unrepentant righteousness.”
The departure point for this argument is Christ’s words from the cross: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23: 34). For, this greatest sin (perhaps excepting the “unforgivable sin”) was done entirely by people who believed that their motives were righteous. For the Jewish leaders they were stopping a false Messiah. For the Romans they were maintaining peace. Mr. Ramsey’s point is that Christ’s words were not only applicable to that specific case, but are true in general. Here is the key excerpt.
Do we not here recognize that sin and responsibility may vary inversely, rather than directly, with consciousness, so that greater sincerity actually means greater sin? Our own responsible and sinful implication in social institutions must already extend far out beyond the range of our conscious participation, else on what grounds do we make ourselves more consciously sinful by making ourselves more sensitive to the grinding, impersonal results of our common life? And when we are stabbed sharply awake to evil results that have followed from one of our actions, which we certainly did not “intend that way,” should this not give us pause, and bring the reflection that it is not just in this case that we sin not knowing what we do.
Mr. Ramsey’s point is not that, because sin consists of “unrepentant righteousness” then there is no need to be concerned about “unrepentant unrighteousness.” Rather, it is to argue that by making an idol of our righteousness we can end up participating in greater sinfulness.
Before God, unrepentant unrighteousness and unrepentant righteousness come to the same thing; and an indication that they are judged alike by God is the fact that in history they come in time to the same thing, namely, cruelty. This is the Cross in History from which also, in the light of the Cross of Christ, we learn that man’s deepest sin lies in an unrepentant righteousness that knows not the sin for which it is responsible.
How then, if we must admit that we sin both in our unrighteousness and righteousness, can we avoid becoming incapable of any act or thought lest we thereby sin? Mr. Ramsey’s answers are:
More fundamental than sorrow for our past sins is a repentant faith which in acting nevertheless waits for the Lord to complete by His Divine Providence the goodness of our finite actions, and which still trusts Him when in His Divine Judgment our action is thwarted and rejected. If we are to be truly forgiven, truly the Father must forgive us.
and:
By the action of God in history, the sinfulness of human actions is judged and corrected, and the goodness of human action saved and incorporated in the Divine Will. Since our judgment about what is good is always infected by our sinful righteousness, the act of God in history always has, in relation even to the best of us, an aspect of “otherness,” of being beyond the good and evil of our own mixed, self-defensive human judgments. When we do think we know the will of God for our time, our wills are strengthened, either to do or not to do, by a course of events utterly beyond our control. After each event we must always confess that we have been acted upon more than we have acted, that we have been changed more than we have changed anything, and that the ideals with which we began have not been realized in reality so much as they have been transformed to accord more with reality. By grace are we saved!
Although Mr. Ramsey’s prose does not achieve the heights of beauty discovered by Mr. Lincoln and Rev. Edwards, it yet is beautiful. Its beauty lives in the lovely, humble and trusting manner in which he connects our fallen lives on this earth with the judgement and grace found only in God. And, he meets a great human need by helping those brave but conflicted souls who found themselves called to oppose great evil to bear that terrible responsibility within the context of their Christian faith.
The Reformed Sojourner 