Christian Nationalism?

In my previous post I repeated my frequent assertion that Christians have a blessing and a duty to vote because our representative republic allows us to express our wishes regarding political issues. (See “Vote Anyway”) This naturally raises the issue of Christian involvement in government. Two of my readers reminded me of the current media interest in Christian Nationalism which does seem to be advocating a theocracy (direct rule by God). As I said before, a theocracy is not what the New Testament describes as our relationship to secular government, nor can it be supported under the guidelines of the US Constitution.

That said, the Bible does give guidance to believers regarding political issues, and the Constitution grants religious input by all while favoring none. Jesus’ most poignant statement regarding secular government came in answer to Pilate’s question about Jesus’ kingship. Jesus did not deny that He is a king, but He made it clear that His kingdom did not involve a worldly domain. It helps to remember that the word used throughout the New Testament for “kingdom” does not imply a physical area. Rather, the Greek sense of the word kingdom leans toward the idea of rulership; those who are ruled by the King are thereby members of His kingdom. This is the basis for both Paul’s and Peter’s assertion that Christian citizenship is other-worldly, heavenly, or spiritual.

Even so, our heavenly citizenship does not release us from earthly responsibilities. The New Testament clearly commands submission to our governing authorities (Paul and Peter). Some might suggest that Paul couldn’t have imagined a representative government like we have. This is not likely the case. The Apostle Paul, being well-educated, raised in a blended Greek/Jewish household, was certainly aware of the Athenian tradition of democracy. True, Roman imperialism was universal throughout the Mediterranean world in which Paul travelled and emperor worship was expected, but the Romans allowed other religions to practice their beliefs as long as they did not subvert Rome’s governance.

It was in this climate that the Apostles taught believers to submit to earthly governments. In 21^st century America, believers have the same responsibility to submit but with an added benefit: we can participate in our government. At the fringes of the Moral Majority movement of the last century, the concept of a theocracy was debated. Today’s Christian nationalism movement has reignited that debate. Christianity Today has a helpful article which differentiates Christianity from Christian nationalism. They explain that historically Christians have, “worked to advance Christian principles, not Christian power or Christian culture, which is the key distinction between normal Christian political engagement and Christian nationalism. Normal Christian political engagement is humble, loving, and sacrificial; it rejects the idea that Christians are entitled to primacy of place in the public square or that Christians have a presumptive right to continue their historical predominance in American culture.” (Read full article)

The entitlement mentality of many who espouse Christian nationalism is perhaps its worst feature. Christianity Today reports that some in the movement believe they must protect the “predominant “Anglo-Protestant” culture to ensure the survival of American democracy.” This quickly devolves into an un-Christian attitude that, “Christians are entitled to primacy of place in the public square because they are heirs of the true or essential heritage of American culture.” The “Anglo” insinuation in their mindset has rightly earned the accusation of white supremacy which is obviously unbiblical. Nothing could be farther from the truth expressed by Paul that in Christ, there are no racial distinctions in Christ’s kingdom.

The majority of the public sees the name “Christian” applied to this group of nationalists and assumes they represent all Christians. This is at least partially a result of the condition I warned against in my previous post: many people are not careful to discern truth from lies. Anyone can call himself a Christian, as the writers of the New Testament warned us. (timothy, 1 cor. 12, ) Non-believers are essentially unequipped to make this distinction. It is a believer’s first responsibility to examine the claims of a person or movement to decide if their position aligns with biblical truth. The second, perhaps equally important thing believers must do is live their true Christianity “out loud” as Lippa and Crawley poetically recommend.

I am going to present one issue as an example of the difference between a Christian nationalist approach and a truly Christian approach. A few days ago, I was watching a particularly depressing news commentary outlining the shameful way the trans-gender lobby is pushing “life-affirming” therapies and surgery on confused teen-agers. I was reminded how in one generation we have gone from homosexual and transexual ideologies being taboo to their being normalized, despite sound scientific evidence that gender dysphoria causes severe emotional and psychological problems.

The science is evident in a recent government publication. The National Library of Medicine, an arm of the National Institutes of Health, reported on a Swedish study over a thirty-year period which found that individuals who underwent sexual reassignment therapies (hormonal or surgical) were far more likely to have serious mental health issues than the straight population. Their conclusion was in part that, “Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism.”

 The author of the Swedish study claims that this proves more attention needs to be paid to “gender-affirming” care. The NLM review comes to a similar conclusion stating that the dire revealed by the study, “should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.” I would suggest that it should inspire Christians to be more forceful in proclaiming the biblical truth that gender dysphoria is a mental (and spiritual) condition that places a person at risk.

In America today, the biblical position on human sexuality has become hate speech and is punishable by law in many instances. This issue represents a body of lies Christians are told they must accept as truth. The radical Christian nationalist position on this issue is that all sexual deviancies must be criminalized. That would be theocracy in action as per Old Testament law. That is not biblical by New Testament standards. The correct Christian response should be what the Christianity Today article suggests: humble, loving, sacrificial, and I would add, instructive intervention as a testament to the truth.

I believe it is our Christian responsibility to represent Christ in response to all our 21^st century issues. However, as sojourners or ambassadors from another kingdom, we should not expect to find our rules of behavior, the “law of Christ,” fully encoded in America’s laws. That is the Christian nationalist goal. The true Christian goal is to be the salt and light Jesus commanded; our goal is to, “become blameless and innocent, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverted generation, among whom you shine as stars in the world.”

Related posts: Christophobia; Christophobia Part 2; Bringing the Kingdom; Curtain, Please; Think or Swim; Loyal Opposition;

Where Do You Find Truth?

I was encouraged to read an article in the AMAC news daily that chronicles the waning influence of the big media outlets. The author claims that Americans are becoming less likely to believe what they read and see in traditional news sources. This encouraged me because the media have been increasingly in the driver’s seat of public opinion throughout my lifetime, especially since the advent of the Internet. Whether through laziness or intellectual apathy, much of the American public has lost the motivation to consider the source when they evaluate the information that floods their environment. Easy believism has taken the place of intellectual curiosity.

Actually, the situation is even worse than that. Truth itself is no longer considered important; its very existence is questioned by many postmodern philosophers. Absolute truth – one truth that is always and in every situation true – is scoffed at by atheists, agnostics, and even some so-called Christians. In the last half of the twentieth century, situation ethics and values clarification began to be taught at ever lower levels of academia. Long a feature of college lectures, doubt and despair spread as the products of those colleges became the textbook writers and classroom teachers of our elementary-age children. We should not wonder that people will believe whatever they are told; they have no standard by which to judge truth.

Fortunately, Bible-believing Christians (Must I add the qualifier?) are not without defense against purveyors of untruth. It is not a coincidence that Jesus called Himself the Truth, nor that He insisted that the truth sets believers free. Jesus also pointed clearly to the source of truth: “Thy Word is truth.” The Bible, God’s Word, is the repository of truth; all that the Bible asserts as true is in fact true. This does not mean that truth does not exist beyond the pages of Scripture. All truth is God’s truth whether it is doctrinal, biological, astronomical, political, or whatever. Despite repeated claims that science or rationality trumps faith, the Bible has continued to prove true when examined by sincere searchers.

Getting to the truth demands an inquiring mind. Cornelius VanTil is famous for having encouraged believers to view all things through what he called biblical spectacles. He insisted, “The Bible gives us the presuppositions we need to interpret individual facts rightly. It is the spectacles by which we can view all of life rightly.” Presuppositions are the things we bring to our investigations which color our interpretations. If one presupposes that there is no God, and all things exist through time and chance, one sees the universe in a certain way. If, on the other hand, one assumes that the universe was created by a loving, communicating God, things appear quite different.

When Jesus identified God’s Word as the source of truth, He preceded the assertion with a request that the Father would, “Sanctify [His disciples] in the truth.” To sanctify something is to set it apart for a specific purpose. If we are to be living proof that Jesus’ prayer was answered, we must set about mining and distributing truth. We need to put on our biblical spectacles as Van Til would say. We need to follow the advice of the Psalmist and meditate on God’s Word day and night. We need to refuse to be conformed to the world and be transformed by renewing our minds with the Word. We need to set our minds on things above not on things of earth. These acts of sanctification will give us the ability to follow John’s admonition to test everything to determine if it is from God.

I have caused trouble in the past by suggesting that one of America’s major political parties runs closer to the truth than the others. I am going to avoid that assertion today and suggest that concerned Bible believers put on Van Til’s spectacles and determine for themselves whether there is a difference between parties and candidates. We would do well to investigate claims and policies to discern their truthfulness both in relation to facts on the ground as well as Bible principles. America is not a theocracy nor can it be under the dictates of the US Constitution. However, because we are blessed with a representative form of government, Christians can make their wishes known in the voting booth. But our ballots must be thoughtful, enlightened votes, seeking to expand the dominance of truth.

If you believe you are wearing Van Til’s spectacles, and you don’t see the subtle subterfuge, blatant falsehoods, and the constant push to undermine biblical values we are asked to accept today, I suggest that you have your prescription checked. It may be that you need to be renewed in the Spirit of your mind as Paul recommends. Jesus said His words are spirit; that’s the spirit which must control the mind of a believer. I appreciate the way The Message translates Proverbs 12:17, “Truthful witness by a good person clears the air, but liars lay down a smoke screen of deceit.” Modern media is laying down that smoke screen; we need to look for the truthful witness. We need to join Diogenes in his search for an honest man.

Related posts: True Lies and Lying Truth; Truth Dysphoria; America Held Captive

Biden Attack -- My Response

I promised myself I would not get overly involved in commentary during this political campaign season. But Joe Biden’s unprecedented political attack packaged as a highly dramatized press conference on September 1^st has motivated me to comment. I will try to remain true to the purpose of my blog title and consider primarily why heaven matters in this instance. I have said repeatedly that peoples’ philosophy is relevant to everything they do. If philosophy is the head of the body, politics is one arm; religion is another. To me this means that politics and religion are joined at the head. Unless you imagine some Frankenstein creation of disparate parts, politics and religion flow from the same philosophy in any given individual or institution.

Some may ask why those of us who are heavenly minded should care what worldly minded Joe Biden has to say. I answer it is because the words of the President reveal the Deus ex machina, the real philosophy behind the words. The apparent purpose of his 9/1 speech was to demonize his political opponents whom he vaguely characterized as MAGA Republicans. This term, which he used a half dozen times in his short address, has been adopted by the Democrats to refer to people who supported President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” campaign. Biden said, “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundation of our republic.”

In an attempt to identify the philosophy which he considered such a threat, Biden said, “It’s not just Trump; it’s the entire philosophy that underpins the [MAGA Republicans] – I’m going to say something: it’s like semi-fascism.” Merriam-Webster defines fascism as “a political philosophy, movement, or regime… that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.” The only part of that definition that fits Trump is “exalts nation.” No one can deny that Trump exalted America; he wanted to make it great again. He was not a racist as some have tried to claim (minorities did better under Trump than any recent administration.) Unlike the Democrats, Trump clearly placed individuals and individual effort at the center of his plan to make America great.

Ironically, the rest of the definition of fascist applies quite nicely to the Democrat philosophy rather than Trump’s and the MAGA Republicans’. Few Presidents have been more “dictatorial” than Biden and Obama. The “severe economic and social regimentation” boiling out of Washington under Democrat administrations is undeniable. As for “forcible suppression of opposition,” just consider the recent weaponization of the IRS (87,000 new, armed agents) and FBI (Mar-a-Lago?), the hijacking of the election system, and the overreach of other non-elected government bodies. The irony of Biden demonizing conservative Americans who want to see Constitutional rights upheld and traditional values embraced is beyond belief. Yet he apparently believes that returning America to its former glory “threatens the very foundation of our republic.”

(Reminder to self: tell the reader why heaven matters in this.)

Among the MAGA Republicans Biden warns against are many conservative Christians who believe the foundation of our republic was laid by men who recognized that our rights and responsibilities were endowed by our Creator God, not a dictatorial government. Those rights and responsibilities were enshrined in our founding documents, particularly the Constitution. Constitutional government as originally conceived was intended to reflect Judeo-Christian values, biblical values. Here we return to the idea that politics and religion are two parts of one whole.

The question becomes how to view our political situation from a heavenly vantage point. In Jesus’ high priestly prayer, He commented that when He returned to His Father, His followers would be left in the world, but they would not be of the world. The Apostle John cautioned against loving the things of the world. Paul insisted that believers must not be conformed to this world if they would be pleasing to God. James went so far as to say we become God’s enemy if we form a friendship with the world. Jesus also warned His disciples that the world would hate them just as it had demonstrated hate for Him.

It is my contention that the attitude, the philosophy behind President Biden’s 9/1 speech represents the worldly hatred Jesus predicted. I am not conflating MAGA Republicans with the Body of Christ. However, as I have said before, the political aims of the Republicans follow the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of the founding fathers, whereas the Democrat platform embraces many unbiblical themes. If Biden were calling for debate, that would reflect the attitude envisioned by our political traditions. Instead, Biden has called his opponents fascist terrorists intent on destruction.

The irony, the hypocrisy of Biden’s position is unbelievable. The sanctity of life, law and order, and individual freedom are under attack, but it is not MAGA Republicans on the offensive. As believers, we are pilgrims from another world sent as ambassadors to a foreign country. The language of the New Testament pictures believers as emissaries from a distant king who has taken over the land. As I wrote in “Bringing the Kingdom,” our responsibility as Christians is to represent the values and proclaim the authority of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Even though Jesus defeated our enemies on the Cross of Calvary, we are warned that the enemy still roams about “looking for someone to devour.” The kingdom of Heaven has been initiated, but we are still required to announce and defend its principles until the day of final victory when Jesus returns. We do that work in the world; for that work we will be hated. In America we have enjoyed a great deal of freedom to work in the past. Those days may be behind us. As I have said before, the only way to fight against political evil is to exercise our right to vote. My philosophy says that is our political and religious duty.

Although he was deeply spiritual, no one would consider William Butler Yeats a Christian, yet his poem, “The Second Coming,” seems truly prophetic. Witnessing the turbulence that characterized the early twentieth century, seeing the inevitable implosion of modern society, Yeats penned the famous lines, “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;/ Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.” In a clear allusion that Christians recognize as purely biblical, Yeats closes the poem with a question: “The darkness drops again; but now I know / That twenty centuries of stony sleep / Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, / And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, / Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”

I am not suggesting that Joe Biden is the anti-Christ, nor am I predicting Armageddon. What I am suggesting is that just as John warned first century believers, “even now many antichrists have arisen.” We who serve the Risen King who was cradled in Bethlehem twenty centuries ago must do whatever we can to stand against the rough beast that slouches toward Bethlehem to be born. Its coming is inevitable, as is our victory. But we cannot be idle. Paul commends us to action: “Wake up, sleeper, and rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you. Therefore, consider carefully how you live, not as unwise but as wise, making the most of the time because the days are evil.”

Related posts: Christianity: Religion or Philosophy; Political Christianity; Obama Isn’t the Problem; Islam’s Trojan Horse; Whose War on Women;

Speaking Ill of Illness

In my last blog post I expressed doubt about people who believe Jesus promised to take away all our sickness: “By His wounds we were healed…” Ironically, the day after I published that, my wife and I both came down with a virulent flu (COVID?) that laid us out for a week. It would be a double comic irony if I thought God put that on us as a lesson because I denied that all my sickness was taken on the cross. I say comic because the same people who say Jesus took our diseases say that God never uses sickness as a disciplinary tool. That’s not funny?

In any case, I wanted to circle back and be more specific as to why I don’t think Isaiah or Peter who quoted the prophet meant what the prosperity gospel preachers think they meant. The misinterpretation of this verse displays the kind of knowledge gap I was lamenting in the previous post. There are two bits of knowledge missing from the thinking of those who apply this verse to physical healing. They both concern context. It is a cardinal principle of Bible interpretation to look first to the original context when deciding what is being said. The context of both Isaiah’s original statement and Peter’s quote is about one’s spiritual condition not physical health. Isaiah was speaking to people who were being plagued (literally) with physical difficulties because of their spiritual infidelity to God. (Wait! God used sickness as a tool?!) Peter was talking about salvation in Christ.

Isaiah was speaking of a time when God’s Servant, the Messiah, would take away the spiritual sickness of His people. This would parallel Peter’s link with salvation. This same idea is what Ezekiel and Jeremiah were talking about when they said God would replace His peoples’ heart of stone and it with a heart of flesh. This is not literal, physical language; this is not a literal heart transplant. This is a metaphor for what salvation would do after the price for sin was paid on the cross. “He bore our iniquities.” He took away the iniquitous heart of stone. Until God came to dwell among us, then in us, stony-hearted people would continue to rebel against Him. Until He “shed His love abroad in our hearts” to soften the heart of stone. Isaiah was describing the spiritual work the Messiah would do, not promising physical healing.

Knowing the immediate context is the first bit of knowledge the prosperity preachers miss. The second miss is knowing the broader context of the entire Bible record. God is shown to use physical conditions as discipline throughout the entire Scriptural record. It began when He kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden for disobedience. Instead of free food and sweet fellowship they got blood, sweat, toil and tears, and it was a life sentence. The history of God’s chosen people is a record of one smack-down after another. God used every kind of calamity known to man, including physical disease, to discipline His wayward children.

The prosperity preachers like to say that that all stopped when Jesus came and died for us. They like to point out that He healed all who came to Him. While this is true, it is also true that there were plenty of lepers besides the ten He healed; there were plenty of other sick folk at the pool of Siloam; there were lots of daughters besides Jairus’ who died and weren’t raised. If it was Jesus’ earthly mission to heal all disease, He failed miserably. The story of Lazarus is instructive. Jesus let His friend die so He could make a point. He told the dead man’s sister that He is the resurrection and the life. I think his point was that real life – real healing – was related to resurrection: His resurrection being the first fruits, as Paul called it. In our resurrected bodies, we will have the complete physical healing the prosperity preachers clammer for.

Until then, we live in the already-not yet state where death has been defeated, but people still die. Jesus has borne all our diseases, but we still get sick. I have two sisters who starkly portray the contrast. One sister died at thirty-three of a curable cancer because she was trusting that Jesus took her disease on the cross, so she wouldn’t seek medical treatment. The other sister was badly injured in an explosion, and her lungs were so severely burned that she was not expected to survive the night. To the doctors’ surprise, she awoke in the morning with two completely new lungs. The same group of people was praying for both my sisters; one died, and the other was miraculously healed. The cross of Christ was not in play in those situations; God’s will for my sisters played out as He intended.

The prosperity preachers are trying to fast-forward God’s plan to the New Day when Jesus comes again to put all things right. Their knowledge of God’s timetable, His big-picture context is mistaken. At this point in history – post Eden, post-Egypt, post-Calvary – God is more concerned with our character than our comfort. To demand physical comfort (healing) is to sidestep His plan. It doesn’t work. That is not what the biblical record teaches nor does life experience bear it out.

Ask Ananias and Saphira if God punishes disobedience. Ask the writer of Hebrews what he meant when he said God chastens those He loves. Ask what Paul meant when he said that some had died because they despised the Lord’s Table. If Christians are supposed to be heathy and wealthy at all times, explain why Paul said we should count it a blessing to suffer for Christ. Explain why he had to go through stoning and hunger and shipwreck to accomplish his work for Christ. Explain why all Jesus’ Apostles died martyrs’ deaths except one. Explain the thousands upon thousands of Christians who have been persecuted and died following Jesus. Explain why Christians are still being persecuted and killed in China or any Muslim country around the world today.

The prosperity gospel only works in a country like America where people have bought the lie told by preachers who despise the knowledge which would allow them to interpret the Bible correctly. We Americans are filthy rich, and the prosperity preachers have the audacity to claim it is by God’s blessing of our tremendous faith. We would do well to read what Jesus said to the church at Laodicea. “You say you are rich… I say you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked…. As many as I love I reprove and discipline. Be zealous therefore and repent.”

I don’t know how I got the flu last week. I probably bumped into someone carrying the virus. Ordained by God? Maybe – certainly allowed by His sovereign will. What I do know is it’s a fool’s errand to go to Christ’s work on the cross to handle my flu symptoms. My salvation was assured at Calvary as well as my ultimate healing in my resurrected body when Christ returns. In the meantime, I’ll take Tylenol, drink plenty of fluids and get all the rest I can. I’ll take care of my physical body, but I am much more interested in preparing for the new one I’m getting one day, the one Christ died on the cross to provide for me.

Isaiah As a Cautionary Tale

The book of Isaiah may be the best loved book the Old Testament. It is familiar partly because Isaiah is quoted in the New Testament more than any other prophet; this should be no surprise since Isaiah’s message to God’s wayward people was that one day He would send His Servant, the Messiah, to redeem them and bring them back to him. People are encouraged to read that although Judah fell into sin and unbelief, God promised to save a remnant for Himself. What some people overlook is what God promised to do to Judah before salvation came.

 

While it is true that Isaiah offered hope for Judah’s future, he didn’t gloss over the punishment that was to come. The prophet shared God’s warning in no uncertain terms, “My people will go into exile because they lack knowledge.” The knowledge the prophet referred to is the same thing Wisdom teaches in Proverbs: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.”  Jesus repeated this concept when He declared, “Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” The knowledge of God – who He is and what He requires – is the essential knowledge the people in Isaiah’s day were missing.

 

I fear that the same thing may be true of much of the church today. Personal Bible study, that which seeks essential knowledge, is rare even among evangelical, “born again” Christians. The Christian pollster, George Barna, reports the sad statistics of how few Bible believers read their Bibles regularly. Too many believers are satisfied with what their pastor or some popular media figure tells them. Sound Bible preaching is good; the growth of radio, television and Internet Bible teaching is a modern blessing. However, if believers don’t follow the Bereans and do their homework, they risk being led into the same trap as the people Paul warned about: “they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.”

 

There was a period in history about the time of the “Third Great Awakening” when Satan seems to have worked overtime to fill “itching ears” with the doctrines of demons. It is interesting to note that several of the quasi-Christian sects that exist today had their beginnings in the mid- to late-nineteenth century. The Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Seventh-day Adventists, the Christian Scientists each trace their roots to that time. Dispensationalists and Pentecostals, though perhaps not as far removed from Bible truth, also sprung from this era. I have often wondered what made that time period such fertile ground for error to sprout.

 

The premillennial dispensationalism of John Nelson Darby that swept early twentieth century America at the urging of the infamous C.I. Scofield lies in the foundations of venerable institutions like Moody Bible Institute and Dallas Seminary. Because of this, most Baptists today who know only of this version of end times theology have no idea that when Hal Lindsay’s The Late Great Planet Earth and LaHaye and Jenkins’ Left Behind series popularized Darbyism late in the century that the teaching was then barely one hundred years old. Darby’s invented eschatology stood in contrast to almost two thousand years of Scriptural teaching. A friend once counselled me that if a Bible student comes up with something no one else has ever seen in Scripture, he’s wrong. At the very least, one should question his assertions.

 

The same kind of thing happened with Pentecostalism early in the twentieth century as it spread a version of emotional, materialistic religion across America. The names of Charles Fox Parham and William Seymour are not widely known outside of charismatic circles, but these men and others heavily influenced primarily Wesleyan and Baptist believers. They took a particular reading of a few Scriptures and developed a system of thinking that has infected three generations of Christians. Their belief in a second work of the Holy Spirit in believers, the “prosperity gospel,” as it is sometimes called, the frenetic search for an ecstatic worship experience that characterize so many young churches today, all find their roots in the teachings of these few men.

 

It was during my Bible college years that I was introduced to the charismatic movement. I decided to take the “Berean” approach recommended by Paul, and I discovered that there was much to be admired in the desire of the charismatics to make the Word of God a reality in their daily lives. I also had some truly wonderful worship experiences when I visited their services. I was less certain that the health and wealth preaching paired with a name-it-claim-it attitude could be supported by Scripture. It all seemed too materialistic to be a proper reflection of what I see in the Word.

 

While I disagree with the hermeneutics that bring the dispensational Baptists and charismatics to their various conclusions, I wouldn’t call them heretical. Being wrong about the end times or focusing too much on material prosperity shouldn’t keep anyone from the Kingdom of God as long as the faith they proclaim is in Christ and His sacrifice alone. However, there are some teachings becoming popular today that strike at the heart of what it means to be Christian. The first I call the happiness gospel and the other is the same-sex gospel.

 

I have written extensively about the warm, fuzzy happiness misunderstanding in my Rob Bell series and my response to Randy Alcorn’s Happiness. (see links below) On the surface it may not seem like Alcorn’s confusion of happiness with joy is a big deal; it is when you realize it promotes a false gospel. It is easier to see how Rob Bell’s type of preaching—no hell; no judgment – can’t be squared with the Bible at all. I have also written about our generation’s exposure to a more subtle but deadly misunderstanding about same-sex relationships that threatens the foundation of what God is doing with humankind. The male/female intimacy of marriage is essential to the imageo Dei. (see Truth Dysphoria)

 

Each of these modern misapprehensions of Bible truth can be clearly rebutted with a good dose of Bible knowledge. The day is coming when our knowledge will be complete. Paul speaks of a day when we no longer see through a glass darkly. God promises a day when, “the land will be as full of the knowledge of the Lord as the sea is filled with water.” I am confident that God has the same message for people today as He did in Isaiah’s day: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness.” Isaiah’s contemporary, Hosea, gave the same warning he did: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”

 

I wrote it in “Today’s Chaldean Chastisement,” and I will repeat it here: we should not imagine that God is so much different today than He was in Isaiah’s day. As the prophet Malachi reports: “I am the Lord; I change not.” Our faith is a historical, propositional faith; it demands knowledge. If we don’t possess the knowledge of who God is and what He requires, we will bear the same consequences He promised through Isaiah: “If you do not stand firm in your faith [with knowledge as the foundation], then you will not stand at all.” Where do you stand?

 

Related posts: Today’s Chaldean Chastisement; Truth Dysphoria; Driven to the Cross; Canaan Cannot Be Heaven; How Do You Read Paul; Happiness and Joy (1-2); Answering Rob Bell (1-6

The Secular Creed

I have just finished reading The Secular Creed: Engaging Five Contemporary Claims written by Rebecca McLaughlin and published by The Gospel Coalition. In this small book, McLaughlin does a masterful job using reason and Scripture to refute five arguments from what some refer to as the secular humanist philosophy. The author handily rebuts the secular argument that belief in the God of the Bible is the cause of much of the corporate injustice and private anguish throughout human history. The secular humanist creed, says McLaughlin, has no basis for what it calls human rights; she correctly locates the foundation for all rights in the God who made everything.

It may be worthwhile to examine the title word, “creed.” This is not a word that is used much today. A dictionary lists as synonyms dogma, doctrine, and belief or faith. People familiar with mainline Protestant churches will recognize the word as many of them still recite the Apostle’s Creed regularly in their services. Many churches which don’t use the historic creed still have statements of faith which are creeds by another name. The church I grew up in treated the idea of a creed with disdain; we were taught to repeat, “No book but the Bible; no creed but Christ.” Of course, this too becomes a credal statement despite the denial.

 To say that a secular humanist has a creed is to point to an important fact: there are fundamental principles that undergird any organized system of thought. This is another way of saying that one’s worldview or philosophy forms the lens through which proponents see the world. As I have written many times, everyone has a worldview whether they know it or not. Many people would be at a loss to recite the main tenets of their governing philosophy, but one exists in spite of their ignorance. Identifying the basic premises behind any argument is essential to forming an opinion as to its validity.

This is what McLaughlin does so well in The Secular Creed. This is a timely book for Christians because we suffer criticism for our beliefs in personal confrontations and in the media almost daily. McLaughlin correctly points out that the “Christianity” we are being maligned for is typically not true Christianity at all. As I wrote in “I Don’t Believe in God,” the god being attacked by most atheists is not the God of the Bible. At the heart of the secular humanist argument is a straw man they have created so that they can destroy the false god they imagine.

In response to the humanists’ attacks through sexism, feminism, racism, and genderism, McLaughlin smashes their argument by establishing the fact that without a proper understanding of the God of the Bible, there would be no basis for human rights of any kind. This approach is not new, having been championed by many 20th century thinkers from C.S. Lewis to Francis Schaeffer. Lacking the moral foundation provided by the Judeo-Christian worldview, all secular philosophies devolve ultimately into nihilism. McLaughlin highlights this by recounting the heinous utilitarianism of Peter Singer and others.

Whereas her biblical defense of human rights is not new, the author’s development of the Scriptural theme of love caught my attention. To correct the secular credo that “Love is Love,” McLaughlin says that properly understood, God is love. She roots the idea of biblical love between persons in the creation order of man and woman entering a marriage relationship. She makes the point that this is an example of loving “the other,” much as loving your neighbor or loving the enemy would be. Male and female were created different yet complementary not only as imagers of the God who created them, but as foreshadows of the bride and groom relationship that would one day characterize Christ and the church.

McLaughlin characterizes same-sex physical relationships as perversions of the imago Dei God intended. Far from condemning same-sex attraction, she commends it as fulfilling the command to love our brothers and sisters in Christ. Clearly, however, that kind of agape love does not involve a physical relationship unless you count greeting one another “with a holy kiss.” The author maintains that the “one flesh” aspect instituted in the Garden of Eden is appropriate only within the marriage of a man and a woman. She contends that this unique relationship is supposed to reflect the loving relationship between humans and the one-and-only God who created and redeemed them. God often pictured His relationship with Israel as marital. Paul continues this analogy when he likens a husband’s love for his wife to the love of Christ for the church. Mess with the meaning of marriage, and you are destroying the supreme metaphor representing God’s love for His creation.

I should not have been surprised, then, when McLaughlin asserted that love of spouse is secondary to love of God. Of course, this must be true because the love one human has for another is so easily diluted by personal sinfulness and societal pressures causing it to become something other than the agape love which is required. Human love is too often either eros (physical only) or phileo (affection), and when either of those diminishes, the “loving” relationship can too readily be dismissed. Rightly understood, all human loving relationships must issue from the love of God which, “has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit.”

There is much more to say about The Secular Creed, but I will leave the remaining arguments McLaughlin throws against the other secular creeds for another time, or you can read them in full by obtaining a free digital copy of her book on The Gospel Coalition website. The thing that impressed me most about McLaughlin’s argument is the way she could legitimately see both sides, often even defend the “other side” for getting it right in contrast to a flawed Christian approach to the issue. If you will pardon a silly metaphor, we need to guard against throwing the banana out with the peel while being careful not to leave the peel where someone might slip on it. So, yes, I’ve gone bananas over this book. (Sorry)

Related posts: Disagree Agreeably; The Importance of Being Right

Creating Chaos

I have an unfortunate habit of creating chaos. By chaos I mean anything that does not follow God’s orderly plan for the universe. As I have written previously, when God created our world, He essentially brought order out of chaos. In Genesis Chapter One the Spirit of God was hovering over something that was empty and without form. When the voice of God thundered in His creative act, order was introduced into the chaos. Even the Hebrew metaphor of evening and morning marking the days echoes this idea. Evening is a time of darkness – a lack of certainty. Morning speaks of the coming of light and clarity. Theologians say God created “ex nihilo” or out of nothing. God spoke into the chaos of dark nothingness and created order.

When God created the first human, He ordered the elements found in the dust of the earth – the water, the minerals, the proteins, the amino acids – and then breathed the miracle of life into His creation. He then gave the first humans the responsibility to rule the Earth as His vice-regents. Name the animals; till the ground; spread the order across the globe. Sadly, Adam and Eve had other plans than to follow God’s direction. They wanted to determine how to order creation in their own way. As the record shows, this resulted in millennia of chaotic existence for the human race.

We all follow in Adam’s footsteps until we are reborn into God’s family by trusting the finished work of Christ on the cross. Even then we still tend toward chaos if we are not careful. There are three ways that I see this happening in my life. First, I sin, sometimes unconsciously and sometimes willfully. We all do, of course. John says if we say we don’t sin, we are liars. The good news John also reports is that if we confess our sins, God will forgive us. We also have the blessed hope that when Heaven and Earth become one again, God’s perfect order will be restored – no more sin.

The second way I create chaos is more subtle. I worry. This too may be sin if my worry stems from lack of faith. However, I believe that sometimes my worry is due to a character flaw that isn’t necessarily a transgression of God’s perfect order. It’s just a consequence of my humanity that has not yet been completely sanctified. Like so many others, what I do, as someone put it, is borrow trouble from tomorrow. I am an incorrigible what-iffer. What if it rains on the day of our picnic? What if inflation outpaces my income? What if I have misunderstood God’s will for my life? And so on endlessly. This creates unease and diminishes peace and disrupts the order God intends for me to live in. I still struggle to accept Paul’s blessed comfort: to be content in whatever state I am.

There is a third way I create chaos that I have come to believe is not sin at all, but rather it fulfills God’s purpose: I offend people. As I wrote recently in “When Being Right is Wrong,” I cannot help but offend some people because the proclamation of the truth will offend. My Lord is the Chief Corner Stone, but He is also the Stone of Stumbling, the Rock of Offense. This feature of Christ’s existence is not popular. Our politically correct society demands the removal of all offense. A believer who wants to be true to God’s will cannot comply. Outspoken Christians will find themselves thrown to the lions, just as Daniel was when he refused to bow to the king’s image. This chaos, this clash of kingdoms will continue until Christ returns to vindicate and rescue His bride.

There can be a positive result of this form of chaos for the believer. The Psalmist said, “It was good for me to be afflicted so that I could learn your statutes.” This is the fruit of the contemplation mentioned earlier in the Psalm: “Though princes sit together speaking against me, your servant will think about your statutes; your decrees are my delight and my counselors.” When we know what is right, we have a duty to share it. If we are standing on the truth, we have to say with Martin Luther, “Here I stand; I can do no other.”

It sounds like an oxymoron, but chaos is a major part of God’s perfect order: orderly chaos? Perhaps I should say it's part of God’s plan to restore order. The Heavenly Father disciplines those He loves – creates chaos in their lives – for the purpose of perfecting them. Jesus promised His disciples that some of their enemies would come from their own households. He also said, not necessarily as hyperbole, that He came not to bring peace but a sword. The night before the most chaotic day in history, the Master comforted His followers with this: “In the world you will have [chaos] but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.”

Unity is a feature of the order God expects the church to show the world. Jesus prayed for it on the night He was betrayed. Paul encouraged it throughout his epistles. King David longed for it, though he new better than most that it was elusive. He wrote, “Look, how good and how pleasant it is when brothers dwell together in unity.” Unity, like all graces, will not be complete until we are all glorified. While we wait for that blessed day, we should be, “eager to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

I note that Paul said it would be unity of the Spirit; this leaves open the possibility that we may not have unity of mind or affection. It gives tacit approval to differences of opinion and friction between different personality types, perhaps even denominational distinctions. What we cannot do is create chaos in the church over non-essential matters. Agreeing to disagree, accepting differences, unity not uniformity – that is what Jesus prayed for.

But still, I create chaos. I embrace chaos, not when it represents sin in my life, but when it signals the Kingdom of Light piercing the darkness. The Message puts it like this: “God rescued us from dead-end alleys and dark dungeons. He’s set us up in the kingdom of the Son he loves so much, the Son who got us out of the pit we were in, got rid of the sins we were doomed to keep repeating.” Jesus rescued me from the chaos and placed me in His marvelous light. It’s my job to share that light even if it creates chaos.

Related posts: The Knowledge of Good and Evil; The Importance of Being Right; Bringing the Kingdom