Powerfully Meek

I am going to circle back to a topic I have written about more than once already. It seems to keep knocking on my door, so I feel I have to answer it again. I have experienced that confluence of circumstances I have mentioned before where several things combine to make a point I cannot avoid. The subject I am coming back to is how we are supposed to handle differences of opinion with our Christian brothers and sisters. If you haven’t read “Disagree Agreeably” and “The Importance of Being Right,” I recommend that you check them out.

I was pushed to today’s review of this topic by criticism from a fellow-Christian who perceived my attitude as arrogant. He said, “You think you are always right; you’re not!” It is ironic that he should be so perceptive and so wrong at the same time. As I have written previously, I grew up in an atmosphere where it was imperative that you were “right,” and that you made everyone else see how right you were. Through the patience of my loving wife and the grace of God, I have gradually shed much of the argumentative attitude that characterized my life for decades. My behavior just prior to the man’s criticism was a study in Clair-being-non-argumentative. That’s the further irony: here I was being what I thought a Christian should be when having a disagreement. Apparently, I still have work to do.

A couple days after the confrontation at church, John MacArthur’s devotional was on James’ admonition to behave, “in the gentleness of wisdom.” MacArthur insisted that, “A wise person is a gentle person.” He focused on the word “gentle” explaining that it translated a Greek word that could be rendered as “meek.” He said, “The Greeks characterized meekness as power under control; in the believer’s case, that means being under the control of God.”* He also pointed out that Jesus is our perfect example of meekness, and not surprisingly, it is listed as a fruit of the Spirit.

This all should have gone down without a hitch except that my Bible reading for that day had been John’s report of Jesus cleansing the temple – with a whip and some caustic criticism. In “True Lies and Lying Truth” I wrote, “Over the last few months, I studied a harmony of the Gospels as my daily devotional reading. The strongest impression I came away with is that Jesus was a very critical person. He was a stickler for the truth and a warrior against lies. He called His arch enemy the father of lies. I think we do our Lord a disservice to suggest that He would stand meekly aside while a wave of lies washes the shores of our society.”

In that article I was primarily focused on lies in the political realm, but I am equally disturbed by the “truth” shared by some Bible teachers that might be called lies – a lie told in ignorance or through misinterpretation is still a lie. (See “Lies We Have Been Told”) The man who confronted me was quoting the words of a Bible commentator on a subject that honest Christians can disagree about. I suggested that we look at what the Bible itself has to say, and that is what caused the critical response on his part. I suspect the commentator was one he held in high esteem, and he believed I was wrong to disagree with him. I think I exhibited meekness in my response to him (I have a witness who agrees.), but he did not take it well.

My point is that while Jesus was the epitome of meekness, and we should always follow His example (WWJD), Jesus never allowed His meekness to turn Him into a doormat. (Admittedly, the cross was a major doormat moment, but that was the explicit purpose for the incarnation: that He should submit to the punishment due us for our transgressions.) Most of the disagreements I have with fellow-believers center on the interpretation of Scripture. In many cases, the only option is to agree to disagree. That is fine; it can be done in perfect meekness and in honor to the truth of God’s Word.

However, there are times when an opinion is not based on truth, and it should be corrected. As an example, I spent several weeks debating with a fellow-Christian who believes that God blesses same-sex marriages. (For more on that debate see “Clobber the Argument”) While it is true that God loves homosexuals and heterosexuals unconditionally, it is disingenuous to say that Scripture condones any sexual intimacy outside of the marriage of a man and a woman. This applies to all aberrations: homosexuality, adultery, incest, pedophilia, beastiality, and anything else a perverted mind can imagine. God’s plan for His creation has procreation at its core, and to tamper with the beauty and simplicity of marital intimacy is to destroy the very foundation of human society. (See “You Have Heard That it was Said”)

There are other subjects that rise to this level of demand for correction: denial of the virgin birth, acceptance of salvation through any means but the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, dismissal of the existence of hell and judgment, the elevation of any book but the Bible as inspired revelation from God. And more. The point I am trying to make in all humility and meekness is that as Christians, we are compelled to defend the truth as revealed in Scripture. If any person, regardless of their popularity or admiration, holds an opinion that cannot be supported by the Word of God, that opinion should be challenged. And that challenge must be made with all meekness – truth spoken in love as Paul directs. This approach will not always have happy results. Remember how the Temple merchandisers reacted to Jesus’ dramatic correction of their misuse of God’s house. Stay meek, yes, but stay strong.

* John MacArthur, Strength for Today (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1997).

Related posts: How Do You Read Paul; Sanctify Them; Truth Matters; The Truth About the Truth

Here, There, or in the Air

Often, when people say to me, “See you later,” I respond, “Here, there, or in the air.” It may sound flippant or cute, but I mean something theologically significant by it. As a Christian, I believe the words of the old song, “This world is not my home; I’m just a-passin’ through.” Absolute certainty of our eternal destiny is the shining hope of everyone who has trusted Jesus Christ. As I will explain momentarily, confusion about “this world” being home or not plagues many sincere Christ-followers. If we are just “passin’ through,” where exactly are we headed?

To answer this, I will share how the quip, “Here, there, or in the air” plays out in my opinion. When I agree that I may meet my friends “here,” I am thinking of this space-time continuum – Earth as we know it. Perhaps I will see them tomorrow, next week, or next year here on earth. We can’t know for sure we will ever see someone again because all our days are numbered, and no one knows which one will be the last. But if God grants that we each spend the intervening time here, we may well meet again here. That’s the simple part of the triad.

It gets much more complicated when I try to explain what I mean by “there.” For much of my life as a believer, I thought “there” meant Heaven. Most Christians believe they will go to Heaven when they die, although the New Testament never makes that assertion. Shocked? I have previously written at length that the British theologian, N. T. Wright corrected my thinking on that subject in his book, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. Wright points out that when Jesus spoke of heaven, He was always referring to the Kingdom of Heaven which is not a place, per se, but a state of being ruled by the King of Heaven. Heaven came to earth in one sense with the first coming of our Savior, and it’s coming will be fully realized at His return. (More on that later.)

So, if we don’t go to Heaven when we die, where do we go – where is “there.” Wright holds out the possibility that there could be a “there” that might better be called “paradise” where departed souls wait for the end of the age. This idea rests on the assumption that humans remain time-bound creatures after they die. If time continues to roll in the afterlife, there must be a waiting place somehow related to this place (Earth) that houses disembodied souls (or perhaps re-embodied souls). The only Scripture that seems to hint at this is Jesus’ story about the dead beggar who rested in Abraham’s bosom while his earthly tormentors suffered on the other side of an impassable chasm.

There are several things about that story that are troublesome which makes me believe Jesus was simply playing to the contemporary Jewish belief about the afterlife. Scripture often uses imagery that fits the understanding of its recipients without describing literal truth. Two common ones are that the sun rises and sets or that the Earth rests on foundations. Neither of these descriptions matches reality, but they both are used to teach absolute truth. I am of the opinion that there is no actual place called “Abraham’s bosom” where dead souls wait for the end of the age. However, the Jews in Jesus’ day did believe in such a place, so He used it to make a point. The point was that once you die, there is no going back for second chances.

So, if Wright is wrong about a “paradise” where the dead wait, where is “there?” Personally, I think that there is no “there” there. I suspect that when we die, we leave this space-time continuum and enter the spiritual realm where time is an entirely different construct. There is no need for “waiting” because time will have ceased to be an issue we deal with. Difficult as it may be to grasp, it makes sense to me that everyone goes directly into eternity upon their death. After death comes judgment; thus says the Scripture. You might say that we all die at the same “time.”

Now we come to what I mean by “in the air.” Paul told the Thessalonians that upon Jesus’ return, they would meet the Lord “in the air,” and thus be forever with the Lord. This passage has been much abused by a group of believers who look forward to a rapture of the church near the end of the age. Again, I thank Wright for clearing up what this passage actually refers to. He points to a parallel passage in 1 Corinthians 15 that also details what happens to believers both living and dead upon Christ’s second “coming.” Christ is said to “appear,” and believers are changed into their eternal, spiritual state. The same idea is found in Philippians 3:21 where Paul speaks of being transformed into a body like Jesus’ glorious body when Christ returns.

The word “coming” in Corinthians translates the Greek word “parousia” which had a very specific meaning in the ancient world of Paul. When an important person came to visit a city, he would “appear” outside the gate, and the citizens would go out to meet him and escort him into the city; they didn’t stay outside the gates. The dignitary’s parousia was the signal that the king’s representative had come. He was bringing the king’s authority to his citizens. Rather than being raptured and taken away from their homes, the parousia initiated a new state of affairs in their old world. Applying this concept to the second coming, Jesus’ parousia will mark the beginning of the new heavens and new earth where His faithful ones will dwell for eternity. The judgment – the sheep versus goats, tares separated from wheat – happens at this “time,” and it determines who gets to be where.

The ancients pictured heaven as being “in the air.” So do we when we point up to locate Heaven. Like the ancient idea of a third heaven – a spiritual realm – we should also think of Heaven as a spiritual “place” in the sense that it encompasses the entirety of where we will live eternally in our resurrected, “spiritual bodies” as Paul calls them. Heaven and Earth will be one as originally intended. To meet Jesus “in the air” is a confirmation of the belief that we will be transformed into our eternal, spiritual state. I believe, as Wright insists, that we will spend eternity in our resurrected bodies on a renewed earth reunited with “Heaven.” As John says, “We will be like him, because we will see him just as he is.” I can’t wait! So, until we meet again – here, there, or in the air.

Related posts: Understanding Salvation; Why Heaven Matters; Defending Resurrection Faith

Christian Responsibility to Government

This is the manuscript of a message I delivered at Desert Shores Community Baptist Church on October 16, 2022.

So, Pastor George asked me to talk about politics. UHG! Please don’t zone out on me just yet! If you are like me, you are already tired of the political advertisements that are flooding the media. If I didn’t know Pastor George better, I’d think he was trying to get me into trouble. But hear me: the worst thing we can do as Christians is to fail to participate in elections. We are blessed with a form of government that allows citizens to express their opinions by voting for representatives who will carry their wishes to the seats of power. I believe we are shirking our duty if we don’t remain engaged in the political process.

The question I want to address is how we should be engaged as Christians. I am going to be rooting my comments today in the thirteenth chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans, but we will find there are many passages of Scripture that can help us understand what our role should be. Let’s begin by looking at the first few verses of Romans 13. [Romans 13:1-3 All citations are from NASV unless noted.]

                1              Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

                2              Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

                3              For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same.

In this passage, Paul makes it perfectly clear that Christians have a responsibility to submit to government. The Apostle explains that this is the case because God has ordained government as a requirement of civil society. Because God made us, He knows human nature; He knows that we need structure to keep our proclivity toward independence under control. (Original sin?)

There is something this passage doesn’t say, but it is important for us to understand; it doesn’t say that the individuals who are in authority are necessarily good people. Authority is good; authority is from God. We have to remember that Paul most likely wrote this when Nero was the supreme authority over his life. Nero was not a good person. Nero is thought to have been responsible for some of the worst persecution of Christians (and anyone else who refused to worship him). One of the stories is that he hung Christians on posts, covered them with tar, and set them on fire as streetlamps.

Yet Paul commanded submission to Nero.

I should probably add at this point that there is one biblical exception to Paul’s command. It is found in [Acts 5:29]. When Peter and John were called before their governing authorities, the Jewish Sanhedrin, they were told they had to stop preaching about Jesus. Peter answered them plainly, “We must obey God rather than men.” I believe this confirms that Christians can justifiably refuse to do anything an authority asks if it would cause them to violate one of God’s commands. This doesn’t mean there won’t be consequences if we refuse to obey man’s law: Peter and John had been held in jail; Paul spent quite a long period of imprisonment because of his obedience to God contrary to the law of the land. The early disciples understood, as we should too, that disobedience to God would bring a far more serious penalty that disobedience to men.

This exception to submission to authorities brings up an important point for us. Jesus faced this dilemma when He stood on trial for His life before Pontius Pilate. The Jewish leaders had brought Jesus to Pilate with charges of treason saying that He claimed to be a king. This is treason because Caesar was the only person who could appoint subordinates (like King Herod). The Romans did not permit the Jews to execute anyone, so the Jews had to appeal to Pilate, their Roman governor, to get Jesus killed.

The exchange between Jesus and Pilate is instructive. We read in the Gospel of [John, chapter 18:33-38a]

33 “Therefore Pilate entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?”

                34           Jesus answered, “Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?”

                35           Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You to me; what have You done?” (Pilate thinks Jesus is innocent.)

                36           Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”

                37           Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”

                38           Pilate *said to Him, “What is truth?””

We will get to Pilate’s fascinating question of truth in a minute, but let’s look first at Jesus’ explanation of His kingship: He said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” Notice: Jesus did not deny that He is a king. He frequently announced the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven throughout His earthly ministry. But hear Him: it is the Kingdom of Heaven – not a kingdom of this world. If we enter Jesus’ kingdom by trusting Him with our eternal destiny, we place our citizenship in an otherworldly realm: Heaven.

The Apostle Paul points to this reality in [2 Corinthians 5:17-21].

17           Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.

18           Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,

                19           namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

                20           Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”

Understand this: ambassadors travel to foreign countries as representatives of their governing authority. Paul says we are like ambassadors from the Kingdom of Christ begging people to turn their hearts to God.

Peter makes a similar point in [1 Peter 2:9-10a]

                9              But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.

                10           for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God.

So, we might ask what it means to be “other worldly.” How do we behave with this dual citizenship? Note that in [John 17:14-17] in Jesus’ prayer on the night He was betrayed confirmed with His Father that

                14           “I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

                15           “I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one.

                16           “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

                17           “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.

 

The language the authors of the New Testament used to describe our condition helps clarify what we should be like. For example, the Greek word Paul chose in [Philippians 4:20] is interesting.

                20           For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.

                21           who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.

The Greek word for “citizenship” (v.20) could better be translated as “commonwealth.” I like the word commonwealth because it speaks of being concerned about the common good. So, although Paul says we wait “in Heaven,” he has also made it clear that we are still here on earth as ambassadors – in the world but not of the world as Jesus said.

Again, I will ask: what does Christian involvement in government look like? There is a group of people speaking out in America today who have been called Christian nationalists. They are getting quite a bit of interest from the secular media, most of whom believe the Christian nationalists represent all Christians. Unfortunately, they do not properly interpret the biblical responsibility toward government because they are proposing a theocracy like that of Old Testament Israel.

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.”

The US Constitution specifically prohibits favoring one religion over another. The founding fathers may not have imagined the small world/global village nature of  20^th century America. The religious freedom they envisioned encompassed primarily variations of Christianity or Judaism. We are in a different world from theirs, but the Constitution remains the law of the land. Christian nationalism strains against religious plurality as we know it today.

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 fact that 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. Non-believers are ill equipped to make the distinction between who is and who is not a true Christian. However, 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.

This brings us back to Pilate’s question of Jesus, “What is truth?” Getting to the truth demands an inquiring mind. Cornelius VanTil, a Dutch theologian of the 20^th century 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.” Let me break that down for you. Presuppositions are the things we bring to our investigations which color our interpretations. For example, 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, all-powerful God, things appear quite different.

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 aim of every Christian is to be the salt and light Jesus commanded; Or as Paul recommended in Philippians 2:14-15 our goal is to

 14          Do all things without grumbling or disputing;

15           so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world.

Notice Paul says we may disagree, but we must to it agreeably: without grumbling or disputing.”

So how does a Christian engage in a “humble, loving, and sacrificial way as the Christianity Today article recommends? Let’s look at some examples and consider the Christian approach. First let’s think about abortion. There is no doubt that a biblical opinion would call abortion the murder of a human being. Scripture repeatedly says that God knows a person and has plans for that person even before conception. The thing growing in a mother’s womb is a human being.

We don’t even have to resort to Scripture to argue that human life begins at conception; logic dictates that fact. If the entity that exits the birth canal is a human being, then it was human one second before, one week before, nine months before. The secular debate about abortion has always centered around the concept of viability – when is the fetus capable of living outside the womb. The real question should be when is the fetus NOT a human being. Logically, humanness begins at conception. The fertilized egg will not become anything but a human being, therefore human rights inhere from conception. Logic and the Bible agree. No surprise there!

Does this mean that we shun women who have chosen to have an abortion. NO! Of course not. We love them as Jesus loves them – just as they are. We are humble, loving and sacrificial. Maybe we ask if we can help. Maybe they are struggling with the consequences of their decision – many women do. We need to be there for them.

For a second example, we can see that the homosexual agenda is also clearly unbiblical. The Levitical law and Paul’s comments in Romans 1 clearly call homosexual behavior an abomination. It is true that some Christians point out that we are no longer under Old Testament law, and they believe Paul’s comments in Romans specifically refer to male temple prostitutes. They are right about the law, but the argument they use to dismiss Paul cannot be maintained. There are numerous references throughout the New Testament that carry the implication that perverted sex, particularly homosexual behavior is a sin.

Again, there is sound evidence outside Scripture that homosexual behavior is less than ideal. Christians understand that God instituted marriage between a man and a woman for His own purposes. Even secular psychologists have determined that children raised by parents of both genders are more likely to thrive. Surprise: God knew what He was doing when He ordained the mother-father-child family institution. It is the proper basis of all human society.

Then there are the physical consequences of perverted sexual behavior. The AIDS epidemic among homosexual males brought this to light some time ago; monkey pox is sounding the same alarm today, and there are other sexually transmitted diseases that plague them as well. Studies have shown that homosexually active men have a reduced life expectancy due to the consequences of their behavior. We don’t even need to mention Paul’s comment that they would “[receive] in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”

So, do we hate homosexuals? Again, NO! We must love them humbly and sacrificially just like Jesus. Sadly, the church has not done a good job of accepting homosexuals the same way we accept all other sinners.

Let’s look at one more issue where Christians might have a biblical opinion. It’s another part of the broader LGBTQ agenda: the “T” stands for transgender. Again, I think we are on sound biblical footing to say that those who deny their biological gender are saying, in effect, that God made a mistake by putting their soul in the wrong body. That’s pretty arrogant if you think about it – God didn’t know what He was doing when He made me. The proof that this is a ridiculous idea is found in the fact that transgender individuals have a much higher rate of mental disorders. Studies show that those who complete “gender affirming” surgery and take hormones to alter their bodies have a suicide rate twenty times that of the general population.

I think we often can promote our agenda without using Scripture. Unhealthy behavior is bad for individuals, and it has consequences for society at large. For this reason, the government requires warning labels on tobacco products; the government has outlawed illicit drugs; the government has mandated seatbelt use in automobiles. It is totally legitimate for Christians to push for this kind of government action. We don’t have to mention that it happens to follow God’s rules.

In each of these examples, I think Christians would be acting in a “humble, loving, and sacrificial way” if they attempt to correct people who are violating God’s rules. The thing we need to keep in the forefront at all times is that we are all sinners. Jesus didn’t come to save “good people.” Paul reminds us that Christ died while we were still sinners. God’s love is unconditional; that means we must show His love first, then talk about behavior changes.

 

When Jesus identified God’s Word as the source of truth, He preceded that assertion in John 17:17 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 going 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.

The Bible says that in the last days things will get worse and worse before the end comes. The Bible predicts that men will behave badly and be proud of it. When I see the shameless depravity of our politicians, when I think of the debauchery that is standard fare for Hollywood and television, when I think of the audacity of the LGBTQ movement with their claims of legitimacy, or when I mourn the millions of unborn children slaughtered since Roe v. Wade, I can't imagine a more striking fulfillment of those Bible words about the end times. Things are getting worse and worse. Scripture also records Daniel’s prophesy that there will be some in the last days who will remain righteous and "be mighty and do exploits." It's beginning to look like just doing right thing will be the mighty doing exploits. Maybe just voting would qualify.

I am going to close with a thought from the Romans 13 passage I started with.

Romans 13:7-8

7              Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

                8              Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

After commanding submission in the first part of the chapter, Paul said we should honor and respect those in authority, and, yes, pay taxes when they are due. But then he finished the thought by saying, “Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.” When the New Testament commands love, it is not a warm fuzzy kind of love. The Bible never commands us to like anybody. To love in the New Testament sense means to care for someone – to want the best for them – whether we like them or not. I want to suggest that the most loving/caring thing we can do for someone is to assure that the policies and practices of government follow God’s plan. As I said before: God made us; He knows what’s best for us. I bet you never thought of voting as an act of love for your neighbor. Maybe you should.

 

Taking the Bible Literally Part 2

This is not the first time I have written about this topic. If you haven’t read the previous articles, “Understanding the Bible as Literature,” and “Take the Bible Literally?,” you may want to check them out for further clarification of what the word “literal” means when applied to Scripture. The motivation for this post comes from my daily reading in the Gospels. Luke quotes Isaiah in reference to John the Baptist’s ministry. Mountains are leveled; valleys are filled; rough roads are made smooth in preparation for the coming Messiah. Taken literally, this makes John the Baptist more like John the Road Builder.

Being the last Old Testament prophet, John the Baptist also used metaphors when he preached. Immediately after Luke’s road-building metaphor, the evangelist records John calling the unbelieving Jews “offspring of vipers,” not because he thought they came from snakes but because snakes were associated with lying and deception. As a warning to the “snakes,” John said, “Even now the axe is positioned at the root of the trees.” Here John is using the same symbolism that Isaiah used when he prophesied that the Messiah would be a shoot from the stump of Jesse. When the Bible authors use symbolism and metaphor, they are conveying truth, but their words are not to be taken literally. They are truthful not literal.

This true but not literal interpretative challenge has led to serious doctrinal errors. I mentioned before that believers were once persecuted by the church because they denied that the sun literally revolved around the earth as Scripture suggests. The centuries-long debacle known as the Crusades stemmed from the interpretation that Jerusalem remained the Holy City even after God abandoned it and brought about its destruction by the Romans. With the coming of the church age, Jerusalem is no more holy than Joplin or Jersey City. The true Jerusalem is now a heavenly city which exists in the spiritual dimension rather than the physical one. The city of Jerusalem in modern Israel is interesting historically, but it is not the City of God.

The misunderstanding of Jerusalem’s continuing importance survived long after the Crusades. Four hundred years later, the idea that Jews needed a homeland swept through the church. Because of their historical connection to Palestine, the Jews were encouraged to resettle there. This movement, known as Christian Zionism, was at least partially responsible for the reinterpretation of biblical end times teaching. John Nelson Darby, an Anglo-Irish Bible teacher, collapsed 1800 years of church history and imagined a literal Jerusalem and a literal temple as the setting for the last days. Ignoring the fact that physical Jerusalem was judged by God and destroyed in 70 AD, Darby reassigns the apocalyptic prophecies* of Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and even Jesus to a time in Darby’s future.

Darby’s followers today are found mostly in the United States and align themselves with C.I. Schofield who plagiarized much of Darby’s work and spread it across the country as his own. The insistence on literal fulfillment of certain prophecies is at the core of this teaching. The most dramatic of these, the belief in a literal 1,000-year reign of Christ on earth, lends it name to the movement we now call millennialism (a millennium being 1,000 years). Despite the fact that the Bible itself argues against taking the number 1,000 literally, Darby’s followers cling to it like a talisman. They ignore Peter’s comment that “One day with the Lord is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like one day.”

Although much of their teaching relies on literal fulfillment of biblical prophecy, the millennialists become curiously non-literal when something contradicts their interpretation. Jesus predicted as recorded in Matthew’s gospel that the people He was addressing would be alive at the fulfillment of His description of the last days. When Jesus spoke to John as recorded in Revelation, He implied the same thing saying that those who pierced him would see Him coming in judgment against them. Rather than take Jesus’ words literally, Darby’s followers twist them to mean some other group of people at some other point in time.

A broad view of Scripture, accounting for the nature of apocalyptic literature*, makes me believe that the judgment Jesus predicted was accomplished in 70 AD when the Romans destroyed the temple and much of Jerusalem itself culminating a seven-year siege (tribulation). Although the usefulness of the temple ended when the veil was torn at Christ’s crucifixion, its physical destruction completed God’s judgment of the apostate worship of the wayward Jewish leaders. I believe it was those leaders who would see Jesus “coming with the clouds,” a frequent metaphor of judgment throughout the Old Testament. They are called “everyone who pierced Him,” clearly identifying the Jews who demanded the execution. The “tribes of the land” who would mourn His coming describes the nation of Israel which was no longer God’s chosen people. That is a literal interpretation, but it doesn’t fit the scheme invented by Darby.

Darby chose to ignore that the judgment God promised through His prophets was primarily against Jerusalem and its disobedient kings and priests. Many passages place the time of God’s judgment concurrent with the coming of the Messiah. No one can deny that God made a dramatic paradigm shift at the cross. God replaced the nation of Israel with what Peter called the “holy nation” known as the Church of Christ. God literally made a cosmic statement when the sun darkened (as predicted) for three hours while the Messiah bore the sins of the world. Paul plainly says the Seed of woman fulfilled the promise that Abraham’s descendants would be a blessing to the entire world.

Skipping over the obvious meaning of the destruction in 70 AD, Darby puts the fulfillment of the “last days” at the second coming of Jesus. Peter had no such illusion. He stated plainly that the prophecy of Joel concerning the last days was being fulfilled as he spoke. The writer of Hebrews says that God had spoken through His Son “in these last days.” Many other New Testament passages make similar statements. To my mind, the strangest result of Darby’s interpretation is to erase what is now 2,000 years of church history from the biblical record. Darby would have us believe that nothing of prophetic value would happen until the last seven years of history: the tribulation. Then the millennium. That, to me, is literally unbelievable.

* Apocalyptic literature is a type of biblical prophecy that is full of symbolic language that is not intended to be taken literally.

Post Script:

Most ordinary Christians in the United States who are taught the millennial/dispensational last days scenario have no idea that it was invented in the 19^th century. Nor do they realize that the vast majority of believers throughout the world today do not follow Darby’s scheme. The predominant end-times teaching in the modern world follows the centuries-old understanding that the 1,000-year reign of Jesus is a symbolic representation of the current church age. Because they deny the literal 1,000 years, they are called amillennials.

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;