Really Urgent

Tags

America, Christianity, Culture, Episcopal Church, Faith, God, Gospel, Humanity, Jesus Christ, Liberalism, Life, Progressive Christianity, Redemption, Salvation, Theology, Truth

Writing a couple days ago about the call of the gospel involved expressing that the gospel call is urgent.  It matters whether or not people hear the message of Christ, and whether or not those who hear believe; it matters because there is judgment to come, and where you stand in the day of judgment depends entirely on whether or not you are in Christ.

This is the perennial scandal of the Christian faith.  True Christianity will always be scandalous to the world, though different aspects of the faith will be scandalous in different times and places and cultures.  But the exclusivity of the gospel message is a perennial scandal, because it stands against every worldly ideology and religion, and because it is at the irreducible core of the Christian message: eternal life is found in Jesus Christ, and in Jesus Christ alone.  You have to place your faith in Him if you are to be saved.

This claim is denied not only by avowed secularists, but by some who claim to be Christians.  I came upon the website of a liberal Episcopalian church in San Francisco, noteworthy (among other things) for how they use their sanctuary for a popular yoga program–the sentence “Colorful mats cover the labyrinth, the aisles and even the altar” has a certain resonance with 2 Kings 16.  I saw that they had sermons online, audio and transcripts; I wanted to see what their preaching was like, but didn’t want to give it a lot of time.  I needn’t have been concerned; my sampling suggests that, in keeping with typical liberal practice, their sermons range from fairly brief to very brief.  Given their beliefs, brief is probably for the best.

So here is a sermon from “The Very Rev. Dr. Malcolm Clements Young.”  He’s the dean of the cathedral and has a Doctorate of Theology from Harvard, so no one can say I’ve chosen a straw man.  His text is John 3:16-17…and if you say, ‘Why just through verse 17? …aha, let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

John 3:16 is quite understandable a beloved passage, a one-verse encapsulation of the gospel.  Dr. Young, in his short message, says a number of things, some of them good.  But things get particularly suspicious about halfway through–manuscript page 3, that is–when he turns to examine Jesus’ reference to the bronze serpent, a story detailed in Numbers 21.

The Israelites were complaining against God, and the text says, “Then the LORD sent venomous snakes among them” (Num. 21:6, NIV), but Dr. Young says “God allows poisonous snakes to come among them”; perhaps the change from God’s direct action to divine permission is unintentional.  But stranger is Dr. Young’s assertion that “In both this exodus story and the Gospel of John sin is less a punishment from God than it is a self-destructive human choice.”  Well, yes, the sin of the Israelites is a self-destructive choice–and if that’s all he meant, that’s one thing, but we’re still going to have to grapple with Romans 1–but the punishment from God is clearly present: they chose to grumble against God, but God sent the venomous snakes.

Dr. Young brings this back to John 3, which is good, and Jesus’ statement that “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up” (Jn. 3:14).  But this is Dr. Young’s comment:

“In this world which is poisoned by envy, greed, fear, betrayal and death – Jesus promises that we can be healed by experiencing him near to us in our suffering, and the hope that we have for the resurrection”.

Is that all Jesus promised, His nearness in our suffering?  Why no mention of the atoning significance of His death upon the cross?

After this suspicious beating-about-the-bush about the wrath of God and atoning work of Christ, Dr. Young makes his last point quite clearly:

“My last point has to do with what my friend Matt Boulton calls the “anti-Gospel.” Gospel means good news and the Gospel of Jesus Christ is really good news for all people, not just Christians. It is the message that God does not condemn the world, but always reaches out to save us even when our choices have led us disastrously astray. But somehow many Christians warp Jesus’ words into an anti-gospel which is a message of contempt and exclusion.”

The Gospel, for Dr. Young, appears to be a message of universal salvation.  Faith in Christ is not necessary, and those who say that it is are guilty of promoting “an anti-gospel which is a message of contempt and exclusion.”  This is the rhetoric of the religious left, where ‘inclusion’ is good and ‘exclusion’ is bad, and where the other side is regarded as showing hatred or contempt.  But how does this message square with the very text of Scripture being expounded?  Dr. Young quotes John 3:16 in its entirety, so he has right there before him that the verse says “whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”  It does not say that Christ gives life to everyone; it says He gives life to those who believe in Him.

How does Dr. Young deal with this?  He doesn’t, really.  He emphasizes that the text is saying this is a demonstration of the way God has shown His love:

“The Greek doesn’t mean to emphasize “how much” God loves us but instead shows us the character of God’s love, that God loves us in this way, through not even withholding his own son. The point is not that Jesus only saves the few who believe, but like the Israelites looking at the snake, everyone is healed by God through Jesus.”

Like the Israelites looking at the snake?  But it wasn’t all of the Israelites who were healed by the bronze serpent–it was only those who looked at it.  In the same way, it isn’t all people who are saved by Jesus, but only those who believe in Him.  The parallel seems to work rather against Dr. Young than for him.  Can he really justify such a shaky interpretation in the face of the clear teaching of the biblical text?

He can try.  Here’s the clincher:

John confirms this interpretation and writes, “God did not send his son to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him” (Jn. 3).

He’s quoting John 3:17, a wonderful verse about God’s love.  Jesus came to save.  God sent His Son to be our Savior.  And, if this verse was all we had to work with, we might conclude that it teaches a universal salvation, regardless of whether people know Jesus or not.

But this verse doesn’t stand alone, and a basic principle of biblical interpretation is that verses must be interpreted in context.  The verse before it, verse 16, says that it is those who believe who are saved.  What about the verse that follows?

And this is why it is so interesting that Dr. Young stopped with verse 17.  Now, I can’t read his mind.  Maybe he forgot what verse 18 said.  Maybe he just didn’t have time to bring it up.  But it is awfully interesting that he didn’t mention the verse that says, “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (Jn. 3:18).

So we have an Old Testament parallel and two clear assertions that a response of faith is required in order to receive the life Christ offers, sandwiching the ambiguous verse that Dr. Young tries to use to nullify the clear message.  It is overwhelmingly obvious that Dr. Young has misinterpreted the Scripture, and has done so in a way that shows either a remarkably careless disregard for the context or a deliberate desire to twist the message of the gospel.

He wants to do away with the exclusivity of the gospel.  In the process, he has thrown out the urgency of the gospel, for a message of universal salvation is not a message that anyone needs to hear; and, if heard, it is a message that perfectly suits the individualistic self-determination of the (post)modern west, because it means that how you choose to live your life doesn’t really matter in the end.

Can Dr. Young’s own charge be reversed?  Is he guilty of teaching an anti-gospel?  I think so.  Maybe he teaches that people should repent of their sins and place their faith in Jesus, but he doesn’t preach that such is necessary in order to be forgiven and receive eternal life.

The true gospel is urgent, because it proclaims that God’s gracious offer of life is found exclusively in Jesus Christ, is received exclusively by faith in Jesus Christ.  You need this gospel, and you need it now.

And you may have it, no matter who you are, no matter what you have done.  Turn from your sins and place your trust in Jesus Christ, who died for your sins and rose from the dead to bring you life.  Accept His mighty hand reaching down to draw you to Himself.  Be cleansed, forgiven, made whole, adopted as a child of the Most High.

The time is now.

 

Imagine that (again)

Tags

Atheism, Celebrities, Celebrity Culture, Cultural Engagement, Culture, Eschatology, God, Ideology, Naturalism, Secularism, Socialism, Society, Theism, Theology, Worldview

…a postscript to my ruminations a few days ago on the celebrities singing John Lennon’s “Imagine”, and the song’s message of despair.

In that earlier post, I noted in passing the hypocrisy of super-wealthy celebrities singing a song that contains the line “imagine no possessions”. Upon further reflection, I think that dissonance reflects one of the basic fallacies of the song and its misunderstanding of naturalistic, materialistic ideology.

For the song suggests that embracing a naturalistic and materialistic ideology—rejecting religion, with its metaphysical notions of heaven and hell, of transcendent morality and judgment and eternal hope—thus “living for today”, will help us break down the barriers and “live as one”. This is, ostensibly, the future that those promoting this ideology dream of.

Now, let us assume that the celebrities singing this song hold to such a naturalistic and materialistic ideology—they are atheists, who believe that this world is all we get, and intend to live for today. This may not be true; I’m not very knowledgeable about celebrity news, and for all I know Gal Gadot et al may claim to believe in God; but the public testimony of this song is that they don’t, so let us suppose that to be the case. Ostensibly, they are “living for today”, they dream this dream.

But they are not sharing their possessions. Oh, I don’t doubt they give to charitable causes; but they keep vast amounts of personal wealth for themselves. They make no effort to “live as one” with the people of the world. Apparently “a brotherhood of man” is not their dream, after all?

Why should it be? This is not a simple matter of hypocrisy—singing the song is, but living a lavish lifestyle isn’t. Naturalistic materialism provides no moral impetus. “Living for today” is perfectly consistent with living selfishly. Transcendent morality and eschatological hope, on the other hand provide a profound foundation for charity.

Of course, many Christians fail to live out the faith, sometimes infamously; because our sanctification is incomplete, we are all hypocrites to a greater or lesser extent. Still, we should see clearly, and here is the key difference: selfishness and greed are hypocrisy in Christians, but are perfectly consistent with an atheistic worldview.

Therefore, if in fact selfishness and greed are bad, then atheism is wrong. If there is good, there must be God.

Imagine that…

Tags

Celebrities, Christianity, Coronavirus, COVID-19, Culture, Eternity, Faith, Heaven, Hope, Jesus Christ, Life, Pandemic, Peace, Salvation, Society, Truth

The pandemic has called up a variety of responses, some of them more helpful than others.  “Keep Calm and Wash Your Hands” is sound advice.  But is there a deeper message we might speak to this time of fear, danger, uncertainty, and death?

Actress Gal Gadot got together with a number of other celebrities, producing a little video that was promoted by major media channels.  The idea of serenading the world in a time of crisis was a kind sentiment, and good for morale; the content of this particular serenade was awful.  Gadot says that the time of isolation has got her feeling philosophical, and says that she heard of another serenade she heard, of John Lennon’s “Imagine.”

Gadot then begins the song, which is picked up by numerous celebrities as described here.  The song is a naïve humanist fantasy, imagining a world where the elimination of nations, private property, and religion leads to perfect unity and peace.  The hypocrisy of a group of celebrities singing a song that contains the line “Imagine no possessions” is staggering, but not nearly so troubling as the rest of the vision for mankind they exhort us to imagine.

“Imagine there’s no heaven…No hell below us,” the song suggests, as though the loss of a sense of eternal destiny will encourage generosity and the brotherhood of man.  “And no religion too” it later adds, as though the loss of transcendent morality and meaning will contribute to world peace.  The song’s diagnosis of the human condition is profoundly flawed.

But, more importantly, it is a delusion.  We are being asked to imagine a world that simply does not and cannot exist–a world without God and without hope.  It is a comfort to know that Lennon’s vision can never be realized; even a global atheistic socialist state could do nothing about the fact that there is a heaven, there is a hell, and there is a God whether humans acknowledge Him or not.

In a time of crisis, we need to be reminded of the profound truths that define our existence in this life and in the life to come.  That is what has been lacking in so much of our society’s response to the pandemic, and it is the opposite message of “Imagine.”  On the contrary, this is not a time to daydream, but a time to wake up.

Memento Mori, says the ancient Christian tradition–remember that you have to die.  A pandemic should serve to remind us that life is finite, and all too often short.  Life is serious, and meaningful; but it is serious and meaningful because there is a life to come.  There is a God above, there is a heaven and there is a hell.

We have had national calls to prayer, and that is very good; but they ought to be accompanied by national calls to repentance.  It would be a tragedy if concern about the pandemic moves us to wash our hands, but not our hearts.  It would be a travesty to pray one moment for God’s deliverance, and the next moment to sing “Imagine there’s no heaven…and no religion too.”

I am not a prophet, to claim that COVID-19 is God’s judgment on us for x sin.  But every disease is a consequence of the fall, and a reminder that we live in a fallen world.  And every such reminder urges us to wake up and look to the wellbeing of our souls and of the souls of others.  God sent His Son to bear the sins of the world, to take away the curse and bring us the offer of eternal life by faith in Him.  And God offers, to all who will receive the gift of life in Jesus Christ, a future more wonderful than we can possibly imagine.

What Did You Think a Sword was?

Tags

America, AOC, Bible, Celebrities, Christianity, Church, Cultural Engagement, Culture, Culture War, Freedom, God, Gospel, Hope, Jesus Christ, Salvation, Scripture, Sin, Society, Tolerance, Truth

…or, “AOC, Theologian?”

From Christianheadlines.com, “AOC Says Religious Liberty Advocates Are ‘Weaponizing Scripture’ to ‘Justify Bigotry’ against LGBTQ Community“:

In a House Oversight Committee hearing to discuss LGBTQ rights, Ocasio-Cortez called out those who use Scripture to take away rights from gay people. She also compared religious freedom advocates to white supremacists.

“It’s very difficult to sit here and listen to arguments in the long history of this country of using Scripture and weaponizing and abusing Scripture to justify bigotry,” she said. “White supremacists have done it. Those who justified slavery did it. Those who fought against integration did it, and we’re seeing it today.

The most foundational problem in the congresswoman’s analysis is buying into the whole framework of the LGBTQ movement, in which matters of ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ are treated as fundamental identity characteristics on par with race and sex.  That is the great con in this whole business, which has taken in all too many people.  It is only through that ruse that activists are able to regard sensible people as bigots, to put advocating religious freedom in the same category as white supremacy, and to paint their sexual revolution as a civil rights movement.

But the most interesting problem in the congresswoman’s analysis is her understanding of religion, and particularly of the Bible.  For her, religion would seem to be interpreted through the lens of secular liberation ideology; good religion, true religion, is as tolerant and non-judgmental (of liberal agendas) as she is.  And the Scriptures are supposed to be a benign message of tolerance.  For AOC, maintaining the Bible’s view of LGBTQ+ ideology, and wanting to live consistently with it, is somehow an abuse of Scripture.

Most interestingly, the congresswoman derides the use of Scripture in promoting sexual morality as “weaponizing” Scripture.

What?  Weaponizing the sword of the Spirit?

“Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Ephesians 6:17, NIV).

“For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.  Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account” (Hebrews 4:12-13).

One cannot weaponize a sword.  A sword is already a weapon.  The Scriptures cut us to the heart, exposing all of our wickedness and sin.  The Bible is not a feather that strokes our self-esteem.  It is not a tolerant cushion that accepts and affirms us just as we are.  It is a sword that cuts through all lies and convicts us of sin–greed, pride, hatred, sexual immorality, all of it.  The Bible speaks of God’s holiness and our wickedness, it speaks of the wrath of God upon the ungodly, it tells us what is good for human flourishing, and it points us to the only means of forgiveness, wholeness, and life–Jesus Christ, our crucified and risen Savior.

“Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need” (Hebrews 4:14-16).

The problem in American Christianity is not that we are weaponizing the sword of the Spirit, but that we are neglecting it.  We take it out for our quiet time, and then put it back in its sheath, as though we could tackle our desperate social issues without it.  We blunt its edges, as though our soft words were wiser than God’s pointed conviction; it must be admitted that the Bible speaks more directly and severely of sin than many a Christian–and many a pastor–is willing to do.

Christianity calls for conviction.  God gave us a sword, and He expects us to wield it.  The stakes are higher than whether or not religious liberty will be preserved in this nation for awhile yet.  The eternal destinies of men and women are at stake.

Let’s Get Real

Tags

Christianity, God, Gospel, Homosexuality, Jesus Christ, Journalism, LGBTQ+, Media, Politics, Religious Left, Righteousness, Salvation, Same-Sex Marriage, Sin, Society, Truth

As a postscript to “Pete Buttigieg, Theologian?“, I want to note something on the other side of the interview–because it really was more of a dialogue, not just questions and answers.  Jim Wallis is a theologian, though not a faithful or trustworthy one, as the interview exemplified.

After all, in the article in question Wallis is interviewing a man engaged in persistent and publicly acknowledged immorality of a kind that God declares detestable (Lev. 18:22).  That is a key piece of context for any Christian viewing this discussion.

Towards the beginning, Wallis says:

The lawyer, says to Jesus, “How do I inherit eternal life?” And he says, “Love God. Love your neighbor.” Simple as that.

The reference is to Luke 10:25ff.  Wallis follows that on the question of loving our neighbors, which is quite right because that’s where the text follows.  But something has been left out: what about this love for God business?  What does that look like?

According to Scripture, love for God involves obedience (Jn. 14:23).  Indeed, the most interesting parallel to note is that in Luke 18, Jesus is asked the very same question, but this time He points the inquirer to the commandments of the Old Testament law (Lk. 18:20).  This isn’t Jesus giving two different answers; He’s giving the same answer in two different ways; after all, as Jesus Himself says, the two commandments to love God and love neighbor are a summary of the law (Matt. 22:37-40).

The failure of the social gospel has always been that it taught love of neighbor but neglected love of God.  For loving God requires not only that we love our neighbor but, first and fundamentally, that we turn from our sins and receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.  There is no gospel without the call to repentance and faith.

To talk about eternal life with someone who is living in persistent sin, without calling them to repent and believe, is a mockery of the gospel.

But there is a real gospel, a good news of eternal life for all who will turn from sin and trust Jesus.  God sent His Son to save sinners from all their sins; Jesus Christ died upon the cross and rose again so that we can have life in Him.  And yes, this has inescapable implications for what we do with our lives in this world.  But the real gospel is good not only for human flourishing in this present world, but for human flourishing in the kingdom of God through all eternity.  And a real theologian must declare the real gospel to people who really need it.

Pete Buttigieg, Theologian?

Tags

America, Anthropology, Christianity, Culture, Culture War, Humanity, LGBTQ+, Politics, Same-Sex Marriage, Society, Truth

I wrote a post the other day titled “Tom Steyer, Theologian?”, and now have encountered a liberal religiousinterview with a much more prominent Democratic candidate, Pete Buttigieg.  This transcript appeared in Sojourners Nov. 19, 2019, but I only came across it the other day.  No doubt there are similar articles out there, as Buttigieg has been quite vocal about his claim to Christianity.  While a thorough dissection of this interview could be instructive, I want to highlight two things I find especially noteworthy.

1. Human dignity/divinity(?).  At one point, Buttigieg says,

…so the radical message of the gospel includes this idea that every single person is of equal concern; it has the divine in them.

There is an initial difficulty in reading this remark because of the grammatical tangles that result from the sexual revolution.  I think Buttigieg is saying that every single person (“it”) has the divine in him or her (“them”).  That grammatical confusion is significant because you can see how depersonalizing–thus, ultimately, dehumanizing–the sexual revolution is.  People cease to be men and women, and they become objects and plurals–‘it’s and ‘them’s.  And this comes in the midst of a comment where Buttigieg is trying to promote the dignity of every person; but you can’t do that while promoting the sexual revolution.  You can only have one or the other.  Trying to have both is one of the impossible tensions of contemporary American society.

But when we move past the grammar and its implications, the statement is problematic for what Buttigieg is deliberately claiming.  Every person has the divine in them?  No doubt there are some religions that teach that, but Christianity isn’t one of them.  We are God’s creatures; we are made in the imago Dei, the image of God; but only those who belong to Christ and have come to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit may be said to have the divine in them–and, even then, it needs to be understood in the right sense.

2. The source of truth.  Concerning the elephant in the room with Buttigieg, part of what he says is:

…on an issue like LGBTQ equality, I really believe this is also a battle within people. I think it is sometimes a battle between what they have been told and how they have been brought up, and something very good inside them, which is compassion.

Notice what’s on each side of this debate in the way he wants to frame it: on the side of Christian sexual ethics is ‘what someone has been told’, and on the other side is the goodness inside them, in the form of ‘compassion’.  This is a twisting of the truth, which is why it’s so effective.  What’s true is that revelation stands on one side, and that feelings are used to pull people to the other side.

But the most important question is, for Christians who have been told that sexual immorality is sin: who told you that?  If the answer is that God tells us that, in His holy Word, then no emotional appeals should move us.  God is true, and His Word is truth.

And, of course, it is only by acknowledging the truth of the gospel that we can repent and believe and come into a saving relationship with the one true God; only by submitting to God’s truth do we come to have ‘something very good inside’ us, the Spirit of the living God.

Letting God in

Tags

America, Celebrities, Cultural Engagement, Culture, Faith, Feminism, Holy Spirit, Repentance, Salvation, Sanctification, Sexual Immorality, Sexual Revolution, Society, Truth

One of the performers of the disgraceful Super Bowl half-time show has recently been in the news responding to critics.  Her response was not, of course, apologetic; this is not the sort of thing that one is expected to apologize for in mainstream American culture.  Instead, she defended her behavior, and referred to criticism as “silliness.”

So goes the blithe dismissiveness for those who would object to the objectification of women.

As expected, defense of the performance was based on feminism and appeal to culture: “a celebration of women and our Latino culture.”  Further, we should trust their character: “Both of us are really respectful performers.”  Respectful of what?

But the most interesting statement was this: “that small fraction of people who want to be negative about it, I can’t even let in.”

I think what she means is that she won’t let these critics and their criticism–framed as negativity–into her mind and heart.  She won’t let them impact her perception of herself and what she has done.

That is one of the mantras of the (post)modern pop-therapeutic mindset.  Keep negativity out.  Be yourself, and don’t let others’ judgment impact you.  Well, sometimes this is the right attitude; but other times it’s not.  And, in this case, what is being kept out is, at least in part, the conviction of sin.

We cannot be made whole if we do not let conviction in.  If we close the door against conviction of sin, we close the door against repentance–and ultimately against God’s saving work in our lives.  It is a terrible and tragic thing to resist the Holy Spirit.  This takes discernment, for there are all kinds of messages floating in this world, many of which we must reject.  But we must not reject the message of righteousness, repentance, and healing.

We must let God in.

Tom Steyer, Theologian?

Tags

America, Celebrities, Christianity, God, Liberalism, Politics, Religious Left, Theology, Trinity, Truth

You may have heard of Tom Steyer; he’s one of the people vying for the Democratic nomination for president.  But, you may not have heard of him; he’s not one of the people likely to get the nomination.

In any case, the liberal Religion News Service did an interview with him to talk about his religious beliefs, and it’s worth taking a glance at, as an example of what might be called contemporary American civil religion.

Apparently Steyer has been vocal about his faith, which may be a piece in that elusive quest for a Democratic candidate who can draw liberal Christians without alienating the substantial secular portion of their base.  But what is his faith?

Well, it starts with an Episcopal priest(ess), which is rather foreboding, and goes just where you’d expect it to go.  The pope inspired him to seek to “take care of the most vulnerable among us”, but apparently that doesn’t mean opposing abortion, it means climate change activism.  He’s rich, but doesn’t plan to stay that way forever.  Religion is significantly about being a good person (and the key feature noted about that is environmentalism), and whatever religion gets you there is probably fine.

Steyer has a faith that will float well in American politics.  It is ambiguous and inoffensive, environmentally activist and implicitly universalist.  But that same ambiguity and inoffensiveness separates it from orthodox Christianity.

For there is no sense, in the faith Steyer expresses, that Jesus is the only way to be right with God and that apart from Him we stand under wrath.  There is no sense that we are sinners who need to repent and receive God’s mercy if we are to be saved.  God is not described as the Triune Majesty, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but as “a positive life force that you can connect with and that’s bigger than any of us”–a rather panentheistic sort of deity.

Perhaps that last piece is the key takeaway from Tom Steyer’s theology.  When you seek an inclusive religion that is open to all kinds of different understandings of God or paths to God, you are naturally led to lose a sense of God as personal.  For the one true God does not fit all religions, only the religion that He has revealed.  The one-size-fits-all god of contemporary American civil religion ends up being a rather characterless god.

Thankfully, we are not left with such an insipid god.  The one true and Triune God is Father, Son, and Spirit.  We can know Him, and call Him by name.  He offers us life and salvation, forgiveness and transformation.  Here is a God we can pray to; here is a God we can worship.  Here is God, the only God, worthy of all honor and praise.

Transcendent Morality and the Super Bowl

Tags

America, Celebrities, Christianity, Cultural Engagement, Culture, Culture War, Faith, Life, Pornography, Secularism, Sexual Immorality, Sexual Revolution, Society, Truth

I didn’t watch it, but apparently the Super Bowl half time show was quite scandalous.  This is rather to be expected than surprising.  The left is gushing over it, with the standard plaudits about social consciousness, women’s empowerment, and cultural expression.  On the right, people are asking whether it was really appropriate for an occasion when children would be watching.

I think the Christian must ask whether it was appropriate for an occasion when anyone would be watching, that the answer is obviously no, and that it affords the opportunity for useful observations about the state of American society and the church:

1. This is the sort of thing that contemporary feminism advances.  It may be thought odd that ‘women’s empowerment’ produces the same kind of outcomes as the most boorish male chauvinism, but it is quite understandable because these are both revolts against God’s design for human flourishing.  It is not feminism, but Christianity, that advances the dignity of women.  The Super Bowl half time show is a good reminder of this.
2. I understand that some people have tried to defend the show as cultural expression.  But, from what I’ve heard, that can hardly be a legitimate defense unless the culture in question is that of certain seedy establishments no decent person has any place being in.  It is perhaps more likely that this is a throw-away defense used to remove criticism by accusing the critic of being racist.
   1. Be that as it may, it is worth pointing out that cultural expressions are not above criticism.  Human cultures are corrupted by sin just as individuals are, because cultures are made by individuals and societies are made up of individuals.  There is structural societal sin, and there are sinful aspects of culture.  To suggest that cultural expressions are above moral criticism is to subscribe to a form of relativism that the Christian cannot accept.  There is a transcendent moral standard, and no culture gets a pass
3. Which leads to probably the most important point: this is a symptom of the loss of moral sanity that comes with secularization.  In a culture that owns no transcendent moral standard, there is no basis for making reasonable moral judgments.  Artifacts like this recent show are part of something bigger; the half-time show, the abortion industry, the insertion of drag-queen story hour into the public libraries, and the removal of prayer from the public schools, are all part of the same thing.  When, as a culture, you reject the transcendent basis for moral clarity, you get moral chaos.
   1. What does this mean?  It means that the common good of American society will be best served by rejecting secularization and going back to being one nation under God–and, that is, the one true God.  And this cannot happen by political machinations, but only by revival.
4.  But in the present state of things, this is a useful reminder that the church is supposed to be different from the world.  We are not surprised when their efforts to empower women turn out to objectify women; we did not expect otherwise.  But we are supposed to be different and separate.  A Christian had no business watching the show (and not only that show, but a whole lot of others), because we have a different message–that men and women are created in the image of God and to be treated with dignity, that human sexuality has an appropriate context in marriage, and that there is a God of holy-love who is calling people to Himself in repentance and faith.

In the end, the gospel message calls us to something higher than what the world’s idea of empowerment can ever give, to a freedom and dignity that Christ alone can give.

An Exercise in Ecclesiastical Incrementalism

Tags

Bias, Bible, Biblical Interpretation, Christianity, Church, Church History, Hermeneutics, Scripture, Society, Truth

A historical warning for conservatives: If you keep making study groups, you’ll surrender eventually.

I think this is because the very creation of a study group suggests that God has not spoken clearly on the issue in question.  I’ve not yet heard of a denomination forming a study group to examine and report on whether murder is compatible with Christian discipleship.  But if you have an issue on which there is a more conservative and a more liberal view, authorizing a study group implies from the start that there are (at least) two faithful and legitimate positions on the matter.  And if both positions are legitimate options, what grounds do you have for restricting it to the more conservative position?

From the Jacula Prudentum of George Herbert: “Valour that parleys, is near yielding.”