Easter 2020

Tags

Christianity, Coronavirus, COVID-19, Easter, God, Holy Week, Hope, Jesus Christ, Life, Pandemic, Resurrection

This Easter finds us in strange circumstances, isolated during a time of fear and uncertainty. It may seem like there is a shadow over our celebration, when we are unable to gather together and sing the hymns of the resurrection, to exchange the joyful yearly greeting, “He is risen!” “He is risen indeed!”

But for these very reasons our Easter faith must be especially dear this year. It is in the depths of winter, when all is dead and bitterly cold, that we long most fervently for spring. The days we lay a-bed sick make us long for good health we otherwise take for granted, and the great sorrows of life strip away all of the distractions that numb us, and fill us instead with sweet and desperate hope for the life to come.

That hope is the joy of Easter, the wonderful promise of resurrection, of unfading newness beyond all the loss and weakness and grief of this world. For our longing for eternity is not a vain wish of the human heart; it is an echo of God’s original design in our souls, and it points us to the wonderful salvation that God offers in Jesus Christ. This high and holy day sweeps away all darkness and gloom with the triumphant proclamation of resurrection life.

Jesus is alive—now, today, and forevermore. Jesus has risen from the grave, conquered death, and He offers life and freedom to all who come to Him. This is the message of Easter, the perennial proclamation of gospel hope to a world of uncertainty and sorrow.

How wonderful the news on that first Easter Sunday, when the women came to the sepulcher expecting to find Jesus dead and buried, entombed in stone. Instead, two angels met them, and said, ‘Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen!’” (Luke 24:5-6, NIV). And in this resurrection, we have a living Savior, and the promise of resurrection to eternal life for all who trust in Him.

Take heart, for it is Easter. He is risen! Risen, indeed.

Tuesday Tea-ology, 04/07/20

Tags

Authority, Celebrities, Celebrity Culture, Christianity, Cultural Engagement, Faith, God, Holy Week, Jesus Christ, Lordship, Pop Culture, Society, Truth

What does Luke 20:1-8 have to do with Miley Cyrus?  Find out on today’s Tuesday Tea-ology!

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.

Foundations 3: Meaning

Tags

Celebrities, Christianity, Cultural Engagement, Culture, Culture War, Entertainment, Eternity, Foundations, God, Hope, Life, Meaning, Naturalism, Nihilism, Salvation, Truth

A worldview’s understanding of cosmic origins implies an answer to that most pressing philosophical question, the question of meaning. What is the meaning of life? What is a meaningful use of my life? These are, in some sense, questions of where we are going, and the answer is informed by the answer to the question of where we came from.

If we came from nowhere, we are going nowhere. The only logical implication of naturalism is nihilism. If we are the products of blind chance destined for annihilation, it’s hard to see how anything we do with our lives can be meaningful in any real and transcendent chance. That is, we may bring comfort to ourselves and others for the moment, but all such good is destined for oblivion. Silence has the last word.

I think there are very few thorough-going nihilists; it’s simply too depressing a philosophy, and too hard to reconcile with what we experience of beauty and good and evil, too hard to square with our longing for eternity. Elite intellectuals may embrace philosophical nihilism, and their counterparts in the art world may revel in nonsense, but such ideology doesn’t trickle down well. I think that most naturalists, even the elites, decline to follow their beliefs about the cosmos to the unavoidable conclusion that there is no meaning, no right or wrong. Instead, there is an effort to argue for morality and meaning in spite of the denial of all transcendent reality—arguments never convincing but understandable because the alternative, within their worldview, is oblivion. Much more common is practical nihilism, which shows itself in our culture’s obsession with entertainment—the eagerness to be turned aside from meaningful uses of our time.

There is a much happier alternative, one that emerges naturally from a theistic worldview. If there is a God, then there is meaning. We have a purposeful beginning, and a purposeful destiny. What we do in this life matters, there really is good and evil, and silence is not the last word.

In fact, the revelation of the one true God gives us definite answers to this pressing question. We were created by a loving God in His own image and likeness. His character provides the transcendent standard of right and wrong. His boundless life is the foundation of eternity, and He offers an eternal destiny of life for those who receive, by the Holy Spirit, the gift of life that comes through faith in God the Son incarnate, Jesus Christ.

What we do in this moment is meaningful. How we spend our time matters, because our actions are pleasing or displeasing to the all-worthy God. Our choice to receive or reject the gift of life determines our eternal destiny. Our labors in this life are eternally significant, as we care for others who also have an eternal destiny and for God’s good creation.

Foundations 2: Truth

Tags

America, Apologetics, Christianity, Cultural Engagement, Culture, Culture War, Epistemology, Foundations, Humanity, Life, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Society, Truth

Individually and collectively we need a basis for knowing what is real and right. Only with a knowledge of the truth can we make wise decisions that will lead to human flourishing.

But in a pluralistic society, competing truth claims vie for recognition. Sometimes this leads to a relativistic outlook, where truth is privatized. A person may defy absolute reality and claim legitimacy for “my truth”, which is personal and immune to challenge. This is untenable, because relativism is ultimately the rejection of truth—the rejection of reality. If there is no objective and absolute truth, there is no reality.

Truth exists, but how can we know it? If we cannot know it, we are blind in our pursuit of meaning and of a flourishing society. If truth is knowable, there may be several ways of discovering it, such as rational consideration and scientific examination. But truth discovered in these ways will always be limited by our own frailties and the finitude of our knowledge. Is there any absolute way to know the absolute and objective reality outside of us?

Jesus prayed to God the Father, “your word is truth” (John 17:17, NIV).

God is the absolute reality, Creator of the entire cosmos. He knows what is. He speaks the truth, and tells us what is good and beautiful. Divine revelation provides an absolute reference point for human knowledge of reality.

As individuals, our lives will only be built on truth if they are built on a proper relationship with God in Jesus Christ, who is “the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6). In submission to God’s Word, we will know the truth. As a society, we will only have the proper basis for human flourishing if the overall character of our culture is consonant with Christian truth. A Christian society will allow individual members freedom to believe untruth; but a pluralistic society, with no fundamental commitment to the truth or the source of truth, cannot be expected to promote human flourishing.

Flourishing, individually and collectively, requires receptivity towards the truth and rejection of all falsehood. We must love the truth if we wish to be free.

On Wisdom

Tags

Beauty, Bible, Culture, God, Goodness, Jesus Christ, Society, Truth, Wisdom

We live in a time where we enjoy tremendous and unprecedented advances in knowledge. Not only do we have a great deal of knowledge about the world, but we apply this knowledge in ways that give us greater comfort, health, and security, than most people in the history of the world have experienced. But for all of our titanic knowledge, ours is an age deeply lacking in wisdom.

Wisdom is the transcendental virtue, the ability to discern what is true and good and beautiful. Knowledge tells us what can be done, but wisdom tells us what should be done. And great knowledge without great wisdom can be a very dangerous thing.

For the opposite of wisdom is folly, and the way of folly is the way of death. Folly cries out to those who pass by, tempting them with her offer; “But little do they know that the dead are there, that her guests are deep in the realm of the dead (Prov. 9:18, NIV). Increasing knowledge, without increasing wisdom, creates increasing opportunities for harm. The pursuit of wisdom is the pursuit of life. “The one who gets wisdom loves life” (Prov. 19:8).

But where can wisdom be found? We must start with God. God is the font of all wisdom. As the prophet Daniel declared, “wisdom and power are his…he knows what lies in darkness, and light dwells with him” (Dan. 2:20, 22). We must have regard for God if we wish to be wise; “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding (Prov. 9:10). So it is impossible to acquire wisdom without repentance. Idolatry is folly, and we cannot find wisdom without turning away from idols and towards the all-wise God.

With reverence and confidence, the wise man looks to God for wisdom. If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you (Jas. 1:5). In prayer, we ask God to graciously give us wisdom from above. In devotion, we look to the Holy Bible, God’s written Word, and take His wisdom to heart.

Ultimately, the pursuit of wisdom centers on Christ. We are to know Christ, “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3). Jesus Christ is the key to finding wisdom in this world of chaos and folly, light in the darkness, life eternal in the face of death. Christ “has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness, and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30).

Coming to Christ, giving ourselves to Him in faith, we return to a right relationship with God. In this relationship with our Creator, we gain understanding of our purpose and how to thrive in the cosmos He has made. Getting right with Him, we get to know what is right—what is true, beautiful, and good.

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.