Category Archives: Religion

by - 2 Comments

The Real Contest

The last two posts may seem perhaps a little out of place when the topic is Politics. But in the end, every Political system is based on the way it configures it’s legislative paradigm according to the way it defines a human being.

From that perspective, there is no such thing as the “separation of church and state,” at least not according to the way in which that phrase is asserted into the political dialogue as a means to suggest that a humanistic approach to government is any less of a “church” than the Christian foundation upon which we are based.

In the end, the struggle isn’t between two political parties or “Conservatives” vs “Liberals.” It’s actually far more profound than votes, bills and petitions. In Truth, it’s the foundation upon which all of those political elements are built.

What you’re getting ready to read is something I wrote in 2017. But it serves as a good way to consolidate the themes of the two previous posts into one main idea.

When you’re debating a person that has a substantial amount of emotional and philosophical capital invested in a particular topic, you don’t make your point by being merely logical. According to Scripture our struggle is not against flesh and blood, therefore it’s a spiritual struggle.

And that’s why things that are so heinous and make no sense can still be embraced as normal because if you are your own absolute, then there is no Standard apart from the one that best lines up with your personal appetites (Phil 3:18-20).

We’ll talk more about this later in the week.

For now, let’s take a look at “The Real Contest!”

I don’t care what side of the political aisle you sit on, praying for your leaders is right out of Scripture:

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:1-4)

So, when you’ve got a number of pastors gathering around President Trump to pray for him – that God would give him wisdom and insight –  how is it possible that another pastor would refer to that as “theological malpractice bordering on heresy?“

I’ll tell you how: When your platform is more about your agenda than it is those Absolutes that govern all of mankind, both Republicans and Democrats.

More and more the political tension that we’re seeing is becoming easier to discern as a contest between those that look to Divine Absolutes for the bottom line and those that would have nothing to do with any absolute save the absolute of themselves. 44% of Democrats go as far as to say that they believe church is detrimental to the nation.

If you pop the hood on that statistic, what you have is a scenario where close to half of your political constituency is antagonistic to Christ, grace and the concept of sin. Forget the incalculable love proven on the cross, never mind the Power represented by the empty tomb. Neither of those Realities are considered credible. The only thing that matters from a philosophical standpoint is the priority of self and from a practical perspective the only thing that matters is the acquisition of power.

Perhaps that seems a little harsh, but consider some of the talking points of the Democrat party: Abortion, Same Sex Marriage and the Doctrine of Entitlement. All three of these are antithetical to Scripture. But what makes it even more sinister is that they’re not “topics” as much as they are ultimately “tactics.”

Even Racism, in the way it is touted as a current stain on the fabric of American culture and indicative of our nation’s dark past as an enterprise built on enslavement, theft and cruelty, is more “strategy” than it is “substance.”

But if you can demonstrate the America is built on something sinister, then you can easily segue into what appears to be a viable reason to reconfigure the philosophical paradigm that America is built upon. In other words, if you can retool America’s heritage – if you can redefine morality and redo the foundational impetus of personal responsibility – you can establish a government based entirely on Humanism.

At first brush, perhaps that doesn’t seem like an especially dramatic scenario. But the end result is something truly heinous.

Os Guiness was born in China during WWII. He moved with his family to England and completed his undergraduate work at the University of London and completed his doctorate at Oriel College, Oxford. A sought after speaker and a prolific author, he sums up America’s political status apart from it being founded on a Divine Absolute in his book, “Last Call for Liberty“:

The framers also held that, though the Constitution’s barriers against the abuse of power are indispensable, they were only “parchment barriers” and therefore could never be more than part of the answer. And in some ways they were the secondary part at that. The U.S. Constitution was never meant to be the sole bulwark of freedom, let alone a self perpetuating machine that would go by itself. The American founders were not, in Joseph de Maistre’s words, “poor men who imagine that nations can be constituted with ink.” Without strong ethics to support them, the best laws and the strongest institutions would only be ropes of sand.

He makes a strong argument for the way in which the “pursuit of happiness” unchecked by the responsibility one has to be moral translates to disaster. And while it’s not always obvious, as far as the true essence of why our political climate continues to deteriorate into violent protests and little regard for the rule of law, it is nevertheless the foundational curse upon which their rhetoric is based.

…there is a deep irony in play today. Many educated people who scorn religious fundamentalism are hard at work creating a constitutional fundamentalism, though with lawyers and judges instead of rabbis, priests and pastors. “Constitutional” and “unconstitutional” have replaced the old language of orthodoxy and heresy. But unlike the better angels of religious fundamentalism, constitutional fundamentalism has no recourse to a divine spirit to rescue it from power games, casuistry, legalism, litigiousness—and, eventually, calcification and death.1

If you position yourself beneath the banner of Progressive thought and liberal politics, take a moment and pop the hood on what your party pushes as “compassion” and “equality” and realize it’s nothing more than a ploy to retool morality and redefine true freedom. Your champions are godless, your clergy is heretical and your platform is toxic.

If you want to argue the disaster of socialized medicine, it you want to debate the credibility of perversion, if you want to challenge the rule of law – fine. But if you fail to acknowledge the true source from which this philosophical approach proceeds, you’re either a fool or a fiend. It’s not about politics as much as it the One Who governs the affairs of men. It was that Reality that the Framers based, not only their case for independence, but also for what equated to an entirely new approach to government. Jefferson references this in the Declaration of Independence (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.“). Adams mentions it in his commentary on the Constitution (“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”). And Benjamin Franklin references this fact in some comments he made recorded by James Madison in the “Records of the Federal Convention of 1787“:

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise with his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the house they labour in vain that build it.”2 

Regardless of how you want to base your rhetoric on judiciously selected snippets of history in order to create a fictional account of the role Christianity played in our nation’s conception and legislative framework, the volume of evidence that proves your narrative to be false is overwhelming. However you would attempt to assault someone’s character simply because they don’t agree with the spin you put on current events and our nation’s heritage, your perspective is revealed for the poisonous platform that it is when you’re confronted with a comprehensive perspective on the news and history that forces you to think beyond your liberal talking points.

And however you want to present yourselves as the champions of freedom and enlightened thinking by referring to Trump supporters as fascists and racists, your strategy fails miserably once your tactics are exposed, your labels are revealed and your motives are recognized.

The real contest today is not defined in the context of political parties. Rather, it’s a fight between a mindset that seeks to justify its morality by asking “Is it Constitutional?” as opposed to “Is it right?” It’s not whether or not you have the Constitutional right, it’s whether or not you are morally right in doing whatever it is that you’re attempting to justify.

And where do go to determine a behavior’s moral value? Now you have the true essence of the debate. Either God is the Absolute that you default to or you simply default to the absolute of yourself.

That is the real contest.

1. “The Golden Triangle of Freedom”, Os Guiness, http://rzim.org/just-thinking/the-golden-triangle-of-freedom/, accessed October 4, 2017 2. “The Records of the Federal convention of 1787 / ed. by Max Farrand, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911”

2. “The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787”, James Madison, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000009929227;view=1up;seq=487, accessed October 4, 2017)

by

Shake the Dust Off Your Feet

March 23, 1775.

Richmond, Virginia.

The House of Burgesses were meeting in Saint John’s Church to discuss the recent actions of the First Continental Congress. The “Intolerable Acts” were passed by Parliament in early 1774 in response to the “Boston Tea Party.” Among other changes, the “Intolerable Acts” included the closing of the Boston Port and rescinding the Massachusetts Charter. Congress had met in September of that same in year to craft a response which called for a boycott of all British imports, an end to the exportation of any and all goods to Britain as well as the raising of a militia.79

It was now several months later. Despite the consensus shared by most Americans that the crown was not going to address any of the grievances that had been repeatedly voiced by the colonies, many hesitated endorsing a war and were yet hoping for a diplomatic solution.

It was in this moment that Patrick Henry rose to speak to the delegates gathered at Saint John’s Church. What followed was a speech made without notes and no transcript was made of the address he was about to deliver which would include the famous phrase, “Give me liberty, or give me death!”1

His desire was to present an argument that could change the minds of those who were determined to believe that diplomacy could sway a tyrant who saw negotiations, not as a way to arrive at a just compromise, but as a scheme to perpetuate a sinister agenda.

Those that were there to hear the words of Patrick Henry had legitimate concerns. But there are times when you’re talking to someone who doesn’t have a concern as much as they have a resolve – a willful determination to ignore what’s True and instead subscribe to something totally irrational.

In those instances, it’s possible you’re dialoging with someone the Bible refers to as a “fool” – someone who will “despise the insight of your words (Prov 23:9),” regardless of what you say.

Jesus says in Matthew 10:13-14 that when you encounter someone who refuses to listen to what’s True, then you need to walk away.

13 If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. (Matt 10:13-14)

Not everyone’s going to agree with you and differences in opinion are inevitable (1 Cor 11:19). There’s a difference between matters where there’s room for interpretation and other issues that can be processed according to obvious Absolutes. Humility and wisdom go hand in hand (Jas 3:13). You never want to be so passionate about your preferences that you assign to them the same Authority belonging to Biblical Principles.

But when you can rightfully cite a chapter and a verse to reinforce the Substance of your argument, know that however articulate you may be, there are times where you won’t be able to change their mind until God first changes their heart.

And until then…

…move on and shake the dust off your feet.

 

 

1. “Patrick Henry”, https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/patrick-henry, accessed May 21, 2023

by

Separation of Church and State | Part I

Nine times out of ten, when you hear someone play the “Separation of Church and State” card, they’re doing so believing that they’ve insulated themselves from having to defend their platform simply by declaring your position an illegal and inappropratiate assertion of your belief system…

Abortion.

Homosexuality.

It can be anything that is addressed specifically in Scripture. However clarifying the Bible can be in defining the difference between right and wrong, it is an unwelcome Presence in the mind of somone who prefers to declare themselves as their own moral absolute.

“You can’t force your beliefs on me…”

“Not everyone feels that way…”

(sarcastically) “You ever hear of the ‘Separation of Church and State?'”

It’s a signature tactic of the person who has something to hide as opposed to having something to say. By posing as a victim, they can sidestep any direct line of questioning because you can’t be critical of someone who’s in pain without immediately being labeled cruel and intolerant.

It’s brilliant.

There are several things wrong with their argument, though.

First of all, from a historical standpoint, they’re taking that phrase completely out of context and applying it in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with same sex marriage or taking the life of your baby before it’s born.

Secondly, what they’re attempting to do is philosophically impossible. Every government that’s ever been conceived by human kind has been based on a “church” of some sort. It’s here where you can see the true purpose of those who are asserting the “separation…” argument in that they’re not trying to “separate” anything as much as they’re attempting to establish a new god, a new church and a new morality.

But how do you refute what they’re saying? How can you “argue” if they’ve secured themselves behind a wall reinforced by the kind of pity that is due to someone who’s been wounded? How do you make your point if they’re not willing to listen and instead are just waiting for you to stop talking so they can proceed in telling you how intolerant you are?

What we’re going to do is unpack all this by posing a couple of questions that you can ask the person who’s pointing their philosophical pistol at you and compel them to make your point for you with the responses they’re logically obligated to give.

Here we go…

What is the Common Book of Prayer?

It’s part of the legislative package passed by Parliament in 1558 as part of the “Act of Uniformity” which Queen Elizabeth initiated as part of relieving the tension between Catholics and Protestants. It positioned her as the head of the church and imposed a collection of state-sanctioned directives that dictated the way you were to pray, how you were to condut a church service and even imposed a fine should you decide to not attend church on any given Sunday.1

What is a Puritan?

A Puritan is someone who wanted to “purify” the Anglican Church – the church created by Henry the VIII and then later legally mandated by his daughter Queen Elizabeth with the Act of Uniformity. They wanted to distance themselves from a doctrine that was dictated by the crown and instead based on the Authority of God’s Word. The Puritans were among the first settlers of the New World along with the Pilgrims who didn’t want to “purify” the Church of England as much as they wanted to remove themselves completely from having to answer to any government interference with one’s faith.

Why did the British refer to the Revolutionary War as a “Presbyterian Rebellion?”

In the aftermath of the Great Awakening, 75-80% of the colonies were actively involved in church.2 Preachers like George Whitfield and Jonathan Edwards had successfully re-introduced the Truth of how one’s relationship with Christ was not facilitated by a liturgy or a religious institution, but was instead based solely on a personal decision to follow Him.

With that awareness came a new perspective on how one’s rights were not a king’s to dispense as much as they were God’s to guarantee.

It wasn’t just “taxation without representation,” it was the way the motherland was attempting to control church government, the way in which you to pray (which included a mandate to swear allegiance to the king) and a directive to ordain ministers, not according to the New Testament, but according to a format approved by the Church of England.

Many Americans were quoted as saying, “We have no governor but Jesus Christ.”3

This is why many redcoats and Englishmen were prone to refer to the Revolution as a Presbyterian Rebellion.4

How many times to Congress call for a National Day of Prayer, Fasting and Humiliation during the Revolutionary War?

Sixteen. And these were not generic “moments of silence.” These were specific admonishments to appeal to Christ for the forgiveness of sins and wisdom in the way the United States was to prosecute its war with England.5

Bear in mind too that the verbiage of these Proclamations were written by many who would later serve in the Constitutional Convention.

Tomorrow…Part II

1. “The Act of Uniformity” was conceived in 1558 and passed by Parliament in 1559. Its purpose was to regularize prayer, worship and the administration of sacraments in the Church of England. In addition, all persons had to attend Anglican worship services once a week or be fined 12 pence which amounted to about three days wages. (“Act of Uniformity 1558”, “Wikipedia”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Uniformity_1558, accessed May 20, 2023)

In 1662, the scope of “The Act of Uniformity” was enhanced to include the mandate that all ministers be ordained according to an Episcopal format and anyone who held an office within the church was to swear allegiance to the monarchy. (“Act of Uniformity 1662” “Wikipedia”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Uniformity_1662, accessed May 20, 2023 | “Act of Uniformity”, “Encyclopedia.com”, https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/modern-europe/british-and-irish-history/act-uniformity, accessed May 20, 2023

2. “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel02.html, accessed April 5, 2023

3. “Directory of National Biography, Vol XXV”, Harris – Henry I, Smith, Elder and Company, London, 1891, p68 (also read “The Black Robe Regiment” to learn more about the Presbyterian element that was perceived by the British)

4. “Public Statutes at large of the United States of America, from the Organization of the Government in 1789 to March 3, 1845, Volume VI”, “https://books.google.com/books?id=Opt0L-PDdPAC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=%22that+the+duties+arising+and+due+to+the+United+States+upon+certain+stereotype+plates%22&source=bl&ots=p2xVUkIfub&sig=ACfU3U3N9AeyAcd_E0QqZfiXJlHQXbKGTA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjq8oSY0__9AhV6mWoFHduzBy0Q6AF6BAgDEAM#v=onepage&q=%22that%20the%20duties%20arising%20and%20due%20to%20the%20United%20States%20upon%20certain%20stereotype%20plates%22&f=false”, accessed March 28, 2023

5. To read a list of all sixteen proclamations as they’re documented in the Library of Congress, head out to http://muscularchristianityonline.com/forum/the-finish-line/

by

Don’t Just Be Right

“The Annual Register” is a publication that presents an annual overview of all the political and cultural highlights of that particular year.1

Created in 1758 and still in circulation today, it’s regarded as a primary source text for historical research.2

1781 was a landmark volume because of the significance of the events that occurred that year including Britain’s surrender to the United States. Part of what made Cornwallis’ defeat stand out was the way in which General Washington conducted both himself and his troops in the aftermath.

Two days after the capitulation took place, divine service was preformed in all the different brigades and divisions of the American army, in order to return thanks to the Almighty for the great event; and it was recommended by General Washington, to all the troops that were not upon duty, in his general orders, that they would assist at divine service “with a serious deportment, and with that sensibility of heart, which the recollection of the surprising and particular interposition of Providence in their favor claimed.”3

In his General Orders, Washington, in addition to recommending that all troops not on duty attend a worship service, he also ordered that all prisoners be pardoned and released:

In order to diffuse the general Joy through every Breast the General orders that those men belonging to the Army who may now be in confinement shall be pardoned released and join their respective corps.4

The British Army had burned and destroyed countless properties that were not military targets, including churches.5 In addition, clergy had been targeted and there were instances of brutality on the battlefield that were not due so much to the horrors of war as they were the cruelty of certain British officers.6

Washington would not have been faulted for being less accommodating when Lord Cornwallis surrendered. Even in the context of the way prisoners of war were treated, the British were indifferent to the wellbeing of the Continental soldiers they held in custody and, while estimates vary, between eight and eleven thousand American prisoners died in prison due to neglect.7

And yet…

Washington personified a biblical approach to one’s enemy.

However belligerent and opinionated your opponent may be, there is one dimension of your platform he can never criticize, let alone disagree with, without your participation:

Your manner.

In Matthew 5:43-48, Jesus says:

43 “You have heard that it was said, Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. For He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward will you have? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing out of the ordinary? Don’t even the Gentiles do the same? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt 5:43-48)

Moral Perfection is not an attainable standard given the frailties that characterize the human condition. But the word, “perfect” in this verse is the Greek word, “teleios,” which is more accurately translated in this context as meaning “complete.”8

It’s one thing to be right, it’s another to be righteous. And you want to be righteous because in the end you don’t want to settle for merely being “good,” you want to be effective.

Perhaps that’s part of what Jesus was talking about.

Many of the criticisms that Washington and the platform he represented were never admitted into civil conversation is because of the way the purity of his conduct reinforced the integrity of his cause.

Passion can be a compelling compliment to the words you would say, but left unchecked, emotions can compromise your message in that now your listener is not paying attention to what you’re saying as much as they’re now focused on the way you’re saying it (Prov 25:11).

Don’t just be right, be righteous…

Don’t just be good, be effective.

1. “The Annual Register”, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Annual_Register, accessed June 4, 2023

2. “Annual Register”, Proquest, https://about.proquest.com/en/products-services/ann_reg/, accessed June 4, 2023

3. “The New Annual Register or General Repository of History, Politics, and Literature, for the Year 1781”, G. Robinson, London, England, 1782, p169 (https://books.google.com/books?id=txALAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=deportment&f=false)

4. “George Washington Papers, Subseries 3G, Varick Transcripts, Letterbook 6 | General Orders”, https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/mss/mgw/mgw3g/006/006.pdf, accessed June 4, 2023

5. Referring to the Presbyterian clergy that assisted the Continental Army both spiritually and tactically, “It is not strange that their course was regarded as specially obnoxious by the British troops. Their houses were plundered, their churches often burned and their books and manuscripts committed to the flames…The church edifices were often taken possession of by an insolent soldiery and turned into hospitals or prisons, or perverted to still baser uses as stables or riding schools. The church at Newton had its steeple sawed off, and was used as a prison or guard-horse till it was torn down and its siding used for the soldiers’ huts. The church at Crumpond was burned to save its being occupied by the enemy…More than fifty places of worship through the land were utterly destroyed by the enemy during the period of the war. The larger number of these were burned, others were leveled to the ground, while others still were so defaced or injured as to be utterly unfit for use. This was the case in several of the principal cities – at Philadelphia and Charleston as well as New York. ” (“Presbyterians and the Revolution” Rev W.P. Breed, D.D., Presbyterian Board of Publication, Philadelphia, PA, 1876, p103-106 [https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/public/gdcmassbookdig/presbyteriansrev01bree/presbyteriansrev01bree.pdf])

British forces raided the town of Elizabeth on January 25, 1780 and burned the church, the home of Reverend James Caldwell, the courthouse and the Presbyterian School. (“Revolutionary War New Jersey”, https://www.revolutionarywarnewjersey.com/new_jersey_revolutionary_war_sites/towns/caldwell_nj_revolutionary_war_sites.htm, accessed June 4, 2023)

Saint Philip’s Church in Brunswick County, North Carolina was burned to the ground when the British invaded in 1776. Construction lasted 14 years, but it took only one day for it to be destroyed. Before it’s demise, it was considered to be one of the finest religious structures in North Carolina. (St. Philip’s Church, Brunswick Town”, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Philip%27s_Church,_Brunswick_Town, accessed June 4, 2023)

Biggins Church in Charleston, South Carolina was confiscated by the British Army and used as a depot. As they retreated, they burned the church. (“Biggin Church Ruins”, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biggin_Church_Ruins, accessed June 4, 2023)

6. “Banastre Tarelton”, National Park Service, https://www.nps.gov/people/banastre-tarleton.htm, accessed June 4, 2023

7. “Prisoners of War”, “George Washington’s Mount Vernon”, https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/prisoners-of-war/, accessed June 4, 2023

8. “Telious”, Bible Study Tools, https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/teleios.html, accessed June 5, 2023

by - 1 Comment

Daily Broadside | That Time Jesus “Transgendered Himself” in the Gospels

Daily Verse | Exodus 15:11
Who among the gods is like you, Lord?
Who is like you—majestic in holiness,
awesome in glory, working wonders?

Tuesday’s Reading: Exodus 19-21

Happy Tuesday and if you’ve been reading this blog for any length of time you know that it’s mostly focused on the crazy of our political class and its intersection with American culture. I also try to pay attention to where faith is making a statement in our culture, but come at all of it as an unapologetic conservative evangelical Christian.

With that in mind, I recently came across an article that showcases how the culture has, at least in one instance, twisted the very person of Christ himself in service to an agenda. In the following video, Simon Woodman of London’s Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church holds forth on his unique interpretation of Jesus’ activities. (Yes, I know it’s Britain, but “woke” is international and we know this stuff is here in the U.S.)

In case you don’t have time to watch it all, here’s what this misguided pretender said (my transcription):

So, if we think of Jesus as, um, the one who reveals God, uh, I was really struck by Angela saying earlier that “God is queer.” And, uh, I, I think, as humans we have a tendency to construct God in our own image, rather than to recognize that we are made in the image of God. And, therefore, the dominant expression of humanity ends up writing itself onto God, and making that God. And, and I think, in, in the story of Jesus, the stories of Jesus’ life, we, we find that being very condemned, um, in, in some quite radical ways, which is then having the ‘knock-on effect’ of altering the way we understand who God is in relation to humanity. So, I think Jesus, um, transgenders himself on a number of occasions. Um, I, I think, you know, just, just the little phrase, uh, Jesus is lamenting over Jerusalem, longing to gather Jerusalem as a mother hen gathers her chicks. Um, I think if you look at, um, the foot-washing from John’s gospel, foot-washing elsewhere in both Old and New Testaments, that it, it’s consistently done by, by women. And, yet, Jesus takes this on. People often cast that as being the servant’s role — it was the women’s role. And, and Jesus does it and becomes the woman at that point. And, and, I think, you know, we’ve observed that either he’s a marriage [sic], he’s childless, he defies gender and sexual norms of his day, he’s known for associating with those whose own sexual history or gender identity may be ambiguous. So, I think in Jesus, we’ve got a revelation of God as encompassing far more, than what historically and recently, at least, um, Christians have tended to construct God as being. And I think there’s a bit of an antidote to, uh, heteronormative idolatry hidden in the story of Jesus.

This statement is so full of holes and absurdities and contradictions and half-truths it’s hard to know where to start. But let me try. The logical flow of his argument is:

1) Jesus reveals God;

2) Humans “construct” God in their own image;

3) Therefore, the “dominant expression of humanity” makes God “heteronormative” (i.e. men attracted to women and vice-versa);

4) But, Jesus condemns that understanding of God by “transgendering” himself multiple times;

5) Ergo, Jesus reveals God as embracing transgenderism, which is an antidote to “heteronormative idolatry.”

So much theological nonsense, so little time.

We agree that Jesus reveals God. Jesus says, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). We can also agree that people often imagine (“construct”) God according to their own ideas or “image.” After that, we disagree with everything else he says.

God Himself is not “heteronormative” nor “transgender” because he is Spirit and “not a man.” Woodman argues that the “dominant” practice of humanity is heterosexuality (true), which mankind has projected (or written) onto God. The scripture says otherwise from the very beginning: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). God “wrote” that onto humanity.

Woodman claims that Jesus “transgenders” himself. What the heck does that even mean? Nobody saw Jesus as a “transgendered” individual. For instance, the Jews were ready to stone Jesus in John 10:33 because “you, a mere man, claim to be God.” Is Woodman suggesting that Jesus “pretended” to be a man pretending to be a woman? And then went back to being a man?

It’s sheer nonsense.

Woodman also claims that foot-washing is done by women in both old and new testaments. This is not at all clear from the texts that mention washing feet. In fact, it seems like most of the time guests were expected to wash their own feet (see Genesis 18:4, 19:2, and 24:32 for three quick examples).

As far as Jesus hanging out with sexually “ambiguous” people — Woodman gives no examples of such people in scripture. However, the people that Jesus was most often associated with in the gospels were “sinners and tax collectors.” Some of the sinners were sexually immoral, like the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11) or the Samaritan woman who had five husbands and was living with a sixth not her husband. All heteronormative relationships, I might add, even if sinful.

What’s so ironic is that Woodman starts off his argument by admitting that “as humans we have a tendency to construct God in our own image,” and then proceeds to do exactly that. None of his arguments hold up under scrutiny.

This is a case of someone with an agenda who “writes” onto God what he wants to see. You know how I know? Count the number of times he says, “I think.”

I’ll save you the trouble: eight times.

Eight times in roughly 13 sentences Woodman starts his thought with, “I think.” His entire statement is what he thinks—not what God thinks and not what the scripture teaches.

And when he concludes with the charge of “heteronormative idolatry,” that gives away the game.

Wokeness is envy run amuck.

by - 1 Comment

Daily Broadside | Only One Vision for America Can Ultimately Prevail

Daily Verse | Genesis 26:24
“I am the God of your father Abraham. Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bless you and will increase the number of your descendants for the sake of my servant Abraham.”

Wednesday’s Reading: Genesis 27-29

It’s Wednesday and I can’t help but feel that we’re headed toward a showdown between the forces of freedom and the forces of tyranny, which in full flower is the evil of communism. In yesterday’s post I mentioned that there have been several articles by lefty publications fretting about a new “civil war.” They’re late to the table, though, as I, myself, have been warning for years (recent samples here, here, here and here) about the trajectory we’re on as a country, concluding that the natural (though not inevitable) end of the arc was a violent clash between Left and Right.

Today I would modify my statement to say that the clash is between those who are alarmed over the restrictions being placed on their natural rights and freedoms, and those who want to consolidate power and lord it over the citizenry. At its core, it’s a clash of visions over what America will be: will it collapse in on itself and go the way of European multi-cultured socialism, or renew its strength as the sole bastion of personal freedom and opportunity never before seen in the history of the world?

Into the debate about whether or not we’re on the cusp of another civil war drops this article by William Sullivan, titled, “What Issue Was Really at the Heart of the Civil War, and is it Relevant Today?” After tracing the causes of the war way back to 1828, Sullivan explains, “The federal government issued new tariffs which were, by design, both harmful to the South and beneficial to Northern producers. A tariff of nearly 49-percent was issued on nearly all imported goods.” In response, South Carolina threatened to secede from the Union, but war was averted with “the 1833 passage of both the Force Bill and the Compromise Tariff, which gave the federal government the right to militarily enforce tariffs and lowered the tariff rates, respectively.”

However, that raised the question that remained unanswered right up until South Carolina actually seceded from the Union in 1861:

If the people of a state surmise that the federal government is pursuing a policy that compromises the liberty and prosperity of its citizens, does that state have to conform to what is perceived by the people of the state as an unconstitutional abuse of power, or, more bluntly, intolerable tyranny?

Sullivan goes on to quote Clifford Dowdey, who “offers a fairly good summation” of what led the country to civil war:

[The North and South] had diverged into patterns of life which became increasingly antithetical; antagonisms and rivalries grew in intensity. The industrial North did wish to buy cheap and sell dear at the expense of the South, while Northern money power needed the South in a colonial status for exploitation.  Slavery did exist in the South, and there was a high moral tone in the issue of freedom, held by a small minority. Extremists on both sides did inflame passions. There was, as an amalgam of all this, the nationalistic sweep of the new industrial middle-class society represented by the North, in alliance with the expanding, democratic West, and against these the South stood as an anachronistic, arrogant feudal culture in the path of manifest destiny. All of this defines the elements of duality within the corporate body of the nation; yet, put them all together, with equal emphases or any single emphasis, and the element of explosion is missing.

Sullivan then draws the parallels with our own age:

Red and blue states have, in fact, diverged into patterns of life that have become increasingly antithetical in recent years, and antagonisms and rivalries are growing in intensity. Blue states did fleece the taxpayers of red states last year by demanding a federal bailout for their decision to keep their states irrationally closed during the pandemic and in order to keep their broken, and internally unsustainable, entitlement programs afloat. There is a high moral tone being expressed on abortion in red states, an institution that disregards the right to life among the unborn just as the institution of slavery disregarded the right to liberty among slaves. Extremists on both sides are inflaming passions. Effete coastal liberals and elitists in the media and academia view middle-class, red-state denizens as anachronistic God-worshippers who prioritize their families and communities before the needs of the national collective, and are thereby impediments on that Hegelian path of history toward their inevitable vision of “progress.”

Red and blue states do, in many ways, seem like separate parts locked in a struggle that must be resolved if we are to function as a nation. Will this warring duality be resolved, or will we explode when, for example, the federal government decides to mandate vaccination IDs be issued by all of the states, and several states refuse?

Nobody would deny that we’re deeply divided in our country today. But what is the core cause of this divergence that we’re experiencing between red and blue states or, more candidly, between progressive activists and conservative citizens? What started the divergence in the first place?

Sullivan hints at it when he writes of “red-state denizens as anachronistic God-worshippers.” Remember that a key feature of cultural Marxism and its ultimate state, communism, is the superiority of Man and the rejection of God in any form. In his book, Witness, written 70 years ago, Whittaker Chambers explained that the trial of Alger Hiss, “was a trial of ‘the two irreconcilable faiths of our time — Communism and Freedom.’ And that struggle, that trial, he wrote, ‘can end only in the destruction of one or both of the contending forces.'”

Communism, he wrote, is

man’s second oldest faith. Its promise was whispered in the first days of the Creation under the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil: “Ye shall be as gods.” It is the great alternative faith of mankind. Like all great faiths, its force derives from a simple vision. Other ages have had great visions. They have always been different versions of the same vision: the vision of God and man’s relationship to God. The Communist vision is the vision of Man without God.

It is the vision of man’s mind displacing God as the creative intelligence of the world. It is the vision of man’s liberated mind, by the sole force of its rational intelligence, redirecting man’s destiny and reorganizing man’s life and the world. It is the vision of man, once more the central figure of the Creation, not because God made man in His image, but because man’s mind makes him the most intelligent of the animals …. Communism restores man to his sovereignty by the simple method of denying God.

That is the root cause of the division we are experiencing in our nation today—the denial of God in favor of the supremacy of Man. As John Adams wrote,

“Because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and Religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.“

If we are no longer a “moral and religious people” who acknowledge the sovereignty of God and our Constitution wasn’t written with such people in mind, then we find ourselves adrift with no governing structure fit for us. Our system of government depended on self-restraint, or self-governance, which came from a belief in a sovereign God.

The core of our conflict is a clash between those who believe in God’s Providence and those who would assume for themselves the ruler’s throne. We can’t go on this way indefinitely. One or the other of the competing visions for our life together will be destroyed, but which—freedom under God or communism under Man?

by

Don’t Judge!

“Don’t judge!” is a statement that’s heard fairly often when the issue being discussed is a person’s moral behavior. If the individual in question is acting in a manner that violates a Biblical Absolute, however obvious the discrepancy may be, it is trumped with the “Don’t judge” card and the conversation is supposedly concluded.

If the response is challenged, the person saying that they shouldn’t be judged will say that it says in the Bible you’re not supposed to judge and, whether they know it or not, they’re referring to Matthew 7:

1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:1-5 [see also Rom 2:1-29])

But here’s the thing: There’s far more content in this passage than what is reflected by the supposed synopsis represented by the statement, “Don’t judge!” If you stop there, then the end result is a situation where there is no distinguishing between right and wrong, justice goes out the window because there is no crime and there is no difference between that which is honorable and that which is criminal.

But what happens when you take a look at Matthew 7:1-5 the way a reporter might look at it?

  • Who is Jesus talking to?
  • What is He telling them?
  • How does it apply to you and me?

Chances are there’s more to what Christ was saying when you consider those dynamics, yes?

Let’s take a look…

Who Is Jesus Talking To?

Matthew 7 is part of the Sermon on the Mount which begins in chapter 5. In Matthew 5:1, it says that by this point Jesus was well known and crowds would often gather to hear Him teach (see Matt 4:25). He was a dynamic teacher and that coupled with the fact that He was capable of healing people with incurable diseases made Him a phenomenon that drew large groups of people wherever He went.

The makeup of the crowd was primarily Jewish which can be inferred from the geography of the situation. After Christ was tempted, you see Him frequenting the area around the Sea of Galilee where He selected some of His disciples. In Matthew 4:23, it says that He preached and taught throughout Galilee, although His fame spread as far north as Syria and the Decapolis (a group of 10 cities area south of Galilee and east of the Jordan River).

The composition of the crowd is significant because in Matthew 9:36, it says that Jesus was filled with compassion when He looked over the crowds because, in addition to the obvious physical needs, He saw a group of people that were spiritually haggard. Matthew Henry in his commentary elaborates on this:

They wanted help for their souls, and had none at hand that was good for any thing. The scribes and Pharisees filled them with vain notions, burthened them with the traditions of the elders, deluded them into many mistakes, while they were not instructed in their duty, nor acquainted with the extent and spiritual nature of the divine law; therefore they fainted; for what spiritual health, and life, and vigour can there be in those souls, that are fed with husks and ashes, instead of the bread of life? (Matthew Henry Commentary [Matt 9:36])

The Jews that gathered to hear Jesus speak were living in a culture that was constantly reminding them of not being able to live up to the standard of God’s Law. The Pharisees were especially adamant and relentless when it came to telling the people that they were way south of the standard that God expected them to live up to. And what made that so heinous was the fact that the Pharisees themselves were hypocrites in that they were unable to live up to the standard that they were using as a basis to condemn others.

What Is Jesus telling them?

When Christ taught, while He taught on a great many things, the centerpiece of His Message was the idea of a new approach to God that was infinitely easier than what man had access to at that time (see Matt 11:30). The Hebrews that Jesus spoke to were aware of a Promise that had been articulated by the prophets centuries earlier, but were unaware of what that Promise would look like. While they were conscious of some specifics, by the time Jesus arrived on the scene, the presence of the Romans coupled with the previous centuries of foreign oppression had most Hebrews looking for a military figure that would overthrow the current government.

But God had something much bigger in mind.

The Promise of the Messiah provided deliverance from the power of sin and the way in which it governed the lives and destinies of men.

“This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” (Jer 31:33-34)

When Jesus taught, He used Old Testament verbiage in order to communicate to the Jews the substance of what He was saying. When He said that His yoke was easy and that you would find rest for your souls in Matthew 11:28-30, the Jews heard Jeremiah 6:16. In that moment, they were processing Christ’s platform, not as a poetic collection of words, they heard Jesus stating His being the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy!

This “new covenant” was referenced by Jesus at the Last Supper when He presided over the Passover Ceremony and referred to the cup as the “new covenant in my blood (see Luke 22:20).” What He was saying was that His death and subsequent resurrection would atone for the sins of all mankind and thereby forever eliminate the barrier that would otherwise remain in place – a barrier that was only temporarily removed through the old sacrificial system.

It was in the context of this old system that the Pharisees were forever pointing fingers and accusing their communities of wrongdoing while they were guilty of the very same things. And it was this kind hypocrisy that Jesus was addressing in Matthew 7.

But while the Pharisees were guilty of hypocrisy in the way they indicted others for moral infractions that they were guilty of themselves, it wasn’t only the Pharisees that needed to hear Christ’s counsel. We all need to remember that while we are admonished to graciously confront those who are doing wrong, we need to ensure that our corrections are credible by not having to veil the fact that we’re doing the very thing we’re trying to tell someone they shouldn’t be doing.

That’s the first qualifier: Don’t be a hypocrite.

The second thing that He is saying is more easily recognizable when you look at way “The Message” renders the same passage:

Don’t pick on people, jump on their failures, criticize their faults— unless, of course, you want the same treatment. That critical spirit has a way of boomeranging. It’s easy to see a smudge on your neighbor’s face and be oblivious to the ugly sneer on your own. Do you have the nerve to say, ‘Let me wash your face for you,’ when your own face is distorted by contempt? It’s this whole traveling road- show mentality all over again, playing a holier-than-thou part instead of just living your part. Wipe that ugly sneer off your own face, and you might be fit to offer a washcloth to your neighbor. (Matthew 7:1-5 [The Message])

In addition to the issue of hypocrisy is the issue of your tone. Eugene Peterson refers to it as a “critical spirit.”

You see the same thing being addressed in Romans 14:10-12:

So where does that leave you when you criticize a brother? And where does that leave you when you condescend to a sister? I’d say it leaves you looking pretty silly—or worse. Eventually, we’re all going to end up kneeling side by side in the place of judgment, facing God. Your critical and condescending ways aren’t going to improve your position there one bit. Read it for yourself in Scripture:  “As I live and breathe,” God says, “every knee will bow before me; Every tongue will tell the honest truth that I and only I am God.” So tend to your knitting. You’ve got your hands full just taking care of your own life before God. (Romans 14:10-12 [The Message])

The bottom line is that we’re all going to be evaluated by God Himself and at that point, no one will be revealed as blameless. So for anyone to have an attitude that says, “I’ve got it all together and the rest of y’all are just trying to catch up!” is neither appropriate let alone accurate.

How Does This Apply to You and Me?

As has already been alluded to, what Jesus was telling His audience applies to you and me as well. Don’t be hypocritical and don’t be a condescending jerk. Both of those dynamics create tension that distracts from the resolution that needs to be pursued. In addition, they also reflect poorly on the God you supposedly represent (see Matt 5:16; Jn 13:34-35).

But here’s the thing: While Jesus is saying to avoid hypocrisy and a foul attitude, He is not saying to refrain from being discerning when it comes to distinguishing the difference between right and wrong.

For example, take Luke 17:3 where it says:

“If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.” (Luke 17:3)

In order for your brother’s conduct to register as sin, you have to define it as such. Jesus elaborates on the importance of confronting your brother where his sin is concerned in Matthew 18:15. What’s significant about that text is the fact that it follows the parable of the lost sheep. What’s being communicated here and throughout the Bible is that when you confront someone about something they’ve done wrong, the goal is to encourage them in a way that gets them back on track. Merely condemning their behavior, while that may be necessary, is short of what God wants and expects. Being critical is not necessarily helpful and that’s what Christ is targeting with His comments in Matthew 7. Rebuking someone is ultimately part of a process that is to culminate in that person repenting, avoiding all of the fallout from what their behavior would otherwise have precipitated, and getting on with a morally solid lifestyle.

In other words, the idea is to help and not harm.

That’s why it’s important to follow the steps the Jesus enumerates in Matthew 18 as far as going to your brother privately first, and then with a couple of witnesses and then finally you bring him before the church. At each step, the intervention that is occurring is done in a way that fosters a positive response.

Some won’t listen and will be antagonistic no matter how gracious you may be. It’s then when you have to determine whether or not your brother is open to the Truth and if not, Matthew 7:6 instructs you to not throw your pearls to swine who can’t appreciate it. But that doesn’t mean you give up, you just switch tactics.

You see that illustrated in First Corinthians 5 where the Corinthian church is instructed by Paul to expel a particular believer from the church because of his immoral conduct. It’s not unreasonable to imagine this individual accused the church of being “judgmental,” but this scenario demonstrates the very thing we’re discussing as far as Christ’s instructions in Matthew 7 were never intended to be interpreted as a command to not judge.

You have to judge as part of the process that corrects wrong behavior. In First Corinthians 5, the person is being kicked out of the church because of their apparent refusal to cease their immoral conduct. In Second Corinthians 2:5-11, you see Paul counseling the same church to reaffirm their love for a person who’s been recently disciplined. It may very well be the same person that was documented in First Corinthians 5. But regardless, it shows that wrongful behavior is to be identified and the guilty party is to be disciplined, but always with the goal of restoring that person to a place where they’re honoring God and by so doing, avoiding all of the hurt and damage that goes along with bad behavior.

The Bottom Line – Reprove and Improve

Judging a person is both necessary and helpful when done in a truly Biblical way. The difference between the kind of judging that Jesus refers to in Matthew 7 and the judging that culminated in the happy ending in 2 Corinthians 2 is accomplished by avoiding hypocrisy and maintaining a Christ like attitude.

There’s a word that captures the kind of judging that brings about a good result. That result is “reprove.” You see in 2 Timothy 4:2:

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. 2 Tim 4:2 [KJV])

Merriam-Webster defines “reprove” as “to scold or correct usually gently or with kindly intent.” So the motivation behind a reproof is to improve the condition of the person you’re talking to.

The definition of, “reprove” is “to scold or correct usually gently or with kindly intent.” It’s significant that you find the word “reprove” throughout Scripture and the liberality with which it is used further reinforces the need to correct and the and the necessary approach in order to ensure that the correction lands in a good place.

Consider another place where the word “reprove” is used in Ephesians 5:11:

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Eph 5:11)

Look at Matthew Henry’s Commentary on this verse:

There are many ways of our being accessary to the sins of others, by commendation, counsel, consent, or concealment. And, if we share with others in their sin, we must expect to share with them in their plagues. Nay, if we thus have fellowship with them, we shall be in the utmost danger of acting as they do ere long. But, rather than have fellowship with them, we must reprove them, implying that if we do not reprove the sins of others we have fellowship with them. We must prudently and in our places witness against the sins of others, and endeavour to convince them of their sinfulness, when we can do it seasonably and pertinently, in our words; but especially by the holiness of our lives, and a religious conversation. Reprove their sins by abounding in the contrary duties.(Matthew Henry Commentary on Ephesians 5:11)

The first highlighted sentence shows how you actually add to the problem by condemning them, as in the kind of judging we’ve been looking at in Matthew 7. Counseling, consent and concealment can all conceivably fit beneath the heading of “fellowship,” so you don’t want to go there either. You don’t want to have any part of those things that brings somebody down, rather you want to “reprove” them effectively by first off ensuring that our own behavior is devoid of the discrepancy we’re pointing out and then address our audience in a way that makes it clear that our priority is their welfare.

Look at Galatians 6:1:

Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. (Gal 6:1 [ESV])

11 Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you— who are you to judge your neighbor? (Jas 4:11-12)

In order to restore somebody, you first need to establish that they need to be restored which inevitably is going to involve telling them that they’re wrong in what they’re doing. It’s not being judgmental, like what Christ elaborated on in Matthew 7, provided you’re not guilty of hypocrisy or an inappropriately critical attitude.

It’s much like seeing a friend yours driving down the road doing 90 in a 35. You call them on their cell phone and you tell them, “Be careful! You’re speeding and somebody might get hurt.” That works! What doesn’t work is when you call them on their cell as you’re speeding past them telling them they shouldn’t speed and you’re going to give them a ticket.

First off, you’re not the one to give them a ticket, which is the dynamic being referred to in James 4:11- 12. The fact that you’re actually faster than they are, as you’re telling them they should slow down, is the hypocrisy piece referred to by Jesus in Matthew 7:4-5. Should your tone of voice be condescending and overly critical, that’s the nonsense Paul talks about in Romans 14:10-11.

So don’t judge in the context of being hypocritical or posing as the Magistrate that issues the actual ticket. But do embrace those opportunities that God gives you to come alongside someone and help them recognize the error of their ways.

Look at James 5:20:

20 remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins. (Jas 5:20)

That’s what we’re going for: The wellbeing of the person we’re correcting, both in a temporary and an eternal sense.

So do judge (Jn 7:24), as far as exercising your God given responsibility to look out for the welfare of others, but don’t judge in a way that comes across as hypocritical and condescending. And remember that your goal is to draw them closer to Christ, not to merely point out the error of their ways. By making that your starting point and your goal, you are then offering a reproof rather than what is perceived as a condemnation and that reflects well both on you and the One you serve.