When We Are Called To Fail

Achieving the wrong goals can never be considered a good thing. To win the wrong prize is to lose.

For thousands of years the universal church has been trying to win the war of power. For the past 200 years the overwhelming majority of the American Restoration Movement has been engaged in winning that battle as well. (We have had our cultural non-conformists, but they have always been pushed to the periphery and ignored.) Today the war trumpets are at full blast – lose the presidency and we lose the Supreme Court and if we lose the Supreme Court we lose . . . power.

Power. It’s all about power. Preachers want to increase the church attendance so the budget can go up so a bigger building can be built so that they can receive greater and greater accolades and . . . more power. University presidents want their endowments to increase so they can build more and bigger buildings and fund more competitive athletic teams so they can bring in even more money and . . . more power. If the American system of economics or justice or education or religion any other topic can be summarized in one word it would be the acquisition of power.

How tragic, then, when we use the name and sacrifice of Jesus to gain that power. Jesus was not just the picture of refusing worldly power, he literally incarnated it. It was Jesus’s kenosis, his self-emptying of all heavenly power, that was the force behind the explosive growth of the church in the first 300 years of its existence. In a paradox that defies all human explanation – and in a refutation of every secular growth strategy – the church grew the fastest and had the greatest impact on vastly different cultures precisely when it was the weakest.

For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong. (2 Corinthians 12:10)

If the apostle Paul were preaching today, he would be considered delusional.

If that is considered delusional, then count me in too. I am growing more and more convinced that in order for God to preserve his church he is going to have to drive it into cultural bankruptcy. That is to say the church will have to once again assume its position of secular powerlessness and irrelevancy. Then, having reached the bottom of what the world would consider to be power, we can be open to receive the limitless and irrepressible power of God’s Holy Spirit. Then, maybe we can be to American hubris what the first disciples of Christ were to Caesar.

Label me a heretic if you will, but I am not too terribly concerned that the church grows. I am vitally concerned that church leaders create, and re-create, faithful disciples of Christ. If our numbers decrease, but our faith and commitment deepens, we will have won a great victory. I do not want more and more of the shallow pew sitters we have been satisfied with over the past 50-100 years. I want men and women who are so committed to their Lord that they would gladly forfeit everything to be known as one of Christ’s disciples.

The church must once again reject pursuits of what the world falsely labels as power. There is a biblical power to be sure – a power of service, a power of selflessness, a power that surrenders all power to the Holy Spirit. We need more of that power! But we must no longer submit our goals and aspirations to the vision of power that is nothing more than satanic.

We get blinded when look at the brightness of the characters in the Bible that God raised to secular power. We see Joseph as second-in-command to Pharaoh. We see Esther and David and Hezekiah and Josiah. But, let me ask a question: compared to the millions and millions of faithful, spiritual men and women who walked with God – what are these few but a drop in the vast ocean of faithfulness? If God chooses to place someone in a position of secular power, so be it. His ways are past our understanding. My grasp of biblical history is that we should fear such appointments rather than seek them, however. One of the greatest temptations our Lord had to reject was the satanic gift of power.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. . . Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:7, 12)

It is a paradox, or an irony, that the more we relinquish our human power, the more we surrender that which we think makes us strong, then God provides us with a true and unquenchable power. It is the power of the wash basin and the towel, of the cross. It is the power of viewing ourselves as nothing more than seed sowers and plant waterers. It is the power that only comes when we have the power to say, “I am nothing.”

God has called us to this “no-thing-ness.” When we submit to that call, when we wear the mantle of God’s disciple, we must surrender our most treasured possession – our will to power. As long as we hold onto the drive for power we remain unable to accept God’s most precious gift: the gift of the blood of his Son which was offered during the scene of the greatest example of weakness overcoming power – the cross.

If our baptism does not change our perception of the world and of its lies, then what good does it do to get wet?

There are ways to achieve goals that are not worth fighting for. We can obtain power by using the tricks and manipulations of Satan’s world. But the question I want to ask is why would we want to? If achieving that goal further’s Satan’s kingdom, wouldn’t it be better to fail?

Let us ascend by climbing lower.

Follow-Up to ‘A Church Shameful to Christ’ (last post)

Upon reading and re-reading my last post, I feel a few follow-up comments are warranted.

First, I admit my emotions may have come through a little too forcefully in that post. I do not retract anything that I said, but this is an emotional topic for me. Also, the past few weeks of my life have been anything but normal or settled, and perhaps the events of the past couple of weeks made my trigger finger a little too edgy. Sometimes I feel a need to apologize for unkind words or thoughts, and while I do not think I crossed any lines, I do want to offer some additional thoughts that might help explain the rawness of my last post.

I have said repeatedly that I am a child of the American Restoration Movement, and I not only am I deeply moved by the goals of that movement, I am proud of the better angels of that movement. I am aware no group of people throughout history has been perfect, and the members of the Restoration Movement are not exception to that rule. We have had our black sheep, and our closets are more than full of rotting skeletons. What transpired 200 years ago almost to the year, on the Western Reserve of Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Ohio, and south to Tennessee is nothing short of an American miracle. I am grateful to be an heir of that miracle.

The tragedy of the Movement is that we stopped moving. The focus of Alexander Campbell, Barton W. Stone and their compatriots was virtually entirely focused on the externals of ecclesiology. We focused on how to enter the church (baptism) and what one received in the process (forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit). We focused on church polity and decorum (proper worship and congregational government). In other words, over ninety percent of our efforts were focused on the visible congregation, how it was administered, how one entered it, and how one behaved in its assemblies. What was virtually non-existent was any sustained focus on what might be termed the spiritual nature of the Christian life. Exceptions exist, but, as I said, the vast, overwhelming majority of the foci of the early Restoration leaders was on the visible aspects of the congregation.

The problem with that emphasis is, once it was “restored,” once it was deemed to have been brought back into line with New Testament teaching, what else was there to restore? So, we quit restoring and starting fighting. Having decided that we were going to make our stand over jots and tittles, we started civil wars over who could count the most jots and decide the significance of the tiniest tittles.

For proof of that assertion, I point to how our fellowship has distinguished itself in topics that are generally considered to be of biblical or ecclesial importance. Scholars who are associated with the Churches of Christ have distinguished themselves almost exclusively in the areas of New Testament studies and church history, especially within the first three centuries of the church. There are a much smaller number of scholars or authors who are respected in Old Testament studies. Once you leave the fields of textual studies and early church history, the number of scholars, or even of respected authors, from the Churches of Christ virtually vanishes.

  • I know of no member of the Churches of Christ who is respected and recognized in the field of the spiritual disciplines (prayer, fasting, meditation, contemplation, giving, – some authors provide a dozen or more specific spiritual disciplines).
  • I know of no member of the Churches of Christ who is respected and recognized in the field of spiritual direction.
  • I know of no member of the Churches of Christ who is respected and recognized in the field Christian ethics.
  • I can only think of one peer-recognized author in the field of biblical theology.
  • I know of no member of the Churches of Christ who is respected and recognized in the field of serious, biblical ecumenical work.
  • The last of the great revival preachers among the Churches of Christ, those who could roar like Amos and weep like Jeremiah, are all retired or long dead.

Now, just because I do not know of such authors or scholars does not mean they do not exist. But I do read broadly, and the absence of authors from my own spiritual family in these and other areas is deeply disturbing to me. We have fought for decades to “have a place at the conversation table,” and seemingly at the moment we were granted that place, we just quit trying. Or, those who were invited to the table are just so embarrassed to be associated with the Church of Christ that they just rubber stamp what everyone else is saying. That is not ecumenism. That is cowardice.

What I do see is a widening and deepening chasm among factions within the church. On the left I see an avalanche of writing and teaching that has fully accepted the core tenets of evangelicalism. This is actually the full born fruit of Alexander Campbell’s later years and philosophy – “If you cannot beat ’em, join ’em.” In that sense these liberals are pure Campbellites, and they are utterly clueless about what that term means.

On the reactionary right I see the full grown fruit of the poisonous legalism that was introduced by such journals as The Heretic Detector (yes, that was an actual journal). Self-proclaimed guardians of the faith have made a career out of “outing” such blasphemous practices as raising hands or clapping during the singing of a song, having a functioning coffee pot during a Bible class, or, heaven forbid, singing a song during the participation of the Lord’s Supper (you cannot participate in two acts of worship simultaneously!).

Somehow, after two millennia of church history, we have succeeded in re-establishing both the Sadducees and the Pharisees.

When I first started my Doctor of Ministry degree, I had a private conversation with one of the directors of the program. He asked me what I wanted out of my specific study. After a considerable amount of embarrassed humming and hawing, I managed to weakly blurt out, “I want to help the Church of Christ be the church of Christ again.” He allowed that was a pretty noble quest.

Which brings me to my last post, “A Church Shameful to Christ.” It as an emotional outpouring, I admit. But I am pretty emotional right now. I see a church that is increasingly becoming more political (on both ends of the spectrum) – and simultaneously becoming less influential. I see a church that is doing everything that it can to appear to the world to be acceptable and popular. At the same time I see a retrenchment into attitudes that were divisive the first time around, and are proving to be even more divisive today. I see a church that is increasingly becoming embarrassed to be associated with the Bible (instead of Bible lectureships, we now have such foofy lectureships as “Summit” and “Harbor.”) The presidents of the universities and colleges associated with the Churches of Christ have displayed an unwillingness to stand up to the LGBTQ cabal that is repugnant, quite frankly. We are preparing more men (and women!) to preach in evangelical churches than we are men who are committed to Restoration principles.

As the church universal sinks deeper and deeper into utter irrelevancy, the message of the Restoration Movement is a clear and penetrating beacon in an otherwise wretched night. But, we cannot keep fighting battles that were fought and decided centuries ago and yet still consider ourselves faithful to Jesus. We have to move on past the jots and the tittles. Without surrendering an inch of the gains we have made in our biblical and historical studies (which are prodigious, and worth promoting), we must, we absolutely must, move forward.

We must return to discipleship. We must return to Christ. We must return to the basics of what it means to “put off the old self, and to put on the new creation.” We must lay aside the basic fundamentals and move on to a full humanity in Christ Jesus. I do not begrudge my forefathers one little bit, but in order to honor them I must keep the restoration flame burning. I cannot build a city where they merely pitched a tent.

God will not judge this generation, or any generation, on the basis of the successes or failures of the preceding generation. The church of the 21st century will be judged by how we both live and proclaim the cross of Jesus to a bent and broken and dying world.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I just don’t see us doing that. That makes me emotional – and sometimes when I write I let off more steam than I generate light.

If I offended, please forgive. If I spoke truth – let’s get it right.

In everything, let us ascend lower.

A Church Shameful to Christ

A turning to the world that merely seeks an arbitrary accommodation that will make the Church respected and popular in the world of science is shameful to the Church and to Christ. (Thomas Merton)

Somehow I get the impression that if humankind has not committed mass suicide within the next 100 years, that the last half of the 20th century and the first half of the 21st century will be remembered as one of the most debauched and contemptible eras of the Christian Church. That, I admit, takes some doing given the reality of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the abject silence during the Nazi pogroms. At least following the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Nazis, the Church admitted her failures, and more critically, (at least hopefully) made the necessary confession and repentance to never again traffic in those barbaric atrocities.

I question whether the contemporary Church has the self-awareness to even begin to recognize her complicity in the post-modern world’s headlong rush into oblivion.

On the one side are the libertarians who rejoice in the toothless message of contemporary Christianity – the only problem with society today is the false guilt imposed by a repressive and domineering religious institution.

On the other side are the reactionists who blindly cling to the myth of a golden decade of Church perfection – the decade which, by the way, is responsible for sowing the seeds of dysfunction that we see so ripe for harvest today.

I have a friend who brilliantly assessed the source of today’s ineffective Church: the elders of the ’50s, 60’s and 70’s laid down the mantles of shepherds and dressed themselves in the suits of the corporate boardroom. They “ran” the church like a secular business.

Guess what? The Church is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Secularity.com.

It breaks my heart to hear of stories of congregations that have so completely sold their soul to the secular model of success that they do not even stop to question whether a particular practice or innovation might be or might not be compatible with Scripture. In fact, you might say that Scripture is meaningless to them outside of the emotional high they get from convincing themselves that because they see a text or two on a PowerPoint presentation, that they are a biblical church. They cannot confront a godless society because they have driven God from their own buildings. They are as useful in confronting evil as the German Christians were in confronting Hitler. Which is to say, not useful at all.

But my heart is equally broken by the obtuse refusal by others to even consider that their legalistic approach to conservatism has been a blight on the Bride of Christ for decades, if not centuries. I have been a personal witness to the vitriol expressed to a family who changed membership from one congregation to another. The crime committed by the congregation of choice? The presence of a “fellowship hall” that happened to provide a place for communal meals. Churches have divided over the color of the new carpet to be laid, and the purchase of a hymnal produced by the wrong publishing house. Read from the “wrong” translation in some congregations and you can be disfellowshipped.

You see, both thoughtless Liberals and rabid Fundamentalists have transformed the Church into something that it was never intended to be, and indeed, cannot be. They have both, in radically different ways, attempted to “make the Church respected and popular.” But they have fallen into opposite, yet equal, sides of secularity. Both view the interpretations and conclusions of man as their only solid foundation. The Liberals want to make the Church popular with the dominant, secular viewpoint of the world. The Fundamentalists want to make the Church popular with a minority, yet no less secular, viewpoint of the “righteous remnant.” Where these opposite, and seemingly irreconcilable, viewpoints collide is in the realm of human pride – the ego of a group of people who consider themselves smarter (and in many respects, holier!) than God.

I consider myself to be a staunch opponent of the moral and doctrinal laxity of those on the left. But I am no more of a fan of the hubris and Phariseeism on the right.

Jesus confronted the libertarian Sadducees with an ultimatum: If you love me you will keep my commandments. Discipleship under Christ requires that we accept, and promote, the non-negotiable truths of biblical doctrine, including moral behavior. We do not get to choose what is, or is not, acceptable to God. We follow him or we reject him, there is no middle ground.

On the other hand, Jesus confronted the ultra conservative Pharisees with an equal ultimatum: Go discover what this text means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ Mindless subservience to legal codes does not draw a person closer to God – quite the opposite. Legalism kills, Phariseeism leads to despair.

The contemporary Church has lost her voice. We no longer speak of healing and renewal to a bent and broken world.

I think there is still hope, I think we can still leave the bondage of Egypt – but I have to wonder,

Where is our Moses?

Jesus and the Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8)

Last night in our Bible study we had a wonderful discussion of the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11). To begin, there is the necessary discussion of whether the story actually belongs in the gospel of John. To be scientifically precise, I am not convinced it does. The oldest manuscript that contains the account dates to the fifth century (i.e. 400 years after Jesus lived), and subsequent manuscripts date much, much later. The story interrupts the flow from 7:52 to 8:12, but that in-and-of-itself does not mean much – the gospel writers are more than willing to demonstrate that there really was not a “normal” day of teaching for Jesus. But all of the technical “stuff” aside, the story of the woman caught in adultery has a power that makes it virtually impossible for modern translations to ignore – despite the evidence to the contrary. I know of no modern translation that removes the pericope from the text and either puts it in a footnote or eliminates it altogether. Sometimes tradition is just too powerful for even the hardiest of “change agents.”

In my mind the story generates more questions than it answers: if the woman was “caught” in adultery (as the text states), where is the guilty man? As our teacher pointed out, last time he checked, adultery required two participants. And, everyone’s favorite question, what did Jesus write in the dirt? There are as many answers to that question as there are people who make guesses, but my favorite response is connected to that very first question. Obviously no one knows what Jesus wrote, but my guess is that he pointed out the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees with a simple question, “Where is the man?” I also personally wonder how it came to  be the the woman was “caught” in the act. Was she set up? Was she followed? Was she known to be an adulteress, and so catching her was not that difficult?

Our teacher asked another question last night that I had never stopped to consider: why did the scribes and Pharisees bring the woman to Jesus in the first place? He had no legal authority, and his opinion would have been utterly meaningless to any tribunal that might have been convened to hear the woman’s case. In that respect, the question before Jesus was a blatant attempt to discredit him, and even worse, to provide a pretext to get him in trouble with the Sanhedrin. Questions, questions, questions.

I have two observations regarding the text, at least in connection to our study last night. The first is kind of technical. In our English translations (especially the ESV), Jesus’s response to the Pharisees appears to be one of qualified, and in the mind of most readers, unattainable, permission to stone the woman. Reading the text in the Greek I was struck by a different tone – Jesus is commanding the stoning to begin (the Greek verb is in the imperative mood), but the sentence must begin with the person(s) who were without sin from among the accusers. Those two emphases are often overlooked. One, Jesus agrees with the interpretation from the Law of Moses – such adulterers must be executed. There appears to be no question of guilt here. But – and this is a huge but – the sentence must be carried out by those who have no complicity in the situation. Here is a point that I think most interpreters either overlook, or willfully ignore. The entire scenario just reeks of injustice. The equally guilty male is nowhere to be seen. This is no trial, it equates to a lynching. The hypocrisy of the Pharisees is not just apparent, it is blatant.

I disagree with the interpretation that Jesus is requiring that in order for the sentence to be executed those who accused the woman must be sinless in every respect. That would be an impossible requirement. It is a common view, I grant, but one that is totally outside of any biblical justification. Those who were commanded to execute guilty criminals under the Law of Moses were not required to be perfectly sinless in every respect. However, they could not be complicit in the crime, and could certainly not be guilty of false accusations and of conducting a sham trial. In my understanding, Jesus is looking the scribes and Pharisees squarely in the eye and saying, “I see what is going on here, and you all are just as guilty as this woman – if not more so. So, go ahead, stone her – but let the innocent cast the first stone, if there is anyone here who is innocent in this matter.”

Second, what I see about this story is the incredible power of Jesus to completely change the dynamics of a situation, and to free a tortured person from their prison. As I mentioned above, there appears to be no question of guilt here. The woman was caught, apparently in the act of sexual adultery. Her sin was obvious. According to the strict interpretation of the law, she had no defense and her life was forfeit. Yet, in spite of that, Jesus completely re-wrote the script and condemned her accusers and set her free. He forgave her, with the emphatic caveat that she not continue in her life of sexual impurity. This is why, I think, that despite the textual evidence to the contrary, this story remains in our English translations. As one of my professors summarized, it may not be genuine John, but the story is clearly genuine Jesus.

This story convicts us on many different levels. How many times do we fall in with the Pharisees? We know the rules. We love the rules. We hate those who violate the rules, and we especially hate those who excuse those who violate the rules. We demand justice be done to those who violate the rules. We are good, Bible believing, rule following Christians. And then we read this story and all of our legalisms are blown up. Jesus sides with the accused, and we end up dropping our rocks and walking away chastised and embarrassed.

On the other hand, I think we all hope, to some degree or another, that Jesus will treat us like he treated the woman. We know we are guilty, we know we have no defense. We have been caught “red handed.” All we can do is hope that this teacher blesses us with those words, “Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.”

What a story! And what better way to illustrate that we all ascend higher if we climb lower.

Bad Assumptions Lead to Tainted Conclusions!

I came across an article recently, and as I pondered it a number of strikingly bad assumptions became evident. It might be a good idea for you to read the article in its original context before you read this post so that you can make up your own mind regarding the truthfulness or falsity of the author’s conclusions.

Must women really keep silent in the churches?

The first incorrect assumption the author makes is this, “For starters, it would create a hopeless contradiction with what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:5, which indicates that women were ‘praying and prophesying’ in the church. Paul doesn’t rebuke their praying and prophesying in church.” Some space later he repeats himself, “Again, Paul is not against women speaking altogether. He acknowledges that they are praying out loud and prophesying out loud in the assembly (1 Corinthians 11:5).” The problem with these two statements is that they are simply not true. Nowhere in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is the assembly in view. Paul is not rebuking the women for praying or prophesying in the assembly (true statement) but he is not defending those practices either. He is simply making an argument from general decorum – when men pray or prophesy they are not to have their heads covered, when women pray or prophesy they are supposed to have their heads covered. The when or where is simply not mentioned because it is not a factor in Paul’s argument. (As an aside here, I think Paul does the same thing in 1 Corinthians 15:29 when he makes reference to those who baptize on behalf of the dead. He does not commend the practice, nor necessarily refute it – he simply mentions it.)

However, beginning in 1 Corinthians 11:17 a significant shift occurs – “But in the following instructions . . .” (emphasis mine). Notice the following emphases on the assembly-

  • “When you come together” – 11:17
  • “When you come together as a church” – 11:18
  • “When you come together” – 11:20
  • “When you come together to eat” – 11:33
  • “If, therefore, the whole church comes together” – 14:23
  • “When you come together” – 14:26

There is a clear literary, and therefore contextual, break between 1 Corinthians 11:16 and 11:17 and following. When Paul finishes his generic argument, and when he moves to specific practices that ought to be done or ought not to be done, he repeatedly uses the definitive, “when you come together” or “when the church comes together.” To overlook or to dismiss this clear rhetorical device is to totally confuse Paul’s arguments, and therefore to destroy them.

The second incorrect assumption the author makes is this, “Paul is commanding the women to keep silent in a certain context – during the judgment of prophecies.” The fact is Paul never connects the judging of prophecies specifically to women speaking. The connection simply is not there. To illustrate his conjecture, he creates a hypothetical situation that is utterly foreign to the context he so pointedly refers to. “But this creates a potential problem. What happens if a husband prophesies, and his wife is a prophet as well? Is the husband supposed to be subject to his wife during the judgment of prophecies?” He answers his own hypothetical, “For that reason, he enjoins women in this context to refrain from the judgment of prophecies.” (emphasis Burk’s)

If it is possible for us to overlook the egregious hypothesizing going on here, let us just stop and consider what he is asking us to believe. In this scenario, a married man, a male prophet, utters a prophetic teaching. His wife, also a prophet (I guess that would make her a prophetess), recognizes that what her husband said is wrong, or at least needs some correction. As far as the audience is concerned, the same Holy Spirit speaks through both of them, but because she is a female she is to refrain from correcting her erroneous husband, even though she is led by the Holy Spirit and is correct in her judgment. This simply staggers the imagination! Not to mention raising the issue of whether a prophet can claim prophetic inspiration if his teaching is erroneous. What is the church to do if there is no other male prophet who can “judge” the first speakers prophecy?

The third false assumption the author makes is this, “Today, reading aloud God’s revelation from scripture (sic) is the functional equivalent of prophesying God’s revelation in Paul’s day. Biblically speaking, it would be totally in keeping with Paul’s instructions for women to be reading scripture (sic) and praying during the gathered assembly of God’s people. Both of those things can be done in a way that honors the headship principle (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:2-16).” Again, by referring to the text that has nothing to do with the assembly, the author invalidates his assumption. But, more to the point, since when does simply reading a text equate to the prophetic gift that caused that text to come into existence? The assumed conclusion is specious. It has no merit.

If the author makes these false assumptions, what then of his conclusions. He makes two. First, “. . . we go beyond the example of scripture (sic) if we foreclose what Paul clearly allows – women praying and sharing God’s revelation during worship services.” Paul does not “clearly allow” such practices, and there is no defense of such an argument from the text. Second, “. . . it would be a violation of headship for women to teach or to exercise authority in corporate worship. Teaching is explaining and applying an already-given revelation. The judgment of prophecies would have included evaluations which are the functional equivalent of teaching. And that is why Paul does not wish for women to judge prophecies in the gathered assembly.” Okay, here is where it really gets confusing for me. A woman can read the text, but she cannot explicate it? She can assume a leadership role in leading in public Scripture reading or prayer, but she cannot assume a leadership role in preaching a sermon or teaching a class? Here is where the author attempts to split a hair, and in my personal opinion, fails so miserably.

The author does not believe women should exercise a leadership role in the public worship, a position that I also hold. The author believes that the miraculous manifestation of prophecy has ceased, another position that I personally hold. So why complain so vehemently with the manner in which the author arrives at his conclusions? (Well, actually, he only refers to his defense of cessationism)? The answer I believe is critical to understand.

Simply stated, when we use faulty logic, or even worse, faulty exegesis, to defend a position that we hold we do two things. One, we ultimately make it more difficult for others to correctly defend any given position because those who see through their errors attach those errors to our apologetic. Stated another way, the fruit of the poisoned tree taints all other fruit, simply by association. Second, we provide for those who disagree with us a ready and solid attack against the conclusions we draw. Personally, if I disagreed with this particular author, I could have a field day attacking his position. Shoot – he basically does it for me, telling me that it is perfectly okay for a woman to prophesy (read God’s inspired Scripture publicly), but she cannot tell me what the text means because she would be violating Paul’s “headship” principle by “judging a prophecy.”

I am enough of a “fundamentalist” (if you want to call me that) that I believe arriving at the correct interpretation of a text is absolutely critical. But, I also am convinced to the marrow in my bones that the manner in which we arrive at those conclusions, and the manner in which we publicly proclaim those conclusions, are both equally critical. We simply cannot use faulty logic and faulty exegesis and theological practices to defend what we believe to be true.

Let us be faithful to the message, but let us also be humble servants of the task of exegesis and hermeneutics.

Enemies of the Cross Defeat Themselves

In response to my last post, “Musings on the Gospel of Christ,” I would venture that more than one atheist or agnostic would say, “But what of the countless wars and violence that have been perpetrated in the name of Christ?” I do not shrink from such questions, for despite the intention to defeat my argument, they actually confirm my point.

Every example of war, violence, manipulation, and disgrace that has been attributed to the church of Christ is actually a demonstration or manifestation of the depth of the abyss of the human nature, unredeemed by the gospel of Christ. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the European Wars of Religion, even the current litany of examples of sexual and physical abuse by clergy in the Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist Convention are examples of human behavior in rebellion to and in direct opposition to the pure gospel of Christ, not as a demonstration of that gospel. (As an example of this pure gospel, I point no further than the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7).

Conversely, where the gospel of Christ has been faithfully and humbly presented hospitals have been built, orphanages created, lives saved, marriages renewed, children fed, homes built, clean water delivered, addictions treated, the environment repaired. Children and adults have been educated, medicine has been delivered, infant mortality has decreased while deaths associated with childbirth have dropped. Works of visual and musical arts that have stood the test of centuries have been created, and are still being created. The pain of natural disasters has been assuaged. The list could go on.

  • Compare that that to Marxism – millions killed and countless others impoverished, not because of a misunderstanding of Marxism, but as a direct result of its most egregious doctrines.
  • Compare that to Islam – where its very founder decreed that a person must convert or die. (The only other option, to live in obscurity, being able to neither promote nor practice one’s faith).
  • Compare that to National Socialism – where over 6 million Jews and other “undesirables” were ruthlessly exterminated in the name of law, order, and cultural purity.
  • Compare that to secular humanism – the very diseased fruit that we see “live and in living color” as it unfolds in front of us: a psychosis that is in the process of of annihilating our culture one murderous step at a time. Reference the rise in drug and alcohol addition, the rise in sexual dysfunctions, the rise in pornography, abortion, racial violence, and the growing sense of futility and meaninglessness.

So, trot out the old canard about Christianity, or I prefer to refer to the gospel of Christ, as being the root of all of mankind’s problems. The evidence is stacked against such an accusation, and a fair reading will leave such a charge smoldering in dust and ashes. I fear no such claim. Truth does not fear attack, and lies will be seen as lies.

I do not hesitate to confess that horrific abuses have been perpetrated in the name of Christ – wars, sexual and physical abuse, torture. But, those behaviors are the result of fallen human nature, and are in direct rebellion to the selfless giving of God and Christ. – as preeminently displayed in the crucifixion. The Bible teaches that such actions are reprehensible, not, as in the case of some of the ideologies listed above, a part of the core teachings of those ideologies.

We, as disciples of Christ, must do a better job of apologetics, and a better job of living the gospel of Christ. The problem is our sinful nature, not the purity of the gospel. I repeat what I have said earlier – the only hope for our culture, and perhaps the entire world, is a return to the gospel of Christ.

We must ascend by climbing lower.

Musings on the Gospel of Christ

We are an empty people.

Perhaps it has always been that way – I’m not old enough to remember the days pre-Enlightenment. I’m not too sure about the 1800’s and early 1900’s either. Maybe people were empty back then, too. Maybe one defining mark of humanity is this cavernous emptiness eats away at our soul.

I guess what strikes me about our present culture is how fast, and how far, we have fallen.

We tried the drug thing, and we tried the sex thing. Those analgesics helped for a while, or so it seemed. But when the false high of the drugs and sex wore off, our emptiness became even greater than the void that drove us to the drugs and sex.

The emptiness that returned has now grown to the point that we do not even know what it means to be human any more. Our biological sex is no longer even certain. I read this week where children of younger and younger ages are being given life-altering drugs and undergoing radical surgeries to “change” their birth sex. Boys are undergoing operations to remove their external genitalia and are being given drugs that will keep them in a state of perpetual pre-puberty. Girls are undergoing double mastectomies and are being given massive doses of male hormones. And, if the article is truthful, these procedures are being performed on children as young as 8 or 9 years old.

We have totally redefined marriage, the core unit of any society. With the stupefying progress we have made in the progress to help infertile, heterosexual couples, we now have lesbians carrying “their” babies and gay men parenting a child carried by a surrogate woman.

In terms of gender and sexuality, and by extension marriage, all hell has indeed broken loose.

In politics and partisan conversations, logical and open debate has been replaced by unbridled hatred. Unsubstantiated and unverifiable claims of abuse from three or four decades in the past can destroy a person’s entire career – the accusation does not need to have merit, simply the fact that it has been made is deemed to be enough. A person can honestly and sincerely confess to angry emotions (not actions, mind you, just emotions) and the person is vilified simply because he felt those emotions. And he was confessing the error of holding those emotions!!

Simply put, we don’t have to listen anymore, all we have to do is scream and blacklist and vilify and protest. Descartes’s famous dictum, “I think, therefore I am” has been corrected to, “I hate, therefore I am.”

No one ever proposes a solution. We just hate, and protest. And those who disagree with us just counter-protest. And hate us.

We are just a profoundly empty people. We have no center. When we look deep inside ourselves, there is no “there” there.

And, without a center, without a core truth that sustains us, we have no hope.

And, a people that has no hope will ultimately, and quickly, descend into pure anarchy.

I think we have already started. We have met the enemy, and it is us. (Pogo!)

It is at this point that the gospel of Christ is the most powerful. It is only when it is darkest that a light can be seen most clearly. It is the gospel of Christ that must be returned to the center of our culture – or we face certain annihilation. It is only the gospel of Christ that will allow humans to regain their humanity – it is only the gospel of Christ that gives males the power and joy to be males and gives females the power and joy to be females. It is only the gospel of Christ that will allow virtual wars to become peaceful discussions once again. It is only the gospel of Christ that will allow what is left of our culture to survive – assuming God will even grant it to be healed from the mess we have made of it.

Has a culture ever been as empty as ours? I cannot answer that. I do know that wherever and whenever the gospel of Christ has been preached faithfully, entire civilizations have been renewed.

Can it happen once again, can it happen with us? With God all things are possible.

But, only through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Any other solution will be vanity, a dark and empty void.