Results tagged “Christianity” from Reformation21 Blog

Leaving the Faith: Reflections of a Prodigal

|

By now the firestorm of commentary around Josh Harris' public announcement--that he has not only divorced, but departed from the Christian faith--has died down. People have moved on, but not before delivering a slew of analysis, indictments, pleas, condemnation, and speculation.  

When the news hit and I observed all the commentary, I too wanted to offer my two cents. However, I found myself struggling to say anything publicly. While I do think there might be some merit to the contributing factors cited, namely that he was never a true believer to begin with, I know there is more to the story than simple pat answers can provide. Now with the news that Marty Sampson of Hillsong fame has announced his departure from the faith, I am compelled to speak.

You see, I was a prodigal. I came to Christ in my first year in college in 1982. Though I grew up  in a missionary Baptist church, if the gospel was preached I guess I didn't have ears to hear it. By my junior year in high school, I came to the conclusion that church just wasn't for me, and I resisted attendance any further.  

That all changed when I got to college and met a couple of Christians. They didn't talk to me about church; they told me about Jesus. To this day I can't remember everything they said to me, except for this one line: "You're looking for something and you won't find it until you find Jesus." After a couple of visits to the Thursday night worship/bible study, the reality that I needed Jesus as my Savior stirred by soul with such a convicting force that I found myself on my knees in the quietness of my dorm room, telling Jesus I was a sinner and that I needed him. That's all I knew at the time.

Over the next few years, I would be ingrained in the life of the church, including the college group and whatever fellowship opportunities that arose. To be clear, my participation was a direct reflection of what I believed to be true about the faith that I now embraced: That Jesus died for my sins, and receiving him as Savior meant that I was to live for him. For the most part, I tried. I was diligent with Bible reading, prayer, fellowship, and the like.

Unfortunately, the deceitfulness of sin began to erode my walk. This is why James issues a stern warning about our own lusts that can lead us down a dangerous path, "But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death" (James 1:14-15). It didn't help that I sat under some unfaithful and distorted teaching that really didn't deal honestly with the sin nature that still tries the soul.

After a few years from my "conversion," I walked away from the faith in 1986. While I never denounced Christianity or indicated I was no longer a Christian, my line of thinking definitely echoed what I hear Harris and Sampson utter--there was a deconstruction, if you will. But really, it was flat out rebellion. I could not live within a Christian construct any longer, foolishly believing that it was freedom. I lived as one who did not believe, doing what was right in my own eyes, and making many foolish decisions along the way.

That all changed towards the end of 1998. By then I was in my second marriage to a nonbeliever, living under very unpleasant circumstances, and about to experience preliminary stages of a life altering illness. The Lord used the examples of his family members, very committed Christians, to bring about conviction to my heart that eventually led to repentance at the beginning of 1999. Shortly after my husband collapsed from what we would later learn was complete renal failure (which led to his death in 2004), the Lord had fully gripped my heart and wooed me back. His kindness truly does lead to repentance. 

Like so many speculating about Harris, I can give you the precise theological language about my soteriological position from a Reformed perspective. But honestly, I can't tell you whether I was a Christian, so seeped in rebellion that it took 13 years to come to my senses, or if I was never truly a Christian to begin with. All I know is that I was lost and now I'm found. The Lord has so graciously dealt with me, drawing me to himself. He lifted this prodigal out of the depths of sinful mire and gave me eyes to see his grace, beauty and forgiveness.

I've had some trying times since that miraculous day in 1999. I've been confronted with doubts and disappointments, trials that sent my mind into a tailspin, times of feelings of abandonment, hard and slow areas of sanctification, and bouts of numbness. The words of Peter in response to Jesus in John 6:68-69 permeate my heart, just as it did that day I read it 20 years ago. When those following Jesus began to depart in droves because they couldn't get with what Jesus was saying about himself, Jesus turned to Peter and asked, "Do you want to go away as well?" Peter's response pierces my soul to this very day: 

"Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."

This has anchored me in those times of apparent contradiction. It has propelled me to keep clinging to Christ and trust in his all sufficient work when my mind and my circumstances tempted me not to. But I also know that it is only because of Christ's love for me and the empowerment of the Holy Spirit that has sustained me. And where else could I go, but in the firm grip of the loving Father? Unfortunately, it took me wandering away to really learn there was no place else.  

So while everyone has moved on from Harris, I consider my story and still wonder about him. Perhaps this is not the end. Whether he was ever in the Father's hand or not, I wonder if there still might be hope for him to find himself there. I know what it's like to "feel" like you're free from the shackles of what your rebellion deems a restrictive religious paradigm. But I also know that apart from Christ, there truly is no freedom at all.  


Lisa Robinson holds a ThM degree from Dallas Theological Seminary (2014). She is newly married and recently moved from Dallas, TX to Roanoke, VA where she resides with her husband Evan and attends Christ the King Presbyterian Church. She blogs at www.theothoughts.com

Learning from the Early Church

|

I recently finished a sermon series on the book of Acts at our church. I have been deeply blessed by working through this book. In fact, as I completed the last sermon, I was in tears. I told my wife, "It might seem silly, but I'm going to miss spending this much time with Paul."

It has been very impactful to my own soul, and my own congregation, to see not only the growth of the early church, but also the growing pains, the imperfections, the difficulties, the conflict and opposition that the early church experienced.

After spending more than a year in the book of Acts I have four major takeaways that I would briefly mention.

  1. Grace Teaches Us to Prayer for our Enemies

As I preached through Acts one of the ideas I kept reflecting on was just what a turning point the murder of Stephen was. I thought about Paul's own culpability in Stephen's murder and how that must have stayed with Paul for the rest of his Christian life.

Chapter 7 of Acts contains the sermon that got Stephen killed, but it also contains his subsequent murder by the crowd, including Paul. Back when I preached on this passage I missed something very precious: the prayer of Stephen as he was dying.

And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Our instinct when we read this prayer is to say, "What a godly man!" Stephen's cry is certainly pious and loving to his enemies, but have you considered that Stephen actually prayed for Paul?

Here we have a beautiful illustration of the grace of God that not only did Stephen pray for his persecutors to know the forgiveness of Christ, but even more, that God actually answered that in Acts 9 by converting Paul! It's exactly what Stephen prayed for; it's what he wanted most in his dying moments - for his enemies to know the same forgiveness that God had shown him.

I can't help but feel that it should motivate us to pray more for our enemies - for those we think are too far gone. Who knows - maybe God will show his grace and save the one we're praying for!?

  1. Diversity is Baked Into the Church

One of the truly frustrating things for me is people who say, "Well my friends and I are the church. We don't need to be part of an organized church." And whenever someone says that to me I frequently will encourage them to look at their circle of friends - what they will usually find is a group that is not very diverse. It's usually very like-minded people from similar backgrounds that are around the same age and same stage in life. People who self-select their own "church" tend to have a very homogenous "church" of people who are just like them.

And yet one of the realities of the church is that the church is a very diverse place.

Today if someone says "diversity," folks limit it to only one category; they think of racial diversity. However, the church should be a diverse place in lots of ways; age diversity, income diversity, career diversity, geographic diversity, educational diversity, and yes, racial diversity.

We see this diversity most especially in the conflict of the church in Acts 6. The whole reason the diaconate of the church needed to be created was because of the friction that came from racial diversity in the early church.

If it wasn't for Jesus Christ, these Jews and Greeks would have had zero reason to ever be together in the same place! And so diversity is one of the many beautiful designs of God in establishing his church.

Any given Sunday just look around and ask yourself this question: "If it weren't for the Gospel, would I ever be around most of these folks?" I think the honest answer in most of our cases is "no," and that's not a bad thing - it's actually a wonderful testimony to the centrality of Jesus to all our relationships and to the Church itself. Being around people you wouldn't otherwise be around if it wasn't for Jesus is one of the happy realities of a diverse and Gospel-centered church.

  1. Jesus Started an Organized Religion

The age we live in is deeply suspicious of "organized religion." I know countless folks who have generally Christian values and worldview who nonetheless really don't think they need the church, or a church, or any church because they say "I can have church at home alone with just me and my Bible." But church isn't exclusively just about a sermon or Bible reading. Church is the entire experience of being with God's people together, hearing the same Scripture read and preached together, receiving the sacraments together, and being under the oversight of the elders of the church together.

This isn't just one of my ideas. One of the things the book of Acts shows us is that Jesus loves the church, he loves his people, and he actually wants the church to be organized even in a kind of formal structure. Under the guidance of the Spirit, the Apostles "appointed elders for them in every church" (Acts 14:23). In Acts 6, which we saw above, the Spirit moved the Apostles to appoint deacons in the church. If you have "church" at home alone or with just a self-selected group of friends you don't have elders or deacons or sacraments - you are living with a self-selected group of pals. And even more, you're missing out on the intentionally organized religion that Jesus established.

  1. Telling Our Neighbors About Jesus isn't Optional

Finally, the book of Acts repeatedly stands out as a deeply evangelistic book. This is a given, of course. It begins and ends with a mission statement of sorts. In Acts 1:8 Jesus says "You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." And the book ends with Paul living in Rome and the "end of the earth" under house arrest, preaching to the Jews and Gentiles of the city.

Acts begins with a command to evangelize, a promise of evangelistic success, it is filled examples of those successes, and it ends with a triumphant self-sacrificial example of the continuing work of evangelism.

In Acts we see Christians tell all sorts of people about Jesus! They witness to homeless beggars (3:6); to religious leaders (4:1-12); to hostile crowds (7:1-53); to complete strangers when they see them traveling (8:29-40); to Jewish crowds; to soldiers (10:1-8); to people living on islands; to wealthy business people (16:11-15) to fellow prisoners (16:25); to their jailers (16:31); to philosophers (17:22-34); to Jewish royalty (26:1-29); and even to rough and tough sailors at sea (27:25).

The book of Acts has built into it a theme and a trajectory of showing and telling us that it should be in our DNA as Christians to tell people what God has done for us, how he's done it for us, and why we know he can do the same for any person we meet.

 

Adam Parker is the pastor of Pearl Presbyterian Church (http://www.pearlpres.com). He is a graduate of Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, and a husband and father of four.

Christians in the Cultural Closet

|

Our society celebrates the openness with which it accepts homosexuality and transgenderism. It contrasts our present enlightened times with past eras when what are now called "sexual minorities," LGBTQers, were once consigned to the closets, forced to keep their "sexual identity" hidden. Now those who identify according to their sexual and gender preferences are "out of the closets" and have been mainstreamed. They have a place at the table. They have been normalized. Thus, the narrative is that we have a more just, fair, and open society. Except the closets remain. There always are closets. Every society ancient and modern has closets. What changes are those who inhabit the closets. Gradually we are witnessing traditional, orthodox Christians being forced into the closets even as the sexual minorities move out.

Let me explain. Why do people take to hiding in society's closets? They are shamed into them. Once upon a time society strongly disapproved of sodomy and associated sexual sins. If one admitted one was homosexual, or was "outed" by another, one's political future was over, or one's career was ruined, and one was shunned by society. As recently as 1997 when Ellen DeGeneres "came out," her show, "Ellen" was cancelled. Homosexual characters were not portrayed positively until the mid-1980's and 1990's and even then it happened infrequently. Gradually homosexuality came to be accepted in the mainstream media and normalized. Out of the closet they came, culminating in the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision mandating the legalization of gay "marriage" in all 50 states.

What becomes of those who on moral grounds disapprove of homosexuality? They are slowly being shunned into silence. Their views are being forced into the closet. Recently Senator Joe Biden called Vice President Pence "a decent guy." A furious backlash resulted. Cynthia Nixon, an actress and liberal activist responded, "You've just called America's most anti- LGBTQ elected leader a 'decent guy.' Please consider this falls on the ears of our community." Biden immediately retracted his comment and agreed with her. "There is nothing decent about being anti-LGBTQ rights," Biden responded, "and that includes the vice president." Then there was the response to the news that Mrs. Pence returned to a part-time job teaching at a Christian school. Like all Christian schools, it holds to Christian moral standards that have been around for 2000 years. The response was outrage. The propriety of a spouse of a public official teaching in a school that perpetrates ignorance, hate and bigotry was called into question. Then there was the Covington Catholic High School's participation in the Right to Life march on January 18. The list could go on, but you can see the point. The message that society is sending will not be lost on conservative Christians: your views are no longer acceptable in polite company. Express them, and you will be loudly denounced and shamed. If you hold them, better keep them to yourself.

The transition is not yet complete, but it continues apace. Some pushback is still visible. Yet of the major media outlets (NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, FOX, NPR, ESPN, etc.) only one still gives voice to traditional views. The consensus is clear: light is now darkness, and darkness light. All right-thinking people agree. The call is not "Christians to the lions" as it was in ancient times. We mustn't overstate the case. Yet make no mistake about it, the call is "Christians to the closets." We are not being melodramatic, rather making a rational assessment. Our society is now more "open" than it was in the dark ages of the 1950's. Except it isn't. It still has its closets. It merely has changed the groups which it pushes into them.

Nearly every morning, I listen to Al Mohler's "The Briefing." His ability to synthesize and evaluate current cultural and political events is nothing short of remarkable. One of the aspects of his approach that I most appreciate is his ability to assess the news dispassionately. He'll relate some appalling new anti-Christian development with a neutral introduction like, "This is where it gets interesting..." He then calmly and irrefutably dismantles the presuppositions and outlook of the sexual revolutionaries. He is a brave man. We need more brave men to do what? Coolly, reasonably, persuasively refuse to be confined to the closets.

The Karen Pence Rule

|

Recently it was announced that Karen Pence - a private citizen who is not even occupying an elected office in the United States of America - is going to resume her teaching career at a Christian school. Part of this school's beliefs is that homosexual behavior is a sin, and they require their teachers and students to agree with this understanding in order to serve as faculty or attend as a student. As someone who attended a Christian college, I am quite familiar with the agreements that students make when they decide to attend a school that finds its roots in historic Christianity. For example, when I attended Christian college in the early 2000s I agreed not to be a drunkard, not to engage in illegal behavior, not to have sex outside of marriage, and yes, not to engage in other sexual behaviors that the Bible explicitly forbids for Christians - including homosexual behavior.

Not only is this not unusual for Christian colleges, but it is normal for nearly all types of Christian schools, including the one that Karen Pence is planning to teach at. To be honest, I was surprised this made news at all. I assume that the wives of elected officials are not expected to put their entire life and vocational calling on hold simply because their husband is in elected office. Modern feminism tells us that a woman is not defined or valued because of who or what her husband is. She can be her own woman after all. However, I often forget that I am not as woke as the next person by Twitter.

I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that the left is having what seems to be a complete meltdown over the fact that Mrs. Pence is teaching at a Christian school that believes Christian things and expects their teachers to share those beliefs. I found myself commenting nearly the same day: "Apparently Twitter just found out that Christian schools are a thing." This has been a frequent refrain from some others on Twitter, such as Rod Dreher and David French, among others.

The responses that they receive back are almost completely uniform. One person says, "The left just hates bigotry in the guise of religion." Another said, "We are against bigotry and hate; something Jesus also preached about being against. We are for love and acceptance - even those who may be considered sinners." And another: "Nah, it's the fact that the Left thinks bigoted Christians may not be good Christians." Here's another flavor of the same chip: "The left believes in following Christ's message. We just don't like you pseudo Christians giving the rest of us a bad name. Jesus weeps over your brand of 'Christianity'. It's not exactly 'love others as I have loved you'. You need our prayers, not hatred." And just for good measure: "Stop doing this. You know damn well what the issues are. It isn't a hatred of Christianity it's a hatred of bigotry." I could probably share dozens more comments almost exactly like this, but it does give a flavor for the response that is very much happening right now.

There are a lot of approaches one could take with these comments. One could ask these apparently learned religious scholars whether they have actually read the New Testament lately (Matthew 19:4-6, for example). One could ask these same people whether they have even studied the issue of what historic Christianity has taught for the last 2000 years concerning the concept of sexual ethics. One could ask such people to carefully define the notion of "bigotry" so we could pin down whether they are not themselves also bigoted against the teachings of historic Christianity.

There is no question that the Christian religion for the entirety of its existence has always taught that sexual immorality is forbidden. It is what defined Christianity in its most public-facing way during the time of the Roman Empire.

And there is also absolutely no question that for the entire existence of Christianity the church has without question, and with one voice always affirmed that it is sin for a man to lie with a man, or a woman to lie with a woman, among other things (see Unchanging Witness by Donald Fortson and Rollin Grams for the best documentation of this claim). What is amazing to think about is that for all the disagreements historic Christians of all stripes have had over issues like baptism, the Lord's Supper, sabbath observance, church government, bible translations, etc. this is one issue where the church has always been united.

This refrain, then: "We aren't anti-Christian; we're anti-bigotry" is deeply disingenuous because it is absolutely anti-Christian if one is talking about historic, credal, orthodox Christianity - in other words, Christianity. The only version of Christianity the left isn't bigoted against is some new, twisted, unfamiliar, unhistoric, non-credal version of our religion that no one in all of church history would have recognized.

Having said all of this then, when the left says they are not bigoted against Christianity, they are only speaking of a highly specific version of what its advocates are choosing to redefine as Christianity; a version of Christianity that has been stripped clean of its rough edges and has become so inoffensive to all as to hardly be "news" at all. It's a version of Christianity designed to repeat back to the culture what it already knows and believes. What we are witnessing in the wake of Karen Pence's recent employment is a highly qualified attempt on the part of the political extreme-left to have their cake (being bigoted against Christians) and eat it too (claim they are not bigoted).

As for the rest of us, if we believe what Christendom has always taught, whether Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical, Baptist, Pentecostal, or Presbyterian...if we believe what the Bible has unwaveringly taught...if we are Christians as the term has always been defined throughout all of history...if we choose to work for an organization that holds to historic Christian teachings and requires the same of us...you had better believe that the left hates us. How do I know? They're saying it. In their minds we are bigoted, and as someone has recently put it, "It's a hatred of bigotry."

In other words, the political and theological left really does hate Christianity, no matter how much wordsmithing they might do to persuade the watching world otherwise.

What is the answer, then? How should we then live? The answer is that as historic and orthodox Christians we need to prepare ourselves for even more equivocation and pretended moral high ground on the part of those who openly (or at least selectively) despise the code of morality taught in the Bible. We should be alert for when the people we are respectfully engaging with automatically assume an unrecognizable version of Christianity. We should endeavor to know Christian history and work hard to affirm our historic connections with the past in all areas whenever possible. We should continue to read and confess the creeds of Christianity.

We should learn to rejoice in our creeds and especially to remind the watching world that Christians are bound by their adherence to Scripture and that we do not have the liberty to simply redefine the faith after our own image whenever we feel like it.

Most of all, we have to remember the words of warning that Jesus gave: "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you" (John 15:18). John, similarly: "Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you" (1 John 3:13).

At the same time we must refuse to give in to self pity. There is nothing pathetic or sad about being a Christian. Gone are the days when we could expect to be applauded by the culture. Gone are the days when Christianity held cultural dominance. We are now in an era that is very similar to the one that the early church experienced where we are considered the strange minority for what we believe, teach, and pass on to our children. We are in the era of faithful, consistent unappreciated testimony.

Christianity: A Spiritual Contact Sport

|

For followers of Christ in America, things are changing rapidly. If thirty years ago, you would have predicted where our culture would be on a variety of issues, no one would have believed you. And yet, here we are, with many aspects of the moral fabric of the culture spiraling down at breakneck speed.

A while back, I wrote some policies for how the church that I serve as pastor will handle marriage-related issues after the legalization of same-sex marriage. As I began articulating our beliefs on marriage, I originally wrote that we believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Suddenly it struck me--that definition is no longer clear enough. Rather, our documents needed to say one biological man and one biological woman. There were similar issues related to the current gender chaos, which demanded careful and nuanced language.

This is where we are in our culture. As I hear many Christians react to the changes in our culture, I hear panic in their voices. In fact, I would say that fear of the changes we are facing in the culture grips and controls many professing believers.

So, how do we respond to cultural declension and intimidation that we see happening? This is not a new question for Christians. Thankfully, we have a good roadmap in the Bible for how to deal with this. And the examples laid before us involve contexts that are far more difficult than the one we find ourselves in. One such example is Acts 4:1-31.

Cultural Intimidation

In the Book of Acts, the Gospel of Jesus Christ explodes and spreads at an exponential rate. Yet, that growth did not come without difficulty. It was not a comfortable path. As we begin Acts 4, Peter and John had just healed a man. After that healing, Peter and John preach the Gospel and they do so with boldness. As the crowds grow, the Temple Guard and the Sadducees have Peter and John arrested. They threaten and attempt to intimidate them.

The council of rulers, elders, and scribes asserted their power and authority over Peter and John. The next day the council questions them, "By what power do you do this?" (Acts 4:7). The council sought to show Peter and John that they have no power and should fall in line with their expectations. But their attempts at intimidation fail. When Peter and John are told no longer to speak and teach in the name of Jesus, they steadfastly refuse, "We cannot help but speak what we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:20).

Do you see the picture? Manipulation. Threats. Intimidation. Legal power. This has been faced before. Did you notice the courage? The boldness? It is possible to stand up against cultural intimidation. How? The Resurrection. Look at Peter. Before the cross, Peter denied Jesus three times--with cursing! And here he is, boldly refusing to bow to the intimidation. The Resurrection changes everything. Death has been defeated! Living in the reality of the Resurrection is what makes us bold in the moment of cultural intimidation.

Gospel Courage

When Peter and John were released, they returned to the community of believers and tell them everything that happened. In response, they gather to pray. I wonder, if you were in their shoes, what would you pray for? Would you pray for safety? Protection? But that's not at all what they pray for. "And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness" (Acts 4:29).

They pray for boldness to continue speaking, even though they know that to continue preaching might mean ending up in prison again. When was the last time you prayed for courage rather than for your temporal deliverance? When did you last just pray, "Lord give me courage"? Have you ever?

Why do we lean toward prayers of comfort rather than prayers for courage? I think it all boils down to expectations. These believers still had the images of the cross of Christ fresh in their minds. Jesus told this little band of believers to go make disciple of the whole world.

They didn't think it would be easy. They didn't envision their spiritual lives as a spiritual vacation. They believed that they had been called as soldiers to spiritual war. They did not expect life to be problem free and stress-free. So when problems came, they prayed for the strength to face them with courage.

Imagine you are coaching a football team and after a few plays, your players come to the sidelines exasperated, "Coach! The problem is that they keep hitting us!" You would be perplexed. This is football. You get hit in football. If you don't want to get hit, don't play football. Too many Christians face cultural intimidation and ask "What's going on? Why is this happening?" Well, do you want to be a Christian? We must understand that Christianity is a spiritual contact sport. Expect to get hit.

Spiritual Vacation?

Where did we get the idea that we were saved for a spiritual vacation?

"For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:12).

We have not been saved for a spiritual vacation, but for spiritual war. Our cultural opponents are also our mission field. But what if we never ask for courage like the believers in Acts 4? What if we believe that Christianity saves us from having to have courage? Then we will respond to cultural intimidation with cowardice. We will attempt to sever our Christian life from the Christian mission. We will think that Christianity is about me being happier and more content and only occasionally are we called, on our own terms, to be sacrificially on mission.

These believers in Acts 4 saw their whole life as living out the mission. They existed to make much of Jesus and spread the Gospel. Many professing Christians have traded theology for sentimentality. They want convictions that cost them nothing. Only when we realize that Christianity is a spiritual contact sport, will we prepare for and ask for courage in the battle.

Karl Marx: Still Important?

|

How do we evaluate the importance of Karl Marx (1818‒83) in the world? In May of this year, China commemorated his two-hundredth birthday (May 5) by donating a fourteen-foot statue of Marx to his birthplace, Trier, Germany. Indeed, hundreds of celebrations have been held throughout the world to mark his birthdate as well as to note the one-hundred seventieth year of The Communist Manifesto (1848) by Marx and Friedrich Engels (1820‒1895). Many would suggest that such tributes are merited because of Marx's liberating impact for oppressed people, whereas others would argue against such recognition, given the many people who have been oppressed in his name. Regarding his thought, some say he is the greatest philosopher in history; others will claim that he is the most influential of modern thinkers. Certainly, it cannot be denied that the Manifesto, which Engels claimed that Marx was the principle author, has become one of the most momentous political treatises in the modern era.

In the last fifty years we have seen much debate and analysis of Marx's contribution, his ongoing relevance, and even whether a true Marxist exists. This can be seen in the academy as scholars examine his massive corpus--The Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA) Project which will include 114 volumes. In the socio-political realm, many viewed Marx's impact as dissipating with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the ceasing of the Cold War in 1989‒91. Ten years later, however, this viewpoint seemed to crumble with the 9-11 attacks and, later, with the financial crisis of 2008. Partly in response to those two events, Marxist thought had a widespread revival throughout the world. Capitalism showed vulnerability and those sympathetic to socialist and Marxist ideas seized their opportunity to make their claims. In fact, three significant biographies of Marx (by Jonathan Sperber, Gareth Stedman Jones, and Jürgen Neffe) have appeared in this decade alone. While acknowledging Marx's shortcomings, both English Literature expert Terry Eagleton and philosopher Jason Barker have dogmatically affirmed that Marx's elementary proposition was right after all, i.e., that capitalism is driven by class conflict by which the ruling-class exploits the working class for its own profit. Further, supporters clarify that Marx's basic thesis is not merely a statement about class warfare; it encompasses an integrated weltanschauung in which socio-economic cultural life is at the center. In this view, the very structures of society that have permitted the global capitalist economy its elite seat must be completely eviscerated and transformed in order to move to a weltanschauung of communism--a truly classless and egalitarian society of liberty and fraternity.

Perhaps, to the annoyance of more moderate socialists and Marxists, self-declared revolutionary Angela Davis's recent lecture at the Nicos Poulantzas Institute in Athens offers the kind of present-day conclusions consistent with the Marx-Engels view of critical theory. To Davis, a disciple of Herbert Marcuse and the Frankfurt School (e.g., also Max Horkheimer), no matter how socialist one may judge the tendencies of modern feminism in a person like Hillary Clinton, it is still a "bourgeoise feminism" because such feminists are caught in the trap of the "glass ceiling" in which they are part of the ruling-class minority that fails to truncate the structures of capitalism; such feminism, in Davis's estimation, will never be truly egalitarian. Moreover, as we live in a global capitalist economy, every category of existence--the state, family, religion, education, speech, media services, medical amenities, labor, vocation, arts, social and natural sciences, industry, technology, and agriculture--must be liberated from enslavement through revolution.

Much evidence exists of Marxists turning a blind eye to atrocities committed for the sake of a new "republic." In fact, those tyrannical acts toward government, family, religion, and free speech are innate in the movement of their law of history. After all, how can the structures of capitalism and its effects upon every aspect of existence be transformed unless atrocity is employed? As Immanuel Kant warned, we must not forget that too often those who replace tyranny become the implementers of tyranny themselves. We have proof of this in the deaths of millions and the witnesses of such despotism under the banner of Marx. In this light, we must not fail to clarify Marx's central influence found in his philosophy of history. His law of history--the dialectical movement of materialism--encompasses the unfinished changes of the structures of various societies affecting each cultural weltanschauung along the way until the finished product of communism looms and the supposed voice for justice towards the oppressed becomes the oppressor.

Of course, as Christians we can only effectively analyze Marx's philosophy of history and its consequences if we work from the perspective of the unfolding of the historical revelation of the Word of God, authored by the infallible hand of the Holy Spirit. The Christian must observe and seek to understand the free movement of our God's sovereign and providential hand, not only in the events that come to pass, but also in the unique eternal and eschatological structures of his own kingdom. The unique characteristics of Christ's kingdom are not given in any earthly State or any system of human projection or human speculation. Thus, the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter nine, provides a wonderful biblical narrative to help us understand the historical route of God and, in our case, to use that chronicle to counter a Marxist weltanschauung. The biblical historical narrative is referred to as "the four-fold state of man:" innocence, sin, grace, and glory. In contrast, Marx, like every system of thought, will have its own secular version of "the four-fold state of man." The Christian, clearly, needs to understand and be ready to respond to such ideas with a biblical defense to those who find the gospel a stumbling block or foolishness.

We know that by the pronounced word of his sovereign divine identity, Christ dissolves all the governments of the world, including all governments that align with the principles of Marx's mythical eschatology (Jn. 18:6; cf. Phil. 2:9‒11). Only Christ's kingdom of true righteousness and justice lasts forever (Isa. 9: 6‒7). Truly, all the arrogance and pride of the world's systems--whether monarchical, socialist, fascist, communist, imperialist, totalitarian, democratic, or systems based in political ideologies yet unknown--will be brought low by the humble rule of a child--the Christ child (Rev. 12:5; cf. Ps. 8; Isa. 9:6).


Dr. William Dennison is Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies at Covenant College, Lookout Mountain, GA. He is the author of Karl Marx (Great Thinkers)

Assessing Religious Militancy

|

We are all distressingly familiar with debates over the nature of Islam. Is it a "religion of peace," or is it a religion of war and conquest? Is it essentially repressive and militant, or are there traditions and movements within Islam that can effectively counter these tendencies? And even if it was once a bad actor, can Islam not undergo a transformation to bring it in line with modern views of freedom, tolerance, and mutual respect?

These debates raise another, more fundamental question: When can a religious system be blamed for the behavior of its adherents? Can we determine whether Islamic teaching itself is the cause of militant behavior and oppressive behavior committed by its adherents, or are their actions a distortion of its teachings? How do we speak conclusively about what Islam or any religion teaches or practices when there are controversies, schools of thought, and disagreements over the meaning and practices of that religion going back centuries?

To bring conceptual clarity to this debate, I propose the following: To determine what a religion teaches, and thus what we can expect at least a significant percentage of its adherents will do, the first step is to determine its source or sources of doctrinal and practical authority. Secondly, one determines whether a given doctrine or practice is a plausible, or legitimate interpretation based upon that authority. From the standpoint of public policy toward a given religion, especially regarding public safety and immigration (which is why we debate the meaning of Islam in the first place), the ability to predict whether adherents will likely act on a given doctrine should be the policy question regarding the "nature" or "essence" of a religion, not whether "all," or even a majority hold to or practice it.

The significance of this distinction cannot be overemphasized. As Christians are well aware, it can be difficult to find specific doctrines or practices that all adherents of a world religion subscribe to unequivocally and without exception, and Islam is no different. However, to identify beliefs and practice on the basis of the received authority of that religion, and doctrines or practices held by a significant percentage of those identifying with a religion over time on the basis of that authority, is not especially problematic. The study of religions would be impossible without the ability to distinguish a range of beliefs and practices that are legitimately inferred from its source(s) of authority from those which may develop over time, but lack such authority.

What then are the sources of authority in Islam? Like Christianity, it has an authoritative revelation, the Qur'an, which was revealed by Allah to his prophet, Muhammad, and is itself eternal and unchanging. Its directives and teachings are thus binding on all Muslims. Again like Christianity, it has an authoritative founder, Muhammad. Among the vast majority of practicing Muslims, there is little or no question as to whether, if Muhammad commanded or engaged in a certain activity, a Muslim should follow it, since not just his revelations, but also his life, is divinely inspired (Q 33:21). So if it is certain that Muhammad engaged in an activity, it is morally permissible for a Muslim to engage in it. (One exception: Muhammad was allowed to have over 4 wives.)

Thus, for a given doctrine or practice associated with Islam, to determine whether it is legitimate or plausible to be believed or followed, one may apply a fairly straightforward test:

The Founding criterion: The doctrine or practice is taught in the Qur'an, or taught or practiced by Muhammad in the hadith, the "narratives" of Muhammad's sayings and actions. Of the two, this one is clearly the more significant.

The Tradition criterion: The doctrine or practice has been taught or observed throughout the history of the religion, especially by its earliest adherents.

If we have the Founding criterion, why do we need the second, the Tradition criterion? It is certainly true that for many Muslims, the first will likely settle the issue. But the second is a potent clarification and reinforcement of the original revelation and actions of Muhammad. The knowledge that a specific practice has been followed since the time of Muhammad carries enormous persuasive force for any Muslim.

This approach to the question of what Islam teaches helps resolve a common mystery, and removes a common misunderstanding. The mystery is how a person who has been a "moderate" or nominal Muslim could become radicalized. Typically, we look for external factors, such as chronic unemployment, social alienation, or criminality. But in many cases, these factors appear to play a negligible role. Some of the major terrorist acts committed since 9/11 have involved Muslims who at one point were well-assimilated, attended high school and college, and were gainfully employed, such as Rizwan Farook (Orlando shooting), Nidal Hassan (Ft. Hood shooting), or the Tsarnaev brothers (Boston Marathon bombing), as well as many of the 4,500 Muslims residing in Western countries who joined ISIS.1 Moreover, if non-religious, sociological factors were enough to drive a person to terrorism and militancy, why are there not more Buddhist or Mormon terrorists? Why are there no non-state Christian or Hindu armies conquering cities and beheading those who resist? However, if militancy is a legitimate or plausible interpretation of the Prophet's teaching and practices, there is a perfectly good explanation as to why they behaved as they did: It is a legitimate interpretation of the founding and tradition of Islam.

A common misunderstanding, and indeed a highly dangerous one, is that we merely need to encourage Muslims to adopt a modern understanding of their religion, and the militancy will dissipate over time, just as it supposedly has with Christians, who once displayed the same barbaric tendencies.2 (This explanation was given to me by the academic dean of a major Texan university, viz., Christianity isn't militant only because no one really believes it anymore.) But what is a "modern understanding"? Essentially, it is a recognition of an authority higher than the Founding - the scientific method, "reason," "experience," so-called Enlightenment values, or the deliverances of modern critical methods which would demonstrate that the Qur'an, like the Bible, is merely a human construct. But this is precisely the problem. A person's religion is his ultimate source of knowledge, wisdom, and authority. The modern (really, postmodern) West is essentially asking Muslims to give up their religion in favor of its own. And a modern understanding conflicts not only with the Founding, but with the far deeper and longer, and thus more authoritative Tradition criterion.

Let us now turn to the question of Islamic "militancy," which I will use as shorthand for military conquest in the name of Islam and the subjugation of non-believers.

The Founding criterion asks whether a given doctrine or practice is taught and practiced by the founder in the authoritative texts. The most frequently cited verse in the Qur'an supporting jihad, or holy war, is 9:29 "Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and his apostle nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth (even if they are) of the people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [poll tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." But this is certainly not the only verse. There is also 9:5, "... fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) ..."; and 47:4, "Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks, at length when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them)." Conquest in the name of Islam is also supported throughout the hadith. For example, "Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla [prayer facing toward Mecca] and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally" (Sahih Bukhari 1:387). Notice the next citation combines both the Founding and the Tradition criteria: "When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him... He would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war...'" (Sahih Muslim 4294).

The hadith confirm that Muhammad led armies, arguably in defense of his rule in Medina, and eventually conquered Mecca, his hometown. On his deathbed, Muhammad ordered the expulsion of Jews and Christians from Arabia, "Two faiths will not live together in the land of the Arabs." He commanded all Muslims "to fight all men until they say 'There is no god but Allah'." He ordered the execution of captured opponents whom he considered traitors, most notably 600 Jews in Medina, and distributed women and children as slaves to his soldiers. We also know from Islamic history that the Rashidun, the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, as well as subsequent dynasties conquered vast territories in the name of Islam. Successive victories eventually included the conquest of the Levant, North Africa, the Byzantine Empire, and Spain. But for decisive losses at Tours (732) and Vienna (1683), Europe itself might have been conquered by the armies of the Prophet. Thus, by both the Founding and the Tradition criteria, militancy has been practiced from the beginning, and is perfectly legitimate for any Muslim to engage in. To do otherwise would be to reject the Prophet's example, as well as to repudiate the first centuries of Islam's history, beginning with the earliest adherents who knew him personally.

Should someone ask whether Christian doctrine and practice are compatible with militancy on the Founding criterion, and even on the Tradition criterion, things look markedly different. There are indeed historic instances of forced conversions (Charlemagne's war against the Saxons), and religiously-motivated genocide (the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 during the first Crusade, as well as various incidents of so-called Christian mobs and armies committing genocide against Jewish communities). But there is nothing resembling this in the life or teachings of Jesus, nor in the lives or teachings of the Apostles as contained in the New Testament (the Founding criterion). None of them led armies. None advocated forced conversions. The use of coercive state power to enforce Christian doctrine would have to wait several hundred years to the time of Constantine.

Thus, even if it is debatable whether Islam itself is militant, depending, of course, on how it is defined, it is certainly not illegitimate or implausible to consider it such, and to raise serious questions as to whether it can ever be reformed.


 

1. For a much fuller treatment of this question, see Ibn Warraq, "The Root Cause Fallacy," in The Islam in Islamism: The Importance of Beliefs, Ideas, and Ideology, Kindle ed., (London: New English Review Press, 2017), loc. 532f.

2. Those defending the possibility of a moderate Islam would do well to study recent German analysis of this question. Ahmad Mansour, an "Arab Israeli" residing in Germany, explains in detail not only what it will require to prevent growing radicalization among Muslim youth, but also how it will require massive state intervention. See "Prävention und Deradikalisierung," in Generation Allah: Warum wir im Kampf gegen religiösen Extremismus umdenken müssen, Kindle ed., (Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer, 2015), loc. 2309-3130. Hamed Abdel-Samad, a former Muslim and son of an Egyptian Imam, believes that Islam "as a system" simply cannot be separated from its militant heritage (see Ist der Islam noch zu retten? (Munich: Droemer, 2017), p. 298. He now requires a bodyguard while traveling in Muslim neighborhoods in Berlin, a depressing irony.


Nicholas K. Meriwether is Professor of Philosophy at Shawnee State University in Portsmouth, Ohio.

Refuting Theological Error

|
There is a profoundly important section titled, "On the Preaching of the Word," in The Directory for the Public Worship of God, in which we find a very short and very wise statement about the minister's responsibility to refute false teaching in the church. What is most captivating about the brief statement found therein is that it instructs concerning, first, the dangers of talking about false teaching, and, second, the necessity of refuting false teaching in the church. 

As the Divines unfolded their beliefs about how ministers should approach the aspect of refuting theological error in their preaching, they wrote:

In confutation of false doctrines, he [i.e. the minister] is neither to raise an old heresy from the grave, nor to mention a blasphemous opinion unnecessarily: but, if the people be in danger of an error, he is to confute it soundly, and endeavor to satisfy their judgments and consciences against all objections.

The rationale for this statement is dependent on understanding the nature of false teaching itself. In short, ideas can and often do have massive spiritual consequences. J. Gresham Machen made the important statement about the implications of false teachings and ideologies when he wrote:

False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel...What is today a matter of academic speculation begins tomorrow to move armies and pull down empires. In that second stage, it has gone too far to be combated; the time to stop it was when it was still a matter of impassioned debate.1

Since beliefs inevitably have consequences on our lives and actions, the Divines first warn against our "raising an old heresy from the grave, nor to mention a blasphemous opinion unnecessarily." They do not say this to be necessarily or fearfully censorious, or to bury their heads in the sand rather than deal with difficult theological matters. Rather, they raise this warning because of the nature of false teaching. 

When I was a young Christian, a friend taught me that "whenever false teaching is taught in a nuanced fashion there is always the danger that some who hear it will be drawn into it." He went on to explain that this is true within the realm of relationships, as well. Whenever we start to enter into debate with those with whom we disagree we are in danger of becoming more like them--as well as becoming more susceptible to being influenced by their beliefs. It is not guaranteed that this will happen, but it is certainly a very real and ever present danger. Tragically, years after sharing this thought with me, my friend went on to embrace a sinful lifestyle due in part to the public discussions about, and approval of, that particular sin. Additionally, I have watched--with great heaviness of heart--as a minister of the Gospel walked away from Protestantism in the midst of engaging, on church court levels, with men who were being tried for holding to aberrant theological views on the sacraments and soteriology. Whether engagement with sacramentalist views were the cause of his departing from the truth or not, I cannot help but wonder what impact interacting with aberrant teaching had on this particular individual.

This danger must be highlighted within the realm of pastoral ministry in the church. There are some who thrive on debating theological issues. This can be harmful to the members of a church because some members already have misguided beliefs, and some have a very small knowledge of doctrine. In the case of the first group, introducing old heresies can encourage more confusion. I have, time and again, seen individuals start to dabble with heresy because they already had misguided beliefs based on their erroneous knowledge of Scripture. In the case of the latter group, introducing theological error--even in the name of "discernment"--can end in filling the minds of God's people with falsehood when they ought to be filling their minds with the truth. Far better to teach them the nuances of the truth of Scripture so that they will be able to discern falsehood when confronted with it. You don't study a counterfeit dollar bill to spot a counterfeit; you study the real dollar currency so that you will be better suited to spot the counterfeit.

Additionally, pastors may inadvertently encourage a hyper-critical spirit among church members. We have all seen churches that are full of theological "heresy-hunters." While I don't like to bandy about that term--since there is a "heresy spotting" and "heresy rejecting" to which all believers are called--the love of seeking out error can be a highly toxic thing. The Divines were certainly warning against these two dangers when they insisted that ministers should be slow to raise an old heresy, or an unnecessary blasphemous opinion, among the members of a church.

In a day when most professing believers would be more than happy to emphasize the first half of the statement about heresy in the Directory, it is important for us to understand the significance of what they say in the latter part. There are three parts to what is said about confuting error in the church. The first is that it is incumbent on the minister(s) of the church to refute error "if the people be in danger of an error." The shepherds are appointed by God to feed the sheep, to go after them when they stray and to guard them against all dangers that threaten to harm them. Certainly, if theological error is creeping into our churches or denominations, we must confute it out of love for, and protection of, the sheep. Years ago, when theological error started creeping into some of our Reformed denominations, prominent voices were insinuating that we have Mormonism, atheism, Islam, paganism, etc. to deal with--attacking Christians from outside the church--and that we should not be squabbling over theological nuances within. While this sounds pious, it actually does not stand the test of what the Apostle Paul demonstrated in Galatia with the Judaizers who were coming into the church stealthily. In fact, it has been said that we wouldn't have a New Testament if it weren't for all the internal theological and moral errors that needed to be refuted.Out of love for God and the truth of the Gospel, as well as for the salvation His people, ministers are called to refute error.

The second thing that the Divines noted was that the minister is "to confute [false doctrine] soundly." There should be an appropriate force with which error is confuted. The intensity of the confutation must fit the doctrinal error being propagated. This takes great wisdom. It is possible for a minister to tackle a theological error that surfaces in the church, but not to do it with the intensity with which it ought to be confuted. If justification by faith alone, the nature of soteriology, the necessity of holiness in the Christian life, the Person and work of Christ, the Trinity, etc. are under attack, the minister must confute these with the strongest intensity and with the most comprehensive treatment. If the error be some thing of lesser significance, it should be confuted with less intensity and perhaps less comprehensiveness.

The third thing that the Divines say is that the minister is to "endeavor to satisfy their [i.e. the congregants] judgments and consciences against all objections." We have all seen or heard of ministers who give the sense that, when they are seeking to refute error, they just want people to agree with their warnings without doing the hard work of studying theological nuances and taking the time to walk their people through the issues involved with care and patience. It will be impossible to satisfy all the judgments and consciences of all involved against all objections; nevertheless, that should be the goal and desire of the minister. This means that ministers should not simply parrot a criticism of a theological error. Too many have heard a respected professor, theologian or pastor raise warnings about a pressing theological danger only to go and parrot what they have heard. When objections fall within the "razor's edge" of the erroneous doctrines, such ministers fail to satisfy the consciences of their hearers against all objections. We must (with prayerful caution) engage with first sources and with specialized volumes that take on the oftentimes highly academic and theologically nuanced errors that arise so that we will be prepared to "endeavor to satisfy their [i.e. the congregants] judgments and consciences against all objections."

One final warning needs to be raised. The minister must guard his own heart and mind from theological error as well. We do this by keeping ourselves in the Scriptures and in the love of God. We do this by putting sin to death in our lives. We do this by crying out to God to keep us from falling. Somehow, many convince themselves that drugs, sexual immorality, etc.--but not reading theological error--will most certainly have a negative effect on them. Ideas have consequences. All theological error originates from the evil one. He is more cunningly skillful than we could ever know at leading people astray through academic and highly nuanced theological error. As is true with every other danger that we face, when we come to study theological error we must remember the words of the Apostle Paul: "Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall."

1. J. Gresham Machen, "Christianity and Culture," Princeton Theological Review 11 (1913)
Ressourcement: retrieving our past for present faithfulness
--true history in The Letter to Diognetus

Imperial Rome, especially in the first two hundred years of its existence, was "obsessed with time" and its place in the flow of history.[1] This obsession with time was linked to a deep reverence for the past and a conviction that if something was true it was old. What was new must perforce be false.[2] The Roman world also housed a deeply violent, hate-filled culture, from its bloody gladiatorial shows in the arena to its regular use of crucifixion and child exposure to solve socio-political problems on the macro and micro levels. Yet, it was in this world, which took history ever so seriously but was starved for love, that the Christian Faith providentially first made its appearance. To be sure, Christian monotheism stood out in a world of polytheism--the Roman universe was a place filled with deities, from the Olympian gods to various lesser deities that inhabited the very hearths and doors of Roman homes and the glades and streams of their countryside--but so then did Judaism. What made Christianity differ even from Judaism in this world of Roman hegemony was its insistence on the path of love--"violence is not an attribute of God" is the way one early Christian put it [3] --and that this love was primarily manifest in the life and death of the historical personage Jesus of Nazareth. The confession that Jesus was crucified under the Roman procurator of Judaea Pontius Pilate consequently turns out to be of deep significance when it comes to the profoundly historical nature of Christianity.[4] Christianity thus answered two very important questions posed by its surrounding culture: "What is our place in history?" and "Where is love to be found? In this first essay in this series on early Christian ressourcement, we look at the Letter to Diognetus' answer to the first question. Our next essay will examine the reply to the second question. 

The Letter to Diognetus: an introduction

Without a doubt, one of the best of the various early Christian attempts to respond to such questions raised by Imperial Roman culture is The Letter to Diognetus. Transmitted to the modern world via a sole manuscript discovered in a fish-shop in Constantinople by the Italian Renaissance scholar Thomas d'Arezzo in 1436, the identity of its author is unknown.[5]  From the Greek text of this tract, though, it is clear that the author had had a superb education in the Greek language.[6] As to who is Diognetus, this is also not known with any degree of certainty. The letter should probably be dated to the last quarter of the second century.[7] 

However, what is very clear is why the letter was written. It seeks to provide answers to three general questions about the Christian Faith, two of which, regarding history and love, have already been alluded to: why has Christianity only recently appeared in the world and why do Christians love one another the way they do? The third question is more general: who is the God in whom Christians so believe that they patently reject the pagan gods, are very evidently not Jewish and are not at all afraid of dying for their faith in this God?[8]

True history

The classic Roman view of history that justified Roman imperialism had been expressed by the poet Virgil (70-19BC) in The Aeneid, his epic retelling of the story of Troy. Regarding the Romans, "that toga-clad people" who were "the masters of all in existence," Virgil had Jupiter, the king of the gods, state:

For these I set no limits, world or time,
But make the gift of empire without end[9]

Over against this explanation of the meaning of history, Christianity offered the reality of what took place in the incarnate Son of God during the prefecture of Pontius Pilate in Judaea. The writer of the letter to Diognetus introduced this remarkable fact by first noting that the Christian concept of God is not the product of human thought or mere philosophical reflection. 
As I said before, it is not an earthly discovery that has been passed on to them [i.e. Christians]. That which they think it worthwhile to guard so carefully is not a result of mortal thinking, nor is what has been entrusted to them a stewardship of merely human mysteries. On the contrary, the Almighty himself, the Creator of the universe and the invisible God, has from heaven planted the Truth, even the holy and incomprehensible Word, among men and fixed it firmly in their hearts [10]
Christian truth is rooted in God's revelation of himself through the incarnation of his Son in space and time. God has not, the author wrote, 
sent to humanity some servant, angel or ruler... Rather, [he has sent] the very Designer and Maker of the universe, by whom he made the heavens and confined the seas within their bounds; ...from whom the sun is assigned the limits of its daily course and whom the moon obeys when he bids her to shine by night, and whom the stars obey as they follow the course of the moon. He is the One by whom all things have been set in order, determined, and placed in subjection--both the heavens and things in the heavens, the earth and things on the earth, the sea and the things in the sea, fire, air, abyss, the things in the heights and those in the depths and the realm between. Such was the One God sent to them. ...In gentleness and meekness he sent him, as a King sending his son who is a king. He sent him as God, he sent him as [man] to men, he sent him as Saviour [11]
Christianity, then, is ultimately not a human attempt to find God; rather, it is founded on God's revelation of himself, and that in a person, his Son. Although the name of Jesus is not mentioned in this passage or even in the treatise as a whole,[12] there is no doubt that this is the person of whom the author here writes so eloquently. The Son clearly does not belong to the order of creation. The Son's dominion over the entirety of nature, and by implication his deity, is trumpeted forth. Who is this One whom God has sent to reveal himself? Well, he is "a Son." He is sent by God "as God." As L.B. Radford has commented: "He is God so truly that His coming can be described as the coming of God."[13] And he is "the Savior": our salvation is grounded in the historicity of the Incarnation and the purpose of that historical reality--the death of Christ for sinners.


The importance of the Old Testament

This discussion of the way in which God has revealed himself now opens the way for the author to provide an answer to the query about the antiquity of Christianity. As has been noted, it was axiomatic in Graeco-Roman antiquity that what was true was old and what was new was questionable and probably false. This raised an obvious problem for those seeking to convince men and women of the truth claims of Christianity, for Christianity took its rise from the appearance of Christ. The standard approach among second-century Christian apologists like Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165) or Theophilus of Antioch (fl. 170-190) was to refer to the history of salvation in the Old Testament that finds its fulfillment in Christian faith or engage in a typological exegesis of the Old Testament, which was then seen to foreshadow the coming of Christianity. In the light of these approaches, Christianity had a much better claim to antiquity than either Greek or Roman thought, neither of which were over a millennium old.

The Letter to Diognetus, however, takes neither of these approaches. This is probably due to the fact that earlier, in the sections dealing with Judaism, the author had taken a hard line against Judaism and accused it of engaging in worthless ritual.[14] There, the impression is given that Judaism was of no value at all, not even as a forerunner of Christianity. Thus, the author is forced to argue that God's design of sending his Son to redeem humanity was divulged at first to none but the Son. He waited until men and women had shown by their "unbridled passions,... pleasures and lusts" that they were both "unworthy of life" and  "incapable of entering into the kingdom of God by their own power." Then, at the opportune time, God sent forth his Son.[15]

As this argument stands, without any hint of the Old Testament period of preparation and the history prior to the Incarnation, it is an inadequate response to the query about Christianity's antiquity. A pagan respondent could easily ask for proof of these claims and, in the terms in which they have been given, none would be forthcoming. Although it is very evident that the author is not a Gnostic--he is completely committed to the importance of history--this seeming disinterest in the Old Testament was characteristic of the various Gnostic systems on the second-century religious landscape. This is an important reminder to us of the enormous value of the revelation of the Old Testament.

Michael A.G. Haykin is the Professor of Church History and Biblical Spirituality at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He has written widely on the Ancient Church and eighteenth-century Dissent

Notes:

 [1] Anthony Grafton, "Dating history: The Renaissance and the reformation of chronology", Daedalus 132 (2003): 82.

[2] Stephen Benko, Pagan Rome and the Early Christians (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1984), 21-22; Wolfram Kinzig, "The Idea of Progress in the Early Church until the Age of Constantine" in Elizabeth A. Livingstone, ed., Studia Patristica (Louvain: Peeters Press, 1993), 24:123-125.

[3] Letter to Diognetus 7.4.

[4] See Giorgio Agamben, Pilate and Jesus, trans. Adam Kotsko (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2015).

[5] For the history of the manuscript, see Henri Irénée Marrou, A Diognète (Sources chrétiennes, no. 33; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1951), 5-10.

[6] For some speculation as to the identity of Diognetus, see the discussion of Avery Dulles, A History of Apologetics (New York: Corpus Instrumentorum/Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971), 28-29. Recently Charles E. Hill has argued for Polycarp of Smyrna (69-155/156) as the author. See his From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp: Identifying Irenaeus' Apostolic Presbyter and the Author of Ad Diognetum (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). 

[7] For this dating, see Robert M. Grant, Greek Apologists of the Second Century (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1988), 178-179; Theofried Baumeister, "Zur Datierung der Schrift an Diognet", Vigiliae Christianae, 42 (1988): 105-111.

[8] Letter to Diognetus 1.

[9] The Aeneid 1, lines 281, 374-375.

[10] Letter to Diognetus 7.1-2. 

[11] Letter to Diognetus 7.2, 4.

[12] On this fact, see Marrou, A Diognète, 185-187.

[13] The Epistle to Diognetus (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1908), 39. 

[14] Letter to Diognetus 3-4.

[15] Letter to Diognetus 8.9-9.2.


"I can drive no man to heaven or beat him into it with a club." So observed Luther on March 11th, 1522, in a sermon to Wittenberg parishioners. Though his point was rather obvious, Luther felt compelled to make it because in his absence from Wittenberg during the preceding ten months, certain persons had grown impatient with the progress of reformation in the city and had resorted to means of legal compulsion and/or violence to bring about the changes in doctrine and worship they desired.

Luther had, in fact, made the same point in a sermon to the same audience the preceding day. Having insisted in no uncertain terms upon the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation, from which faith love for God and others as well as pure worship necessarily springs, Luther emphasized in that earlier sermon that such faith itself properly springs from the proclamation of God's promises, not from the use of force: "I cannot, nor should I, force anyone to have faith." Indeed, the use of force is ultimately, in Luther's estimation, unnecessary and unfruitful for the successful expansion of God's kingdom, because the divine word of promise -- first as it is encountered in Scripture and then as it is proclaimed by God's ordained ministers -- accomplishes that very task. "The Word created heaven and earth and all things; the Word must do this thing [i.e., achieve the conversion of men], and not we poor sinners." For our part "we should give free course to the Word and not add our works" -- that is, our means of coercion -- "to it." "We should," that is, "preach the Word, but the results must be left solely to God's good pleasure."

Luther discovered a perfect example of the Word's ability to grow God's kingdom sans a baton or baseball bat in his own experience of the preceding years. "I opposed indulgences and all the papists, but never with force. I simply taught, preached, and wrote God's Word; otherwise I did nothing. And while I slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with my friends..., the Word so greatly weakened the papacy that no prince or emperor ever inflicted such losses upon it. I did nothing; the Word did everything."

It's questionable whether Luther retained his position on the exclusive prerogative of the Word to accomplish the growth of Christ's kingdom in later years. Increasingly alarmed over time by the extreme efforts of Anabaptists to implement their own version of a spiritual/civil kingdom by force (which means, thankfully, they never possessed in sufficient measure), Luther grew ever more tolerant of the use of reciprocal force to keep the Anabaptists in line, civilly and (perhaps) religiously. One could, maybe, argue that his position remained consistent, and that the force against the Anabaptists he eventually endorsed was purely towards the end of political restraint rather than religious uniformity.

Regardless, the willingness Luther showed even in the 1520s to see civil offenders repressed by military/legal means reminds us that his doctrine of the Word's power was specifically a theological point about how Christ's kingdom is sustained and increased, not a generic endorsement of persuasion vis-à-vis coercion in every conceivable context.  A strong hand is sometimes required to keep wayward citizens -- or, for that matter, wayward children -- in line. Only the Word, however, can produce genuine faith, hope, and love directed towards God within a man, woman, or child.

Luther found a biblical example of the Word's exclusive power to bring about renewal and reform in the Acts 17 account of Paul's missionary work in Athens. "When Paul came to Athens, a mighty city, he found in the temple many ancient altars, and he went from one to the other and looked at them all, but he did not kick down a single one of them with his foot. Rather he stood up in the middle of the market place and said they were nothing but idolatrous things and begged the people to forsake them; yet he did not destroy one of them by force. When the Word took hold of their hearts, they forsook them of their own accord."

Luther might, had he wished, have found a further illustration of his point in church history, from a consideration of how Christianity spread in its earliest centuries. The first three centuries of Christians spread the gospel exclusively by means of proclamation. Indeed, they had little choice. Because their newfound religion was deemed illegal, they were consistently marginalized from positions of political, social, or military influence, and were at least occasionally made the victims of intense persecution. They witnessed to the reality that God in Christ was reconciling the world to himself with their lips and, on occasion, with their lives. By the very nature of their situation, they were prevented from promoting Christ's kingdom by establishing "Christian" nations or by commandeering the legislative or judicial machinery of existing states. Significantly, it was the greatest period of growth the Christian church has ever experienced, even in the absence of the factor of Wittenberg beer.

The early expansion of Christianity stands in marked contrast to the early expansion of Islam in this regard. From early on, Mohammed and his followers employed whatever military means they could muster to further the spread of their religion. Within a decade of Mohammed's death, Muslims had spread from their base in the Arabian Peninsula to conquer Palestine. Within little more than a century of Mohammed's death, Islam had conquered Syria, Persia, Northern Africa, and much of the Iberian Peninsula. All of this, of course, was by force, even if forced "conversions" as such grew thinner (being less politically expedient) the farther Islam stretched from its geographical home base. Such military accomplishments were remarkable, but not unprecedented (think, for example, of Alexander the Great), and thus no sure sign of divine favor. The rapid expansion of Christianity without means of force (indeed, in the presence of much persecution), by way of contrast, is remarkable, and arguably points to a providential kindness towards the doctrine championed by the earliest Christians.

Christians have rather often been a bit slow to learn the lesson that Luther, Scripture, and church history jointly teach us in this regard. The temptation to trust in force -- whether personal, financial, or political in kind -- for the expansion of Christ's kingdom, even when force is not actually employed, is constant. It is the flip-side of the temptation not to believe that God's Word can actually, in God's perfect timing, bring sinners into his Kingdom, or bring that Kingdom to its eschatological realization. One gauge of where our confidence for the success of the gospel actually lies might be the optimism/pessimism we feel over the outcome of political elections or particular pieces of government legislation. There is, of course, every reason to participate in political processes to bring about the best conceivable civil state for ourselves and our neighbors, believing and unbelieving alike. There is, equally, every reason not to get too worked up over either our successes or failures in such efforts; we are, after all, heirs of a kingdom which will not be achieved by political process, but will flourish through the proclamation of God's promise and the power of that proclamation to generate true (that is, justified, sanctified, and eventually glorified) citizens of the same.

Aaron Clay Denlinger is professor of church history and historical theology at Reformation Bible College in Sanford, Florida.

Christianity that cuts

|
It is sometimes difficult to work out exactly what people are doing when they open their Bibles and let their eyes pass over the pages of Scripture. An observer might surmise that one of the things that they are not doing is reading the words and assimilating the truth that is contained there. That conclusion would follow from the fact that there seems often to be a comprehensive and wilful failure to recognise that Christianity is an offensive religion, and offending people is the capital crime of the early 21st century Western world.

The problem with Christianity - the cause of the offence - is that it speaks very plainly and directly to sinners about their sin, their need of salvation and the only possible way of salvation. It tells men that they are neither good nor wise, and that therefore salvation is of the Lord. Such searching scrutiny of and honest counsel concerning the soul is not palatable to the natural man, whose "mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be" (Rom 8.7). And yet there seems to be a general resistance to the idea that Christianity must cut.

Among those who profess the name of Christ are multitudes who bend over backwards to avoid any hint that Christianity labels certain things as right and wrong, declares certain behaviour to be sin and identifies those who pursue it as sinners, condemns the unrepentant sinner to hell, demands allegiance to Christ crucified and to him only, declaring his to be the only name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4.12). Instead, we find a determination to avoid issues and individuals who might upset the applecart, preaching instead a spineless inclusivism that never makes a distinction, never draws a line, never takes a stand.

Even in healthy churches, there are believers who are mortified when sinners become angry and resentful under the preaching of the gospel, believers found backtracking - and perhaps urging others to do so - like a man who's just walked into a bull's field. There are parents who labour under the misapprehension that any confrontation of their children's sin will result in their rejection of Christ, and who therefore spend their lives avoiding the demands of the gospel in their homes. There are members who steadfastly militate against any form of church discipline because they cannot see how it can be loving to identify and address someone's sin. There are those who balk at the proclaiming of a single sovereign Saviour of mankind, who find calls to repent and believe harsh, who find any demand for whole-souled obedience and the pursuit of divine standards a little, well, demanding.

But we need to open our Bibles and do more than let our eyes pass over the pages. We need to recognise that Christianity cuts. If yours is a Christianity that has no sharp edges, no distinctive flavours, then it is not the true Christianity of the Bible. Paul made clear that the gospel of a crucified Christ was "to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness" (1Cor 1.23). If your gospel does not cause the hackles of the self-righteous to rise and the lips of the worldly-wise to curl in a sneer then it is not the gospel of God, and will not prove the power of God to salvation. If your gospel does not declare a freeness in God's grace that makes the self-righteous feel that you are giving wicked men a licence to sin then it is not the gospel of the Bible. If your gospel does not call men to an obedience so complete and entire that you are despised as narrow and shrivelled (1Pt 4.4) then it is not the gospel of the Bible. If your gospel does not offer salvation to any wretched sinners who call upon the name of Jesus Christ, however great their sins, and however far and long they have wandered from the Lord, then it is not the gospel of the Bible. If your gospel does not proclaim that those same sinners rely entirely upon the saving and sanctifying grace of a sovereign Lord then it is not the gospel of the Bible. If your gospel does not entreat, demand, command, invite, and compel sinners to come in, then it is not the gospel of the Bible. If your gospel has no cutting edges it is not the gospel of the Bible.

This gospel, this truth, draws lines and dares any to erase them. What does your Jesus say? Mine says this:
Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven. Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it. (Mt 10.32-39)
Of course, I am not saying that we have to be or ought to be offensive in ourselves. The gospel does that all by itself simply by being true. It cuts across the modern dogma that you cannot be dogmatic. It tramples on the idol of our self-sufficiency. But our task is simply to communicate the truth faithfully. The truth of God has a sharp edge and a distinctive flavour, and we must not and cannot afford to be ashamed of it. In almost every instance, sinners must be offended before they are converted.

If we blunt the edge and mask the flavour then our Christianity will not cut. It will not cut men to the heart because of their transgressions, whether they show it by their fury or their repentance, or perhaps their fury and then their repentance. It will not cut down the rearing pride of human goodness and human wisdom. It will not cut men out of the wild olive tree and graft them into the cultivated one. It will not cut off the fruitless branches, pruning the tree so that it bears good fruit. It will not cut off the right hand that causes you to sin or the right foot that walks into wickedness. It will not cut off words that are cutting, cruel, bitter, sapless, complaining and divisive. It will not cut the church out of the world and its appetites and pursuits, and make them holy to the Lord. It will not cut out the sheep from the goats. In short, it will not do the cutting work that is required if sinners are to be saved and the church to pursue its identity and activity in the world.

Many of us live in a place in which the only real sin is to hold to a Christianity that cuts. But lose that, and you lose a Christ who saves. If you have not felt the cut of Christianity, then you do not have Christ's Christianity. If you do now allow the cut of Christianity, then you will lose Christ's Christianity. Let us not avoid or be embarrassed by a Christianity that cuts. Let us not be ashamed of the gospel of God.

The nature of Christianity

|
What follows is a tract of penetrating honesty written by Archibald Alexander, found in Practical Truths (32-34) (Amazon US/UK, or a lovely edition here). The tract is entitled "Christianity in its nature aggressive," and Alexander is blunt in addressing - way ahead of the game - the foibles and follies of Christianity struggling to get to grips with postmodernity and its dogmas of relativism and pluralism (ironic that so many should so dogmatically assert the absence of dogma and so dogmatically assault those who disagree). You do not have to agree with the particular emphases of his last paragraph to find it bracing stuff.
In the charter which Christ gave to his disciples, who formed the first church under the new dispensation, the first command is one which requires action. "Go," says he. Every Christian must be on the alert. He has marching orders from the Captain of his salvation. He cannot sit down in ease and idleness, and yet be a Christian. As the father said to his son in the parable, "Go, work in my vineyard," so Christ says to every disciple; and it will not answer to say, "I go, sir," and yet refuse obedience. We must be doers of the word, and not mere hearers. We must be doers of the word, and not mere professors [those making a profession]. The command given by the risen Saviour is still in force, and as it was obligatory on all who heard it at first, so it is binding on all who hear it now. "Go."

But what are we to do? "Proselyte." Make disciples. Convert to Christianity. The very word "proselyte" will frighten some people. No heresy in their view is so great as sectarism. But Christianity is so intolerant, that it will bear no other religion; it seeks to overthrow every other system. If it would have admitted the claims of other religions, it would have escaped persecution. But no; it denounced every other system and mode of worship as hateful to God, and destructive to the soul. And it made every disciple a proselyter. And every one now, whether male or female, bond or free, Jew or Greek, who professes Christianity, takes upon himself or herself the obligation to convert others to Christianity.

Consider the extent of the field in which we are called to labor. "Go into all the world." "Go, teach," make disciples of, "all nations." And when converted, let the new proselytes not be ashamed to avow their allegiance to the King of Zion, by assuming his badge. Let them be baptized into the name of the HOLY TRINITY. Now they are in the school of Christ, and must be carefully taught all his commandments.

Here is a great work, requiring the coöperation of all who are already initiated. The greatest charity in the world is the communication of divine truth to the ignorant. Must all preach the word? Yes, in a certain sense, and according to their ability, and in observance of due order. All may teach. All Christians are bound to teach - the parent his children, the master his servants, the schoolmaster his scholars, the citizen his more ignorant neighbours, the colporteur [carrier of books and other literature] the families he visits with books and tracts, the pastor his flock, and the missionary the unconverted Jew and heathen. Here is work enough for all, and all may labor in their appropriate sphere; but all must labor: the duty is incumbent on them, and the obligation cannot be evaded.

The time seems to be coming, predicted by Daniel, when "many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." What a change within the last half century! Then there were no Bible societies, no tract societies, no Sunday-schools, no colporteurs, no Protestant missionaries. There is, indeed, another time predicted, when there shall be no need for one to say to his neighbour, "Know the Lord; for all shall know him from the least to the greatest." Then the work will be completed; but O, how much teaching must there be before the hundreds of millions of souls now ignorant, shall be so instructed as that none shall need further teaching. But perhaps the prophecy does not mean that none shall need farther instruction, but farther admonition - not that all shall have learned enough, but all will be fully disposed to learn. Blessed time! teaching will be then an easy as well as a delightful business.

This past Lord's Day evening, our church saw the ordination of Rev. Gabriel Fluher.  Gabe is a recent graduate of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary and has been a most outstanding intern at our church for the last few years.  We have called him to our pastoral staff primarily to minister to our youth.  I had the enormous privilege of preaching Romans 1:16, the same passage James Montgomery Boice preached at my ordination (which says something about what I think of Gabe).

Ordination services are important, and I'd like to note a few reasons why I love them:

The Christian calendar practiced by most evangelicals today is extremely illuminating.  What it shows is our generally weak appreciation for the fullness of Christ's saving work.  Two big holidays occupy our minds completely: Christmas and Easter.  So we focus on the birth, death, and resurrection of our Lord.  So far as it goes, that is perfectly wholesome.  But what a huge event Pentecost is in the life of the Christian church (not to mention the Ascension)!  There can be little doubt that while most of our churches faithfully observe Mother's Day thsi coming Lord's Day, most will completely ignore our Lord's great redemptive-historical gift of the outpoured Holy Spirit.

Here Am I

|

With apologies to Isaiah and Dick Cheney, I have emerged from my undisclosed location to offer my first post. Unlike my companions on this website, I am an utter novice at this. I read Wendell Berry, live next to Amish, and even drink milk from glass bottles. All of which is to say that the world of technology has passed me by. But I now consider myself a chastened, nay reformed, Luddite. Here's why:

Chris Brown.

Chris is a former student of mine who now serves as a missionary in the jungles of Peru. It's not that convenient for Chris to go to a bookstore or go to a library to stock up on books. He does, however, have the internet. Chris told me in an email, after he saw that I'm joining this blog, that he finds reformation21 edifying. Trueman, edifying? I'll let Chris's momentary lapse of judgment slide for now, but I will think of Chris as I post. I won't be all serious edification, in a didactic sense. After all, isn't the kingdom of God thinking, worshiping, eating and drinking, and even laughing together whether we're in the jungles of Peru or in undisclosed locations somewhere in Lancaster?