Defeatism vs. Triumphalism

There seems to be a creeping, pervading problem in American Christianity which infects many if not most sectors of the church, and which proves, in my opinion, to be very problematic. 

On the one hand, you have an attitude of defeatism, where believers are fixated on their present struggles, despairing of their frailties, and overall hamstrung in their spiritual lives by an over realization of their persistent sinfulness.  These poor saints really do love the Lord, really do want to live lives pleasing to Him, really do want to see Him lifted high…but feel very deeply and very powerfully that they are completely disqualified from ever seeing Him glorified in their lives, convinced that He’s only tolerating them because He promised to take “whomsoever will,” and that if He would have thought that one through a bit more before saying it, He would have added the proviso, “except for that guy.  I mean, come on…just look at him.  Can you believe he calls himself a Christian?  Hey, Mike, Gabe…I’m a bit busy over here in the galactic core taking care of Sagittarius A* – can you just reach down and zap him for Me real quick in retaliation for his even trying to ask Me into his life, eh?  Thanks, guys.”

The Christian life for these poor saints is not a joy, it is a misery.  True, it’s less a misery than knowing for sure that they’re lost, still dead in their sins back in the world; but it’s a drudgery nonetheless because they are never sure that God has really forgiven them, that He’s really accepted them, and that He really delights in them.  They get it that the way of the transgressor is hard, but that’s the entire problem for them – because they are painfully aware of their own persistent sinfulness, they never really draw into God, never really experience the peace of God, and so when hard things inevitably come into their lives, they become increasingly convinced that this is simply further proof that they may just in fact still be reprobate, may in fact not truly be saved – that they may in fact still be transgressors in the essential sense.  All of which leads to spiritual melancholy – and outright depression.

These poor saints are trapped by defeatism, caused by an over-focus on their practice rather than their position.  Their hearts and eyes are firmly fixed on the fact that they are still mired in their own flesh, that they continue to live less than God’s best, that they continue to sin.  And though most wouldn’t say that their salvation is in any way dependent upon their performance, though most readily admit that the Bible clearly teaches that salvation is based entirely on Jesus’ FINISHED work for them on the cross, in practice they really aren’t sure of it at some deep, perhaps even subliminal level.  They want to draw near to God, they want to experience His grace and His peace…but they are so very painfully aware that they very much do not deserve it that they are hindered from ever really resting in His finished work for them.

Their symptoms point to a single diagnosis:  Their focus is on their practice, to the downplaying or outright ignoring of their position.  The indicated treatment: meditating on what the Bible says of who they are and where they are in Christ, meditating on the fact that Jesus is infinitely mightier than their own fallenness.  Jesus has conquered their sin at the Cross, and when He took the cup of the Father’s wrath for their sin, He drained it to the dregs, so that there is nothing left for them to atone for once they have called on Him for mercy.

And that yes, it “took” the first time they asked Jesus to forgive them.  No, they’re not on probation.  Yes, I’m really, really sure.  Here’s Ephesians; let’s study that deeply for a while, eh?

On the other side of the problem, however, you find the equal-but-opposite problem – and it can be even more of a doozy than the first.  On that side of the equation, you have a pervasive (and, quite honestly, very odiously arrogant) attitude of triumphalism.  The problem here is an over-focus on position, to the downplaying or outright ignoring or denying of practice.

Here on the Glorious West Coast of Michgan, I deal with a lot of saints who struggle powerfully with spiritual defeatism.   I have had to continually remind these precious saints that the issue was decided at the Cross, and that they need to take their eyes off their own selves and turn them to Jesus and His finished work for them.I have recently, however, been seeing an uptick in the instance of Christians who are walking in an obnoxious species of triumphalism.  Whereas the defeatist Christian never fully experiences the awesome peace and grace of God because of their awareness of and over-focus on their own frailty, the triumphalist insists that no, he is not acting in the flesh, because He is hidden in Christ, so back off, bub…while he is, in fact, very much operating in the flesh.

For these saints, the very deep and abiding problem is that they never come to terms with the fact that they are still prone to sin.  Sure, they admit that they struggle, that they make mistakes, that they still sin in a very general sense…but it’s not as bad as all that, you see, because they are saints, after all.  What this leads to is a tendency to be very quick to dispense correction to others…but to be invincibly closed to receiving correction themselves.

The defeatist saint is crippled with stunted spiritual growth due to an inability to enter into the rest of the Lord; the triumphalist saint is crippled with stunted spiritual growth due to an inability to see their own very real fallibility, and therefore an inability ex post facto to deal with their flesh – since what they deny has any real, pervasive force they likewise deny really needs to be dealt with.

Here’s how that manifests:  A triumphalist saint walks in pride, is critical of others, is lax with regard to personal holiness, but claims to be mature, has a vaunted view of his own spirituality, and feels unduly entitled to the deference which is due them their position, absent any real substantive reason for said deference (and, in fact, in the presence of real, substantive reasons for withholding such).

A defeatist wearily toils under the impossible burden of self-condemnation, and any critique of his walk with the Lord tends simply to confirm that self-condemnation and increase his burden.  A triumphalist will critique you on your walk with the Lord, but will react very badly when you return the favor.

We came face-to-face with this phenomenon recently; an individual that my lovely and gracious wife and I are peripherally familiar with acted in a very inappropriate manner and needed to be rebuked, which set off the proverbial fireworks.  When confronted with the inconsistency of his claim to be a godly, mature spiritual leader, he immediately responded that he was highly offended that his godly, mature spirituality would ever be called into question – he was, after all, filled with the Spirit, called holy and a saint, and had been given victory in Jesus.

He could not see – could not see – the gross inconsistency between his position and his practice…and therefore could not see that that very dissonance is something that needs to be addressed.

As Martin Luther’s famous restating of James’ great maxim puts it:

We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone.

The triumphalist would likely never consciously contradict Luther…but his actions and attitudes stand in as sufficient contradiction nonetheless.

The defeatist cannot bring himself to claim any of the blessings of God for his life, so wracked with guilt as he is.  The triumphalist claims those blessings and more, demands them even due to his position, and does so while subtly or flagrantly living contrary to the God who desires in all cases to bestow such blessings.  He feels no particular need to live according to the responsibilities of his position, while seeking to enjoy the rights and privileges of it.

In both cases, true spiritual growth is greatly hindered, true spiritual maturity is denied, true fellowship with God and man remains unrealized.

The answer to both extremes is a remarkably simple one:  To realize both my position and my practice matter, to acknowledge that my standing before the Lord is wholly dependent upon my position, and the Spirit’s great work in my life this side of the veil isn’t so much to bestow upon me His spectacular gifts of prophecy, healing, and tongues (though He obviously does that), but rather more so to incrementally bring my practice into harmony with my position, and that the two sides to the same issue are utterly inseparable.

To the defeatist, the Bible’s encouragement is to fully trust in Christ and His finished work for you.  Your standing before God, and His favor towards you, is not in the least measure based on your performance, but on your simply trusting in that finished work.  You are secure in Jesus, because He carried your sin on His Person to the hill of Calvary, all of it, suffered the full and unmediated wrath of the Father for that sin, and forever secured your salvation and right standing with God.  He did all of this alone, and He did it infallibly.  You cannot ever improve on His finished work by your penitence, your self-improvement, or your anything; He did it all, He paid it all, and now in return for your simple faith He gives you all.  Enter into the rest and joy of your Lord, for this is His great desire, and this is what pleases Him, not your doomed efforts at reformation.  Your simple, child-like faith in His mercy and grace won for you at the Cross, and nothing else.  As the hymn of the faith says:

Just as I am, without one plea
But that Thy blood was shed for me
And that Thou bidd’st me come to Thee
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Therefore, you can rebuke the whisper of the enemy in your heart which says that the Father is displeased with you, that you do not measure up, that you are utterly unworthy of the least of His mercies.  With the exception of the first part, the rest is all true!  And so what?  Even so, God is forever pleased with you, because of Jesus, and since you are hidden in Him, and He does measure up, and He is worthy, so are you. 

Don’t rest on how you feel, rest on what He says!

Don’t wait until you “get”  it or “understand” it – you never will!  Instead, rejoice in it by faith – which is the very principle by which we are called to live in the first place, not by merit or performance.  Simply faith!

To the triumphalist, the Bible’s admonition is to remember that God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble – and that the essence of humility is to have a right and sober view of oneself.

Which includes the concept of not thinking of oneself more highly than he ought to think, in fact, of thinking of others as as being better than oneself. 

Paul puts it like this:

Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion.

Understand also, dear trumphalist, that although it is indeed true that your standing before God isn’t based on your performance, your life still matters to God, and He expects you to live it for Him – which includes the idea of daily crucifying your flesh…which in turn directly implies that your flesh requires daily crucifying!  Keep in mind that Romans 7 appears before Romans 8 – by design, not simply by logical necessity.  The same Apostle who speaks in the present tense and includes himself in the triumphs and glories of the eight chapter, speaks in the present tense and includes himself in the struggles and setbacks of the seventh chapter.  John, agreeing with Paul, in the same epistle in which he declares that the true believer cannot {continue in} sin, also is very painfully clear that the believer can never be completely free of sin this side of the veil, and must determine to struggle against sin.

Therefore, you must be open to the same correction you are quick to apply to others.

You must recognize that though what you do does not save you, your salvation necessarily changes what you do.  Yes, you are blessed beyond the curse because of Jesus, but you are supposed to, therefore, live in real blessing, not simply demand it.  Yes, you are eternally righteous in Jesus; therefore, live like it.  Yes, you are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise; therefore, give evidence of that sealing by a life lived in humble joy before God and man.

As Martin Luther has said:

The true, living faith, which the Holy Spirit instills into the heart, simply cannot be idle.

…which is really another way to restate James:

But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

Both Christian defeatism and Christian triumphalism are extremes of Christian thinking and attitude which are combatted by a proper perspective:  My position is eternally secure in Christ, my standing with God is based on His finished work, and so my practice, which does not determine my standing, is however daily to be brought more and more in line with that exalted position, by the grace and working of the Spirit.

Perspective

Amid today's orgy of adulation over Michael Jackson, we should pause and remember real heroes--men and women who paid the ultimate price for this nation, but whose lives go uncelebrated.

U.S. Army Lieutenant Brian Bradshaw was one of individuals. He died on June 25th, the same day that Michael Jackson passed away. But Lieutenant Bradshaw didn't die in a Hollywood mansion from a drug-induced heart attack. He was killed on a road in Afghanistan, when his vehicle was targeted by an improvised explosive device.

 

Read the whole article here.

The One

This is a great parable-ish undoubtedly prophetic comedy-but-not-really-all-that-funny-given-how-pathetically-true-it-actually-is blogpost by my friend and fellow pastor Tom Spithaler.

You must go read it.  Now.

STR: Hitchens’ Mess

Good response here to Chris Hitchens’ book, God Is Not Great.

The Americans With No Abilities Act

This gag article is funny – very funny.

Unfortunately, it’s also not too far removed from the realm of possibility with our current leadership (I’ll use that term for lack of a better one) in the federal government.

But it is a very funny read…

"As a non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them," said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, Mich., due to her inability to remember righty tighty, lefty loosey. "This new law should be real good for people like me." With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Said Sen. Dick Durbin: "As a senator with no abilities, I believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her inadequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation and a good salary for doing so."

Andy Stanley – More Smarterer Than You

There are guys who really dig Andy Stanley.

I am emphatically not one of them.

I’ve never dug his whole “one point preaching” thing which assumes (among other things) that Christians (or at least, non-seminary-graduated-pastor-types) are idiots who need to have Biblical truth premasticated for them and spoon-fed in only the gentlest, most non-challenging way possible.

Ergh.

Ed Stetzer recently interviewed Andy on his blog (thanks for the heads-up, Brian)

Guys that preach verse-by-verse through books of the Bible-- that is just cheating. It's cheating because that would be easy, first of all. That isn't how you grow people. No one in the Scripture modeled that. There's not one example of that.

Yeah.  Not one example.

Like, for instance, not Nehemiah.

Look, Andy…we don’t see very many examples of “one point preaching,” either.  And…?

V-B-V isn’t the only way to teach the Word; it is however an amazingly effective way.

Contrary to what Andy says. “That isn’t how you grow people.”

…darn.  And here I thought that people were growing just fine in expositionally focused churches and movements like Calvary Chapel, Acts 29, Harvest Bible Chapel, Johnny Mac and Grace Community, and others.  Darn those pesky facts getting in the way and blowing up a perfectly good baseless assertion!  Darn them to heck!

I honestly don’t know why anybody takes this guy seriously – oh, no, wait, I do…he’s a chief Growthinista.  For the Growthinista, apparent results in the nickels-‘n’-noses department trumps all.  Alrighty; allow me to revise and extend my remarks.  I honestly don’t know why anybody who self-identifies with one of the aforementioned expositionally focused churches and movements likes this guy.

Seriously.

Another gem from Andy:

All Scripture is equally inspired, but not all Scripture is equally applicable or relevant to every stage of life.

Oy.

Apparently, all Scripture isn’t in fact profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, or instruction in righteousness; to be thoroughly equipped unto every good work, the man of God had to wait nearly 2000 years for the Lord to finally and graciously raise up Cap’n One-Point-Preachin’.

Give me multiple-point preachin’ Spurgeon any day over this character.

Again: Why does anybody take this guy seriously…?

The Economics of Envy

I’m a stark-raving, frothing-at-the-mouth, rock-ribbed premillennial pretribulationist.  In a word, I am an unapologetic Dispensationalist.

It’s a very good thing, though, to read and carefully consider what others who don’t agree with your own dearly-held views.  There is much to gain and glean from the thinking of other viewpoints than your own.

In light of that, I intentionally read the works of, for instance, preterist posmillenarians like Gary DeMar.

On economic issues, Gary’s actually got some pretty good stuff.

In this article, he examines the economics of envy.  Good read.

Twilight

Good article here from the Institute for Creation Research, which among other things looks at the current evangelical trend of soft-pedaling the all-important doctrine of inerrancy.

"Oh, I really don't see it that way," he stated. "My church teaches that the Bible may be inspired, but it's not inerrant. It's all about man's description of God."

I heartily agree with those who state that evangelicalism is in its twilight. Evangelicalism, ironically due to its obsession with relevance, is becoming increasingly irrelevant.  In seeking to accommodate itself to the zeitgeist, it has both consciously and unconsciously watered down the core tenets of the Scriptural faith and has become little differentiated from the moderate-to-liberal mainstream of modern Christianity.

There is a reason why most theologically paleoconservative church Statements of Faith (including CC Lakeshore’s) begin with a clear declaration along the lines of, “We believe the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant, verbal, plenary, confluent Word of God” or something along those lines. The reason is that without an inspired, inerrant Bible, we have no firm basis to believe in God in the first place – at least, no firm basis to believe in the God revealed in that very Bible.  It is the Bible which tells us of the Triune God, of the fall of man, of God’s work of redemption on the Cross, and of His soon-return for us at the end of the age.

And of Creation, and other bugaboo topics that theological neoconservatives really and fervently wish weren’t in the Bible, as they cause great embarrassment for them in their quest to be relevant and must be explained away rather than accepted and dealt with head-on.

What $315 Billion Looks Like to an Engineer

HT: Justin88

Gaza

The world media – as usual – is again demonizing Israel for defending herself from unprovoked attack, even though the IDF (as always) went to herculean lengths to minimize civilian casualties.

A well-nigh impossible task, given that Israel’s enemies bravely hid themselves inside civilian populations and courageously fired at the Jews from behind the protection of women, children, and the infirm.

Again – as always.

Even so, the world media falls right into character and lambastes the Jews for defending themselves.  And they are all the more incensed because the Jews intentionally limited their response to Hamas’ attacks even to the point of taking fire from supposed civilians who carried RPGs and other weapons and fired into Jewish ranks, in an apparent attempt to provoke the IDF to return fire in self-defense so that the slavering, obsequious media mavens could jump in and pile on the Jews, proving to their uncritical audiences that yet again, Israel was the true impediment to peace (because the Jews continue to have the audacity to refuse to roll over and die when they are attacked).

Joshua Eastman, an oleh from Baltimore, fought in the recent Gaza conflict, and brings a bit of a reality check to the cacophonous chorus of media-driven world opinion on his blog, Through Josh-Colored Glasses.

The world is already trying to fault Israel, telling everyone that civilians died, and Israelis murdered. But I was there. My feet were on the ground and I saw the truth. I saw that warnings were given, I saw the enemy that fought us. I saw the twelve year olds with missiles and RPGs strapped to their backs. I saw that it was with sadness and great anger Israeli troops recognized the need to fire on people who crossed the red line, the danger zone which meant they saw us, and knew where we were. Old people mined with bombs, children armed with detonators, tunnels that opened in the ground to swallow our soldiers. I watched my commanders passing out all of our food to the children who were taken prisoner. I received the commands "closed to fire on the right" if our intelligence had reported civilians in the area. I watched us, more often then not, taking cover when supposed civilian positions fired on us from "the right|. Yet the world thinks it can bend the truth. We were not allowed to fire on schools. We were told not to loot. We watched in anger as our bombs, so as not to fall on large civilian centers, fell on our own troops, so that we could tell the world we were attempting to scare the enemy while limiting civilian losses.

Yet they won't say that in the press.

The full blogpost is a resounding counterpoint to the world media.

Left Behind

It’s become very vogue to chortle at the Left Behind series of books by LaHaye and Jenkins and their subsequent movie adaptations.  Even many who share a dispensational (i.e., pretrib premil) eschatology, seemingly in order to fit in with the hep-cat-yo-dog-g*money über-relevant cool kids crowd have taken up the laugh track.

Oy.

You can’t see it, but I’m rolling my eyes.

I’d like to go on record as saying that I liked the series overall.  Granted, the prose was…pedestrian.  And the theology was a bit sensationalistic and took some fairly healthy leaps of poetic license.  But come on, guys…it was a series of fiction books.  Let’s all take a deep, cleansing breath, step back a bit, grab ourselves a nice, tall glass of ice-cold milk, and just chill.

Eh?

Can we do that, mayhap?

Understanding that it was written for the broadest audience possible, I can excuse the somewhat less-than-inspired writing. (On that note, I find it more than a bit ironic that all the hep-cat-yo-dog-g*money über-relevant cool kids, who put such a galactically huge emphasis on “contextualization” and “reaching and engaging the culture, duuuuude” got and get their underbritches all in a bunch over the purposeful accessibility of the Left Behind series… Things that make you go, “hmmmmmmm…”)  And I can excuse the leaps the series makes – they’re adapting a prophetic scenario that, quite frankly, defies full visualization, and the authors didn’t do a singularly terrible job of filling in the gaps.

Mostly, the reaction against Left Behind has its genesis in and is fuelled by that segment of the church which hates severely dislikes isnt’ a huge fan of dispensational eschatology.

Okay, fair enough. Come up with your own fiction series, then, which emphasizes your own eschatological distinctives and go about your way.

What the Left Behind series illustrated (and actually continues to illustrate) is that there is a vast reservoir of interest in Biblical prophecy in America – people are very curious about what the Biblical scenario is and how it intersects if at all with their lives and current events in general.  Should they rather get that information from the Bible itself – or at least from good, solid scholarly sources? Sure. But the fact that they’re so obviously and hugely interested in the subject in the first place is a very telling thing – and, frankly, when someone gets interested in Left Behind, they usually want to dig deeper – which means that they usually begin to ask questions that they didn’t even know how to ask before and seek out the answers in more reliable avenues.

Or at least, that’s been my experience here on the glorious west coast of Michigan.

Which is an incredible thing; West Michigan is a hotbed of both Reformed (and therefore usually a- or post-millennialism) and Emergent Christianity – two houses which in today’s climate tend to be decidedly hostile to dispensationalism (with, of course, notable exceptions).  The hippest churches tend toward a very decidedly nonchalant attitude towards eschatology altogether.

And yet, even here in West Michigan, Left Behind remains a very popular fiction series.

That says something.

Oh, yes, I know, you can shake your head in mock despair and say that what it reveals is the rampancy of Biblical nescience, if only they’d get a hold of towering theological treasures like Blue Like Jazz and The Apocalypse Code they’d be cured of their benightedness…

…I choose not to assume that it means that the rank-and-file are, as a group, idiots.

Instead, I believe it speaks to a real hunger to know more about the Lord, and about what His Word says about history – they want to know, especially now, that there is a God in heaven who knows, who cares, and who is sovereignly moving the great and small events of life toward a determined (and ultimately very hopeful) end.

Left Behind tapped and continues to tap into that vast groundswell.

And so I say again, overall, I liked the series.

Excellent job, Tim and Jerry.  Excellent job.

And to the hep-cat-yo-dog-g*money über-relevant cool kids who spare no hauteur attacking both the books and their authors – get a hobby.  Seriously. You’re embarrassing yourselves.

STR: “We Must Continue To Ask One Question”

Stand To Reason has an absolutely excellent blog.  If you haven’t subscribed to their RSS feed yet, you should do so.

Right now.

Stop hesitating.

Really, it’s that good.

The latest blogpost is titled, "Abortion: We Must Continue to Ask One Question,” and it’s yet another out-of-the-ballpark homerun.

It’s logic, to quote VIKI in the (really, really bad) movie adaptation of Isaac Asimov’s magnum opus, I, Robot: “The logic is inescapable.”

Obamanation

Romans 13 is clear: if we are to be Biblically faithful Christians, we must pray for our leaders.

And that doesn’t mean, “pray that Air Force One has an…ah…mishap…while the Messiah is embarked thereupon…” either.

It means to pray for our leaders for wisdom, protection, and that we can as Christians live quiet and peaceable lives.

I’ll be perfectly honest: President Obama terrifies me on several levels. In just the first few days, he undid all the pro-life and pro-national-security work that the Bush administration took eight years to build and protect, and proceeded to pay back his political allies with several über-liberal executive orders.

And that’s just the beginning, folks.

While Senator McCain’s economic plan was irresponsible and unworkable (read: really bad), Obama’s is either a nightmare of Cecil B. DeMillean proportions or the manifestation of a Keynesian’s wildest hopes and dreams (read: really really bad), depending on how historically and economically literate you happen to be.

Even so, we are commanded to pray for the president and his family.

I’ll be transparent and point out that along with praying for his health, safety, and prosperity, I do pray that, ultimately, his contrabiblical policies fail.  Hey, sorry, dude – I love my country.  I’d like to still have one to bequeath to my son one day.

All that said, there are reasons to be very optimistic and joyful, even over the next four years.  And if you need help coming up with reasons to be thankful for Obama’s inauguration, I give you Erik Raymond’s “5 Reasons I am thankful during Barack Obama’s Inauguration”

Good, great stuff there.

Social Justice

I love the Stand To Reason blog. Actually, the whole ministry. But the blog is particularly awesome.

Friday’s post, “The Most Important Social Justice Issue Of Our Time,” was particularly good – though of course certain persons like Brian “Orthodoxy Schmorthodoxy!” MacLaren and the Rev. Dr. Lawrence Russel Taylor^TM PhD, Esq., Etc., Etc., Etc., ©2009, would heartily disagree with it – since to their thinking, the best way to defend babies in the womb is to exponentially increase the number of abortions by voting for the candidate who with a swoop of his messianic pen galactically increases federal funding (read: MY tax dollars, and YOURS, too, whether you agree with these…individuals and support a woman’s right to kill her child or not) for abortions.

I kid you not.

At least the Rev. Dr. Lawrence Russel Taylor^TM PhD, Esq., Etc., Etc., Etc., ©2009, seems to truly believe that the best way to reduce abortions is to increase abortions.

{{insert blank stare here}}.

Anyway.

Great article over on STR.

Villify ‘Em All!

Right off the bat, let me state I’m no huge Gary De Mar fan.  He’s pretty solid as long as he stays on the topic of history – specifically American history as viewed through a Biblical lens – but he has a tendency to veer off into tirades about eschatology, pontificating on the merits of postmillennialism and preterism.

He’s perfectly entitled to so so; postmil and (non-Hymanaean) preterism are both theologically orthodox positions.  And I suppose I’d get more out of his stuff if he’d come up with newer, better arguments; but he doesn’t, and I just don’t want to read the same hackneyed platitudes over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and again and again and again…and again…

Look, Gary, I get it.  Margaret Macdonald invented the entire rapture thing out of whole cloth, Edward Irving was a boob, Darby was a flake, Paul really didn’t mean what he sure did seem to think he meant when he talked about us not being appointed to wrath which is to come…etc.

Gotcha.

Move along, or come up with something else – something which isn’t so easily answered and which hasn’t already been dealt with a googolplex times over.

Sheesh.  It’s enough to make me think postmil preterists don’t have much else to offer the discussion.

But that having been said, so long as Gary refrains from knocking over pretrib straw men, hastily righting them, and then gleefully knocking them over once more, he’s actually got some good stuff to say.

Enter today’s article, Scapegoating Christians: The New Nazism. In it he uses John Sack’s very disturbing book An Eye For An Eye to point out the somewhat obvious parallels between the progressive and programmatic dehumanization and eventual destruction of political enemies in totalitarian states (like Nazi Germany or Communist Russia) and the hauntingly similar process already at work to marginalize and disenfranchise Christians in today’s America:

The final tactic is to disenfranchise the opposition by keeping them from making a living or holding positions of authority in government, law, and education. The Communists understood the strategic necessity of policing every open gate to the institutions where ideas can get out to the masses without the sanction of the State. Leon Trotsky stated the following in 1936: “The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced with a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.” If a person does not follow the Party line, he cannot get a Party job. As government increases its power and reach, there will be more government jobs that Christians will not be permitted to hold if religious ideology becomes a prerequisite for employment.

Guillermo Gonzalez, who received his Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of Washington and did his post-doctoral research at the University of Texas, Austin, and the University of Washington, received fellowships, grants, and awards from NASA, the University of Washington, Sigma XI, and the National Science Foundation, authored nearly 70 peer-reviewed scientific articles, and has had his work has been cited over 1500 times in the scientific literature, was denied tenure (also see here and here) by Iowa State University because he had the audacity as a scientist to question naturalistic evolution. He is not alone.

It’s an interesting read.

The world has gone insane...

Oy, vey...  http://clergy4obama.wordpress.com/

Let 'em "marry"

Many of my evangelical brethren become understandably twitchy about the subject of "gay" "marriage."

Yes, both "gay" and "marriage" are in quotes, on purpose.

1. The lifestyle is anything but gay
2. Two dudes or two gals playing house a marriage does not make, spiffy piece of paper to the contrary notwithstanding

...then again, a dude and a gal playing otherwise heterosexual house a marriage does not make, spiffy piece of paper to the contrary notwithstanding, either...turns out it takes a bit more than that - but I digress...

Laying aside for the moment the absolutely unambiguous declaration of Scripture that "gay" activity is a major no-no, news like this tempts one to sit back in his chair, cross his arms and grin, and say, "let 'em 'marry.'"

Because with "gay" "marriage" you also get the inevitable "gay" divorce.

That'll show 'em...

Junior High

Thank God we're not in Junior High anymore.

You remember Junior High?  When petty disagreements between two people would resonate outward like pernicious ripples from the principals through all their myriad relations and relationships, sundering ties and restructuring alliances, like the European states after the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.

You know what I mean:

Hey, man; Bobby-Jim and I are fighting.  I don't like Bobby-Jim.  So because I don't like him, and you're my friend, you can't like him.

Oh, and Debbie-Sue's Bobby-Jim's friend, so you can't like her, any more, 'neither.

Basically, if you don't agree with me 100%, then I don't like you - and if I don't like you, my friends can't like you, either - otherwise, they immediately forfeit the privilege of friendship unless they toe the line.

Thank God we're not in Junior High anymore.  We're all (at least nominally) adults now, and we can handle disagreements - even strong disagreements - without pouting, picking up our relational ball, and huffing off home to sulk.

We can disagree with someone, even strongly, and still like them.

In the context of the Church (and by "the Church" I mean the Church Universal, not simply the local church) this becomes and even greater issue and blessing.

The Body of Christ is large - very large.  And there's a whole, vast range of preferences and opinions on secondary and tertiary issues of faith and conduct.  The Bride is truly beautiful, not least of which because of the richness of the myriad tones and undertones in the grand chorus of the sundry voices engaged in worship, expression, discussion - and yes, debate.

I can appreciate what a brother from a different tradition than mine has to say; I can mull it over and consider its relative strengths and weaknesses, both without necessarily agreeing with a single thing the dude has to say or without casting him off as a heathen or unregenerate because of my disagreement with him.

There are hills that I will die on - foundational, core, first-order doctrines which define the borders of the Kingdom.  These doctrines revolve around the Person and Work of Jesus; disagree on these, and you are not my brother, you are not an object of fellowship - you are an object of evangelism.

Those doctrines that I will gladly fight tooth-and-nail over include:

• The full Deity and full Humanity of Jesus
• Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus alone
• His sinless conception, birth, and life
• Speaking about His birth - that it was a Virgin Birth
• His vicarious, substitutionary death in our behalf
• His bodily resurrection from the grave
• His return in glory at the consummation of the age

First-order doctrines which directly correlate with these, and which I will also gladly fight over include:

• The Trinitarian nature of God
• The fallen nature of man (born in sin, born innately a sinner, before any actual acts of sin had been committed)
• Jesus' Two Natures; He is One in Person, but Two in Nature
• (i.e., His Natures are not mingled in any way, yet with complete integrity of Person)

These (among others) are doctrines which separate between the Kingdom of God and everything else.  Compromise or reject any one of these, and you are not a Christian.

End of discussion.

Have a nice day.

Here's a Gospel tract.

These doctrines are precious and to be defended against all onslaught; we can never compromise here - never give ground...never.

But...there are a host of other doctrines which are important - even very important - but which are "in-house" arguments that, while they effect the spiritual formation and maturity of the one holding them, do not determine the eternal disposition of that one.

In other words, there are doctrines that are important, but are not salvation issues.

We might still disagree on these second-order doctrines - and even disagree sharply - but still be brothers, because we agree on the core essentials.

And I find great benefit from reading and interacting with as broad a range of Christian thinking as possible.  As I've said before, one of the reasons why is because it challenges my thinking - points out weaknesses and blindspots in my worldview that I wouldn't otherwise know were there, and gives me the opportunity to correct the situation.

Which brings up the main point I want to make with this blogpost.

Given that there is a truly broad area where we can disagree and still be brothers in Christ, and given that there is a large degree of permissible dissension in secondary doctrines, and given that secondary doctrines, though they don't necessarily impact on the salvation of the person holding them, are still important - given all that, there are going to likely be a great many areas where you and I might disagree.

That disagreement doesn't mean we're not brothers - it simply means we disagree on something which has a level of importance somewhat less than that of first-order issues of the faith.  Yet though it is of lesser importance, it is still important.

And because it's important, we should probably talk about it.

And by "talk," I mean that we will likely end up debating.

That's not a bad thing; again, as I've quoted before:

“A debate is a conflict which clarifies a position. A dialogue is a conversation which compromises a position.”
John E. Ashbrook, The New Neutralism II

Debate - or "vigorous dialog," if you get twitchy when the "D" word is used - is indispensable for clarifying our understanding of Scripture.  It doesn't mean we're on opposite sides of that border between the Kingdom of God and all else; it simply means we disagree to a substantial degree on something which, while we both lie within those borders, places us at opposite ends of a particular issue.

And it's important to be right about things which effect eternity.  I don't want to believe something just because my church teaches it, or my favorite teacher teaches it, or because, darn it all, that's just what I came up with on my own, thank you very much...and the best way I know of to constantly challenge my presuppositions is to (a) read those whose presuppositions differ from mine, and (b) interact with those whose presuppositions differ from mine.

The men and women that I respect the most are those who have challenged me, who have called me on the carpet, who haven't "gone along to get along," but have loved me enough to call me out and engage me on these important issues.  We may not have wound up finally in agreement...but I've always been enriched by the discussion.

There are men, fellow brothers-in-arms on the listserv for senior pastors for the movement I'm a part of who have seriously challenged me over the course of the last seven or eight years.  I value that - I greatly value that.

There are a few specific brothers who have challenged my deeply held views on things - and who I still don't agree with - but who have given me a different perspective on the issues in question and have given me the opportunity to really examine what I believe in a way that I couldn't have if I'd kept drinking my own intellectual bathwater, as it were, only thinking happy thoughts and interacting with peeps who already agree with me.

BTW - the point of debate shouldn't be to win - it should be to learn.  My opinions have shifted on things over the years as a result of this sort of true dialog, by discovering that my positions were weak and needed to be amended or discarded.  I am thankful for the brothers and sisters who have loved me enough not to leave me in my ignorance, but have challenged me to think.

All that being said: though I believe in the strongest possible terms that the richness of the diversity of the greater Body of Christ is a good thing, and that there is great value in listening to voices other than your own...it's also important to point out that I'm not suggesting that we all gather 'round in a great big group hug, sing kumbaya, forget about our real differences and just be happy-shiny-people-holding-hands.

Though you might be my brother, if we disagree on an important enough secondary issue significantly enough, I'm going to point that out.

And I fully expect you to do the same to me.

That doesn't mean we don't like each other and that we'll send some icky stuff through the mail to one another at Christmastide.  It means simply that we disagree on an issue that's important enough to contend over, while acknowledging the legitimacy of each other's place in the overall, greater Kingdom.

I don't have to agree with someone to like them.

A f'rinstance:

Rick "Syria's A Great Nation!" Warren is the big bad boy of the moment.  Personally - I don't care about Rick Warren.  I don't think Rick is the antichrist, I don't think he eats his young, I don't think he has the Number of the Beast tattooed to his forehead, hand, or nether region.  Do I think he's unwise in his associations?  Yep.  Do I think he's uncomfortably ecumenical?  Oh, yeah.  Do I think he's a pragmatist?  ...marginally, yes.  On some points.  Do I want to smack him upside his head and hopefully help some of those synapses to start firing in proper sequence so he never makes that egregious statement about Syria being a "great nation!" with "great support for human rights!" again?  Oh, you  betcha.  But do I think he's a brother - unequivocally.  Therefore, he will ultimately stand or fall before his own master, not me.

But, I reserve the right to point out where he & I disagree.  That has nothing to do with whether or not he's saved; it has everything to do with areas of disagreement between brothers that are sharp enough to warrant comment.

And no - it's not "nit-picky" to point out areas of disagreement over important-albeit-secondary doctrines.  And no, it's not an attack, so don't get your underbritches all in a bunch and go pout in a corner, rocking yourself into oblivion and wishing with all the fervency of your heart that nobody would ever disagree with you - or one of your friends - again.

Let's all take a deep breath and make that last little leap beyond puberty into adulthood: disagreement is not division.  Disagreement does not mean one person is saying, "me, Christian; you, unregenerate heathen pig-dog."  Disagreement is...disagreement.  And facing that disagreement is the best thing we can do to promote the health of the body - not to ignore it.  But name it, look at it, examine it, discuss it, and learn from it...and then move on.

All those marvelous creeds of the church arose out of environments of intense disagreement and debate.  And we are indescribably enriched by it.

All the great theological terms we use on a daily basis, like Trinity, arose out of environments of intense disagreement and debate and the need to further define what we mean when we say what we say.  And we are indescribably enriched by it.

The very face of diversity in the Church Universal arose out of environments of intense disagreement and debate.  The friction between the Roman Patriarch and the other Four, eventually culminated in the great Schism which apparently sundered the visible church into Eastern and Western communions - and which, ultimately, permitted greater expression and theological development, along with all the real garbage on both sides of the divide which were also attendant thereunto.

Then the disagreements within and without the Western Church gave us the Waldenses, and the Cathari, and the Hussites...eventually, a German priest nailed ninety-five points of contention with the institutional church of the time, and sparked the greatest controversy, the greatest debate in church history, the effects of which echo loudly down through the ages to me sitting here at my laptop plunking this out; I am in many ways one of his spiritual scions, given that I am Protestant.

And afterward; the disagreements between Luther and Zwingli over the Latin phrase, hoc est corpus Meum ("this is My body") helped formulate the Reformed view of the Eucharist...the disagreements on specific points of doctrine between Luther and Calvin shaped Protestantism for all proceeding centuries.  Between the Calvinists on the Continent and the British Isles.  Between the English state church and the Puritans. Between the Dutch Reformed and the Remonstrants.  Between Darby and...everybody who wasn't Darby.  The Pentecostal Revival. The great Fundamentalist-Modernist debates. The divisions in early Pentecostalism that led to the formation of the several Pentecostal denominations, including the Church of the Foursquare Gospel.  The discontent that Chuck Smith had with the Foursquare Church which led, ultimately, to his assuming the pulpit of a small, 25-member nondenominational church in Costa Mesa, California, in the mid-60's...which led, through a winding and exceedingly round-about way, to the planting of Calvary Chapel on the Lakeshore here on the glorious West Coast of Michigan.

I could go on; I could cite the disagreement between Chuck Smith and John Wimber which eventually led to the formation of a new expression of the Body - the Vineyard movement.  And who doesn't love Vineyard worship music? Again - through disagreement and debate, though there was pain, though the differences themselves remain unresolved...the greater Body of Christ is yet again enriched.

I love the Body of Christ - in all her messy, often cacaphonous glory.  I love the deep richness of her expression; I love the wild wonder of the fulness of her song.

And I also love the truth.  And so, even while rejoicing in the differences, I recognize - we can't all be right.  And so, I test and weigh and examine the differences - I debate.  I affirm a brother's place in the Kingdom - while also reserving the right (indeed: the duty) to point out those areas of disagreement and hopefully provoke discussion about them.

It is not in the least bit inconsistent to affirm the brotherhood of someone I am at practical or theological odds with on non-essentials of the faith, while at the same time pointing out those points of contention and treating them with the seriousness they deserve.

I don't have to agree with someone to like them.

Thank God we're not in Junior High anymore.

Late on the uptake

This went down last week while I was in Wisconsin for my day-job-to-support-my-habit...read here.

MacArthur on Pragmatism

Pragmatism is defined as:

A philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value.

Pragmatism happens to be the dominant philosophical assumption in much of the modern church - even among many who consider themselves to be evangelicals.  The hallmark of pragmatism is the focus on the question, "does it work."  Results are, at the end of the day, the criteria for assessing the relative rightness of any system, endeavor, or question.  Whether a thing is right winds up being a secondary concern; the "rightness" of a thing is more a function of how well it "works" than it is of how it corresponds with what is objectively right and true.  Therefore, something may be in a "grey area" but still be considered copasetic simply because it "works," and that "at least we're doing something."

Notice that: the emphasis is on action, and only then - and at least somewhat peripherally - on the essential rightness of that action.

Translation: the most crucial consideration of all is results.

As I'd already said: pragmatism is the dominant philosophical assumption in much of the modern church. Even many of my brothers-in-arms, while vociferously and vigorously denying that they have taken the pragmatist blue pill, effectively operate under pragmatistic premises.

I have heard from these guys things like:

Hey, that church has the most number of converts ever, and they're in the least churched area in the universe, man!

It's all about Sunday {{usually defended because either (a) "that's our culture, man!" or (b) that's when you get the most "bang for your buck" - both of which are quintessentially pragmatistic answers}}

Hey, man...doesn't the Bible say, "to him who knows to do good and does not do it, for him it is sin...?" {{...without defining what "good" is, and who it is who gets to define what "good" is, and how it is He defines it; "good" in this case is defined pretty much solely in terms of results}}

At least we're reaching people {{with what doesn't factor in as much as how - does the method of "reaching" mitigate the Gospel? Be honest, now...}}

And again, the classical pragmatistic answer when confronted about supporting something that is at the very least morally questionable, like providing condoms to teenagers "so that at least they don't spread AIDS and get pregnant"...:

Hey - at least we're doing something...!  What are you doing?  What do you suggest?

...as if in order to militate against doing something morally questionable, we have to present another alternative which produces at least comparable results. The rightness of the action is a secondary consideration; it's the results of the action which are all-important.

Look - actions are important.  The Gospel is an active thing; our God is an active God. You can believe all day long, but if you don't do, your belief is worthless - James tells us that.  I can sit and pontificate all day long on what the Bible objectively teaches, but if I don't put that into practice, then I have become worse than an infidel and have denied the faith.

Absolutely.  Amen.

But, those actions that I take are and must be predicated firmly upon what God has revealed as being right and good.

In other words, my first consideration is, "is this right?" Results, at this point, do not even begin to factor into the equation. Completely aside from results, the question needs to be squarely faced, is what I'm considering true, noble, just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous, and praiseworthy, as God defines it?  If not - no matter what "results" may or may not devolve from that conclusion - then I cannot take that action as a faithful, obedient Christian.

There is an anecdote that I live by:

The obedience is mine; the results are His.

I am not called to be overly concerned about results; I am called to be very concerned about faithfulness and obedience.

The Bible says,

Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful.

Interesting, that...no?  It is required in stewards that one be found faithful - not:

• that one be found fruitful
• that one be found with super-duper results
• that one be found doing the most things

Fruitfulness, results, and action are all very important in the equation of faithful Christian obedience.  But they are subordinal to the issue of right action, right results, and the right sort of fruit.

Johnny Mac, in his blog, just posted an absolutely brilliant article on this very subject of pragmatism, and how this really isn't anything new; the modern focus on "yeah, but does it work...?" which in turn leads to accommodation is something that the church has encountered before - numerous times.  Namely, in this article he compares the modern pragmatistic climate with the Down-Grade Controversy of a century ago - and examines the effects of pragmatism.