Beginning of Wisdom (Torah Club) lesson #41: More disparaging of grace and using a folktale to interpret scripture

 I'll admit, I'm a fan of God's grace.  That isn't a hot-take, nor should it raise anyone's eyebrows.  If there are a few folks down through the years who have misunderstood grace, or who have tried to take advantage of God's grace, throwing it overboard in response would be ludicrous in the extreme...

Lesson 41 page 6: "The church's loud and predominant teachings about God's grace also make it difficult for people to believe in God's wrath.  Ever since the Protestant Reformation, the emphasis on grace has tipped the scale so severely off balance that many Christians anticipate no consequences for sin whatsoever.  That's a good recipe for neutralizing the fear of the LORD, neutering the gospel message, and storing up wrath."

It turns out that First Fruits of Zion has a problem with grace.  Technically, they have a problem with the Protestant Church's emphasis on grace because they think it undermines God's wrath.  Once again in this Torah Club lesson we have the Straw Man brought out to tell us that "many" Protestants think that there are no consequences, at all, to sin.  Why would Protestants think something so foolish?  Apparently because they spend to much time praising God's grace.  

Set aside for the moment that this is patently false.  There is no substantial part of the Protestant Church that teaches that believers are free to sin because grace has "neutered" God's wrath.  Given that there are hundreds of thousands of pastors worldwide, I'm sure FFOZ could trot out a few examples of crackpots in defense of their spurious claim, but to claim that this is so widespread that it needs a correction (that's coming) is ridiculous.  This is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad absurdum.  If you claim that your opponent (and FFOZ's opponent is most assuredly the Church) believes something so foolish, those listening to you will be more likely to believe your "cure" for the non-existent disease.

What then is the point?  Why would FFOZ make such an explosive claim, attacking the fundamental viewpoint about the Gospel of 1/3 of the Church?  What are they trying to put in the place of grace?

Lesson 41,page 7: "It's important to remember that the New Testament Greek word translated as grace (charis) is the Greek equivalent to the Biblical Hebrew word we see translated as 'favor.'  It's the same concept and should be translated consistently to avoid confusion." 

First Fruits of Zion wants to redefine grace.  Redefine it how??  In a way that contradicts what the Church, particularly Protestantism, has long celebrated about God's grace.  Why would it matter if FFOZ wants to equate grace in the NT with favor in the Old?  The 2023 edition of HaYesod lays forth the whole plan {HaYesod's 2023 edition (First Fruits of Zion, Torah Club) heretically redefines grace: "grace is earned" and claims humans can atone for sins by suffering}:  Grace = favor = earned.

FFOZ has built its false teaching on the foundation of an eternal, perfect, and unchanging Torah that must be observed by all peoples, in all places, for all time.  When rule keeping is the heart and soul of what you say and do, the natural result is to drift ever further into legalism.  This is human nature, it happens every time.  Conveniently, then, FFOZ now teaches that because Moses earned God's favor, and favor equals grace, we too can earn God's grace.  Not only that, the HaYesod chapter proclaims that human beings can share their extra grace (earned by unjust suffering) with others.

In case you're wondering, grace in the NT and favor in the OT are not one and the same.  Word usage determines word meaning, context is king.  The argument that FFOZ is making doesn't hold water, to simply proclaim that two words in different languages from texts written many generations apart are equal does not make it so.  However, FFOZ must proclaim absolute continuity between the testaments on even things like word definitions because they are viewing all of scripture through the lens of Torah, but that's not how communication, and certainly now how translation, works.

Nobody is earning the grace connected to the Gospel that is proclaimed in the NT.  God chooses to whom he will give it, and God freely gives it.  To say otherwise is an abomination.

Lesson 41 page 9: 'The name of the daughter of Asher was Serah' (Numbers 26:46)...The census mentions a woman named Serah, the daughter of Asher.  She's the granddaughter of the patriarch Jacob, and she also appears in the list of Jacob's seventy children who entered Egypt about three hundred years earlier: 'The sons of Asher: Imnah and Ishvah and Ishvi and Beriah and their sister Serah' (Genesis 46:17)"

To warn about the disparagement of grace in this Torah Club lesson is the proper focus.  That's one of the most dangerous ideas that FFOZ has ever put forth (tough competition there).  So, why am I also highlighting this odd embrace of Jewish folklore as the means of interpreting Genesis 46:17, Numbers 26:46, and 1 Chronicles 7:30?  The answer is simple enough: poor hermeneutical methods result in foolish teachings, or worse.  Why is FFOZ telling Torah Club members that the Serah in Jacob's day was still alive during King David's reign?  Jewish folklore says so.

Lesson 41, page 10: "At the very least, she must have had longevity comparable to that of the earliest generations recorded in the Bible.  Jewish folklore depicts her...According to one legend, she lived into the days of King David, and it was she who saved the inhabitants of Abel from the king's wrath. You certainly don't need to take that literally or believe it all, but, for the record, there really was..."

I've seen this type of caveat many times in FFOZ materials.  A bold claim is made that is pulled from extra-biblical literature, the lesson says "you don't have to believe it," and then the lesson moves ahead with that bold claim assumed as fact.  The "but, for the record" reveals where the heart of the author of this chapter lies.  In case you are wondering, there are plenty of names in the Bible that occur a few times over spans of generations.  To assume that it is the same human being who is still alive solely on the basis of the name is NOT a normal exegetical conclusion.

If the interpretation is just a folktale, and whether Serah lived the normal spans of years or 600 doesn't have any real theological significance, why should we care?  We should care because FFOZ is using these extra-biblical sources to interpret holy scripture.  The other times they use this method are much more consequential.  It is part of a dangerous pattern of treating God's Word as if it is putty to be molded and shaped as needed.  Do other teachers and ministries also selectively utilize and interpret God's Word to suit their viewpoint?  Absolutely, it is sadly far too common.  "What about..." is no excuse.  All who treat God's Word in this manner should be held accountable.

In the end, Lesson #41 of the Beginning of Wisdom is yet another reminder of why no follower of Jesus Christ ought to entrust his or her discipleship to FFOZ.

Sermon Video: With Jesus on the road to Emmaus - Luke 24:13-35

What did Jesus do on the afternoon of Easter Sunday?  As it turns out, he took a walk with two of his disciples and spent a few hours explaining to them how the Hebrew prophets of old had predicted everything that would happen to the Messiah, including his suffering and death.  As we celebrate Easter, let us remember our need to share this Good News with those who need it most.

Our video feed wasn't ended as usual when the sermon concluded, so this video also includes my prayer for Israel and Gaza and our final hymn.

Mark Meadows, Ginni Thomas, and the blasphemy of thinking God is on your side.

 

It was recently revealed that the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was deeply involved in trying to prevent the inauguration of President Joe Biden.  The politics of that decision will ripple through 2024 and beyond, but one exchange (of those thus far made public) between Ginni Thomas and then White House Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, should concern all Christian Americans who do not believe that God is an American or Jesus is a Republican.  In other words, if you are willing to see the distinction between Church and State, between Church and America, and between Church and the Republican Party; it is frightening one of the most influential people in the ear of the formerly most powerful man in the world apparently did not.  Here is the quote:

"This is a fight of good versus evil. Evil always looks like the victor until the King of Kings triumphs. Do not grow weary in well doing. The fight continues. I have staked my career on it. Well at least my time in DC on it." 

{First on CNN: January 6 committee has text messages between Ginni Thomas and Mark Meadows}

There are heretical problems with this quote on several levels for Mark Meadows who has publicly, on numerous occasions, declared himself to be a Christian (and has made his public proclamation of being a Christian a central part of his appeal to voters, thus increasing the scrutiny his faith has earned).

1. American political discourse is not 'good versus evil'.

While it may not be blasphemy to declare one's political enemies to be 'evil' (it is certainly false testimony, another sin), it is blasphemy to declare one's own side to be 'good' in the sense that Meadows uses the word.  This is apocalyptic, binary choice, type language.  Meadows is declaring the Republican party to be Righteous and the Democrat party to be Wicked, in a sheep and the goats, wheat and the tares, type language familiar to those who have read the Gospels.  This type of political rhetoric is common, I've heard all my life from people I've known personally, sadly often in church growing up, that 'they' (typically meaning Democrats, liberals, etc.) were 'evil', with the insinuation made, at times explicitly, that 'they' are in league with Satan.  If 'they' are on Satan's team, then surely 'we' are on God's team, right?  Here's the thing, there are things about the Republican Party, its policies and leaders (now and in the past) that are biblical, moral, and just, AND there are things about the Republican party, its policies and leaders (now and in the past) that are unbiblical, immoral, and unjust.  The exact same thing is true of the Democrat Party, and the exact same thing is true of all the parties in all the countries in the world, always has been, always will be.  Why?  Because they're human creations, led by fallible and fallen human beings, and tempted by the "root of all kinds of evil" (1 Timothy 6:10), that is money.  

It doesn't matter what issue Meadows, or anyone else is talking about, the battle between political parties in America is NOT 'good versus evil', it is blasphemy to say so because anyone who does is associating the things of mankind with the will of God, and tarnishing the reputation of God through guilt by association.  God is not the exclusive property of any one party or philosophy, period. The Church belongs wholly to Christ, when it fulfills its calling by living righteously, by overflowing with the Fruit of the Spirit, it can rightly claim to be fighting a battle of 'good versus evil'.  The Church often fails to live up to this calling, it wasn't given to America, nor was it given to the Republican Party, and neither this nation, nor that political party, are God's representatives on earth, neither are living by faith through the Spirit.  The blurring of the line between Christian faith and politics, between Church and political party, has always led to this sad conclusion: blasphemy.  Mark Meadows is far from the first, he wont' be the last.

Stop for a moment and consider the affect of this rhetoric on a democracy.  Is it any wonder that we're seeing more and more political violence in America when those who are supposed to be responsible leaders are stoking the fires of religious zeal against fellow Americans?  If we are 'good' and they are 'evil' the emotional distance one needs to walk to justify killing 'them' is terrifyingly short.

2. The allusion to Jesus' eventual triumph over all things is misapplied, at best.

It is absolutely true that Evil seems to triumph in this world, and it is absolutely true that Jesus Christ will triumph in every way possible when he returns (Philippians 2:9-11).  When one makes that allusion, in the context of the 2020 election, it is not the eventual triumph of Jesus that comes to the fore, but the grossly misunderstood Christian Republicanism that assumes that the will of God MUST be that 'our team' wins elections, that 'our team' triumphs in this generation.  There is gross arrogance in the assumption that the anyone could understand the will of God for any nation, or in the assumption that God's will and our own hopes/purposes are in alignment, especially when the topic at hand is the power, wealth, and fame of politics.  The King of Kings will triumph, that outcome is assured, but it has ZERO to do with any American election.

3. "Do not grow weary in well doing" is Scripture abused, painfully.

Galatians 6:9  New International Version

Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.

I would give Mark Meadows credit for knowing this verse of Scripture (he appears to be quoting the KJV) if he wasn't using it in a way that would have made the Apostle Paul throw up.  Once again we have the false equating of 'good' with Republican party priorities, in this case the retention (against the law) of Donald Trump as President.  How can this possibly be 'good' in the sense that Paul intended it?  Here is the actual context of Paul's statement:

Galatians 6:7-10  New International Version

7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. 9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

God cannot be mocked!!  A few sentences before the quote that Meadows uses for political purposes is a warning against mocking God!  And immediately after the quote is the command to do 'good to all people', especially fellow Christians.  Joe Biden is a Christian, attending Mass regularly.  Disagree with his politics all you want, but this command from the Apostle Paul applies, and is binding between Mark Meadows and Joe Biden, yet Meadows is using this out-of-context portion of God's Word to urge Ginni Thomas to continue working against the 'evil' Joe Biden.  It is a sad commentary on the Church in America that so many self-professing Christians treat each other like foes to be destroyed and not brothers and sisters to be loved, as God commands them to do.  God will not be mocked, those who use scripture to prop up partisan goals will stand in judgment before God and answer for it {And don't think I don't hold myself to that standard, every minister of the Gospel will be held to account for misuses of God's Word for personal goals}.

Conclusion:

The text message from Mark Meadows to Ginni Thomas reveals a deeply flawed theology of equating the Republican Party with the Church, the priorities of the Republican Party with the will of God, and the choices/leaders of the Republican Party with 'good'.  This is a subset of 'Christian' Nationalism, and is as blasphemous for Mark Meadows to utter as it was for the Pharisees to assume they held a monopoly on understanding the Law of Moses, the Pharisees were blinded by self-righteousness and hatred of their enemies, history is repeating itself here.

The irrefutable rejection of Christian Nationalism by the New Testament

One of many crosses brought to the political rally that became an insurrection on 1/6/21

 na·tion·al·ism

Learn to pronounce

noun

1. identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

Why irrefutable?  Because Christians are required to respect the authority of the Word of God.  When the Scriptures repeatedly make clear a particular issue of belief or practice it is not optional for those who would claim to be disciples of Jesus Christ, if in fact they are indeed true disciples, to follow that divine guidance.  Can Christians improperly interpret or apply Scriptural dictates?  Certainly, it happens regularly, even from learned Church leadership which ought to know better.  Can Christians reject Scriptural teaching because of pride, self-interest, or a rebellious attitude?  Yes, that also happens, such cases are examples of disobedience, certainly not what we as a Church should tolerate let alone celebrate.  There is no case FOR nationalism in the New Testament, and the case AGAINST nationalism is both multi-faceted and broadly stated in numerous passages.

Why only the New Testament?  The issue of patriotism/nationalism is fairly unique in that the perspective changes when talking about Jews and Israel in the Hebrew Scriptures vs. Christians and Nationalism in the New.  The Christian Bible is divided into two sections separated by about 400 years between the prophet Malachi and the earliest Christian writings.  These two sections were written and received by two different audiences in two different sets of circumstances.  The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) were written about and to the descendants of Abraham, the Jews.  That they are to be studied and remain authoritative to Christians is made clear by the abundant quotations of them by Jesus, Paul, and the Early Church Fathers.  That being said, the Church is not Israel.  America is not Israel.  The promises made to Abraham remain for his literal descendants, his spiritual descendants have been given new promises (in the New Testament).  The covenant of Abraham that God further developed in the Hebrew Scriptures through Moses and David contain blessings and curses, as well as promises of a Messianic Kingdom, these belong to the Jews.  It is inappropriate, and a facet of antisemitism, to seek to appropriate these promises for the Church or any particular nation, America included.  

The New Testament, by contrast, is written to the newly formed Church, an organization not tied to one ethnicity, not connected to one geographic location.  Instead, the Church is bound together above and beyond these tribal distinctions by the connection of all of its legitimate members to Jesus Christ through the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. 

* The definition of Nationalism above is the one in use, not the secondary use of the term, "advocacy of or support for the political independence of a particular nation or people" which is a different topic, biblically speaking, and practically as well.

So, how does the New Testament convincingly reject Nationalism on the part of the Church?

The case could be made, and has been, in book length form (see: The Myth of a Christian Nation - by Gregory Boyd: a summary and response), but in brief among the numerous incompatibilities are:

1. The Modern Nation-State is a concept foreign to the New Testament

 The world we live in today is one of Nation-States, both those states that are governed democratically and autocratically have developed beyond the previous era of personal kingdoms or multi-ethnic empires, concepts that died in the revolutions and wars of the 19th and 20th centuries.  From those ashes arose the modern nation-state, and while many have inherited the territory of the kingdoms from which they sprang with minor variations, the legitimacy of modern governments in the eyes of their people, and the responsibilities of modern governments to their citizens, has changed dramatically from the models familiar to the ancient world.

Along those lines, the term translated in the New Testament as 'nation' is the Greek word: ethnos, which we recognize from the continued use of one aspect of the word transliterated into English as ethnic or ethnicity.  The most common usage of the term is actually to refer to the Gentile peoples (in contrast with the Jews), which it does 93 times as compared with nation/nations 67.  Thus any argument based upon a reading of what the New Testament says about our 'nation' or the 'nations' that is using the term to refer to a modern nation-state like America or China is already on thin ice before it begins because the geopolitical conceptions of the New Testament authors most certainly did not include the idea of a nation-state, as their entire frame of reference consisted of tribes, kingdoms, and empires.  In addition, the actual N.T. references that speak of nations (again, in the ancient not modern sense) have ZERO to do with identification with a nation by its people, support for the interests of that nation by its people, or the placing of those interests above that of other nations.  The New Testament is simply not talking about nations in any way connected to modern nationalism.

Examples: Matthew 24:9 "You will be hated by all nations because of me"

Matthew 28:19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations"

Mark 11:17 "my house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations"

Romans 4:17 "I have made you a father of many nations" (referring to Abraham)

Galatians 3:8 "All nations will be blessed through you" (again, Abraham is the you)

James 1:1 "To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations"

2. The focus of Jesus is entirely upon building up the Kingdom of God NOT any kingdom of this world.

Matthew 6:33  But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

Matthew 22:36-40  And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

John 18:36  Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

Throughout the Gospels Jesus makes it clear that he rejected the role of a political revolutionary and military commander that his people longed for him to be.  The purpose of Jesus was higher than their limited hopes in this world, the goal of Jesus was far broader and lasting than establishing a new kingdom of Israel.

3.  Christians already have a citizenship to which they owe their primary allegiance: Heaven

Ephesians 2:17-19 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. 19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 

Philippians 3:30 But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ,

See also: Hebrews 11:8-10 and 1 Peter 2:11, ‘foreigners and exiles'

One of enduring facets of nationalism is its increasing demand for allegiance from the people.  What begins as patriotism grows over time and the pressure of rivalries with other nations to become full blown nationalism.  Nationalism eventually arrives at the equivalent of, "America, love it or leave it".  Christians have are already citizens of heaven, they cannot make such a commitment to their country. 

4. The obligations of Christians cannot be minimized or superseded by ethnic rivalries or national boundaries.

Matthew 28:19-20  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

John 17:20-23 (1 John 4:8-9)“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

In America today "America First" is associated with the Republican Party of Donald Trump, but the truth is that both parties have taken turns proclaiming that they will put our nation ahead of others and consider the needs and wants of our people above and beyond those of the rest of the people of this world.  Both parties appeal to the nationalism, pride, and greed of Americans, both parties (to varying extent) proclaim by word and deed that the lives of American citizens are worth more to them than the lives of other people in this world.  The Church, with its doctrine of Imago Dei {Latin for 'image of God'} which proclaims that every human being is created in God's image, cannot agree (although it has many times in its past and present, to its shame) with treating the lives of one nation's people as more valuable than another.

Matthew 25:31-46 where Jesus inquires what those who claim to be his followers did for 'the least of these' is incompatible with nationalistic rivalries which dehumanize ('other') people who happen to come from a different geopolitical entity than our own.  'America First' may be great politics in America, but it is a horrendous ethic for followers of Jesus.  {Yes, tens of millions of those claiming to be Christians in America today enthusiastically support either the Red or Blue version of 'America First', this is one example of how unhealthy the modern Church in America has become.}

5. The allegiance of Christians cannot be shared, God demands a total commitment.

Luke 16:13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”

The principle that applies to money also applies to fame, power, politics, patriotism, and many others.  Whatever obligations and commitments we make in this world must be subservient to our commitment to Christ, even that to our spouse and children.

6. The methods demanded by nationalistic rivalries and 'realpolitik' are anathema to Christianity.

Acts 10:34 (2 Chronicles 19:7) Now let the fear of the Lord be on you. Judge carefully, for with the Lord our God there is no injustice or partiality or bribery.”

Romans 12:17-21  Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Ephesians 5:5-7  For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them.

The classic example of this from the 20th century is the fire-bombing of the cities of Germany and Japan by the Allies.  It was justified, at the time, as a necessity of war, and was not seriously objected to by the Church in Allied countries, but it perspective has shown this to have been both militarily ineffective, and morally repugnant.  Had it not been 'unpatriotic' to object to the methods of one's own team/tribe, perhaps the generals and politicians would have sought a method of prosecuting the war that didn't kill hundreds of thousands of civilians.  The Church has been guilty of such compromise too many times in its history to count, the Crusades being but one of the better known examples.

7. The goals and purpose of Christians in this world cannot be lowered to those of  nationalistic us vs. them rivalries.

Ephesians 1:4-5  For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.

Ephesians 6:12  For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

We, as Christians, are here for a purpose.  It isn't to make a lot of money, it isn't to maximize our own pleasure, and it isn't to help our country 'win'.  

8. The triumph of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will not be limited to one ethnic group, nation, or ideology.

Revelation 7:9  After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.

Galatians 3:26-29  So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

With respect to a hilarious moment in the sitcom Cheers between Woody and Kelly, Heaven will not have chain link fences and barking dogs to keep people apart based upon the categories this world places upon people.  There will be one people in Heaven, just as there is one Lord, one faith, one birth.  There will be no Americans in Heaven, no Russians, no Italians, Egyptians, or Indonesians, there will only be those people called out of darkness and redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.

9. 'Victory' in this world's rivalries, economically, geopolitically, or otherwise, are ephemeral to the Christian.

Mark 8:36  What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?

2 Peter 3:7  By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

1 John 5:19 We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.

Today's economic champion is tomorrow's has-been, and today's superpower is tomorrow's used-to-be.  That is the way of this world's geopolitical rivalries.  At one point in time, Spain was the world's most powerful kingdom (technically the Hapsburg family whose holdings extended far beyond Spain), but that hasn't been true in a few hundred years.  So what was accomplished by those who killed for, and will killed fighting for, the supremacy of that particular nation over its rivals?  Power in this world is temporary, domination is a rickety throne, and yet Nationalism calls upon us to being willing to kill our fellow man (created in God's image) or to sacrifice our own lives, to achieve it.  How much evil has been sanctioned by the Church in the name of nationalistic pride and rivalries?  The Church on all sides supported WWI with pastors thundering against 'them' from the pulpit and Christians cheering on their side.  The carnage that followed is directly responsible for empty churches in Europe to this day.  That millions of 'Christian' Americans (some genuine, many not) have deeply embraced nationalism will inevitably lead to the same result: empty churches.  {Why? Because it testifies to our lack of faith in the Gospel, our lack of true hope in the next world is exposed by our obsession with wealth and power in this one.  Christian hypocrites are not effective witnesses to the Gospel.}

 

10. Submitting to governmental authorities is a far cry from calling upon Christians to champion that authority against other nations.

1 Peter 2:13-14 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.

Nationalism is not patriotism.  Appreciation for, and love of, one's own country (if and when it deserves it) is both fitting and proper.  Nationalism is a different beast, it elevates my country above other countries, it justifies rivalries, it excuses immoral behavior with an ends justify the means mentality, and it treats people made in God's image who happen to live somewhere else (especially if that somewhere is a rival) as an 'other' to be guarded against not a neighbor to be loved.

My further writings on this topic:

Ronald Reagan was wrong, America is not a "city on a hill", it never could be.

The blasphemous "One Nation Under God" painting by Jon McNaughton

Rejecting Idolatry: No, Mike Pence, we will not, "Fix our eyes on Old Glory"

White Nationalism and White Supremacy are an abomination to the Church

Why our favoritism (politics) is an affront to God - Romans 2:11, Colossians 3:25

In Flanders field the poppies blow...Nationalism and the lessons of WWI

The downward spiral of Bonhoeffer biographer Eric Metaxas

The danger of defining 'real' Americans vs. the necessity of categorizing 'real' Christians

We ignore "repay evil with blessing" at our peril: the Culture War, politics, and 9/11

Manifest (TV show), Romans 8:28, and contextual interpretation of Scripture

 

Romans 8:28  New International Version

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

Ok, so I'm behind the times a bit.  Manifest aired on NBC in the fall of 2018, but I had never heard of it until it appreared in my Netflix suggestions a couple weeks ago.  Given my affinity for shows with a mysterious premise, like Lost in the early seasons, Stranger Things, or The Man in the High Castle, I started watching.  A few episodes in it became clear that the foundational premise of the show is built upon Romans 8:28, a fact the creators make clear with repeated referances to the number 828 and one episode where a character opens a Bible to Romans and reads the verse in question (but no more).  As the series unfolds, God (presumably) sends a 'calling', that's the term the characters use, to various people who were on flight 828 through voices, visions, and general intuitive insights that enable them to solve crimes, protect the innocent, and battle against a sinister secret plot.  While it makes for good drama, none of these manifestations of the hand of God have much of anything to do with what Romans 8:28 is talking about as both characters in the show, and viewers watching, are left asking, "What exactly is God's purpose in all this?  Why is this happening?"

As a pastor, I've run into non-contextual interpretations of Scripture many times, Philippians 4:13 probably leads the pack on that score, but Romans 8:28 is right there alongside it.  What is the common mis-interpretation of Romans 8:28, and what is the proper contextual interpretation?

Context free interpretation: On its own, without the verses that precede or follow it, one might assume that Romans 8:28 is promising that God is a generic force for good in the world.  That he molds and shapes people and events to make things work out for the better, resulting in a world that is less evil and more beneficial to us than it would be otherwise.  In this interpretation, God isn't much different than Superman.  He has power that he uses to help people, here and there, saving the day unexpectedly, but not fixing the root problems that cause there to be people in need of saving in the first place.  While this view of God is fairly common, and fits fairly well with ideas of an impersonal Force that controls the universe (like in Star Wars), in the end it leaves much to be desired.  Why, if God has power, is he using it in such a limited way?  Why helps some and not others, why prevent a tragedy here and there but let the others happen?  Superman can only be in one place at a time, we know why he's more likely to save Louis than anyone else, but God can do more than this can't he?  Without context, 'the good', and 'his purpose' are left nebulous, can we identify them, help them along, or is this just some mystery?

A contextual interpretation: First, let us broaden the view a bit.

Romans 8:18-39  New International Version

18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.

28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

31 What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written:

“For your sake we face death all day long;

    we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”

37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

This isn't bumper sticker theology.  You can't fit the deep wisdom of this passage (and Paul's overall themes in Romans) on a poster.  That may be while people prefer pithy but fruitless sayings like, "God helps those who help themselves" to what Scripture actually says, but non-contextual interpretation, and non-biblical aphorisms, are a dangerous game, we're much better off with the full medicine, kep the spoonful of sugar.

So, what is the larger point that Paul is making here that Romans 8:28 is integral to?  God has a master plan, a plan for all of creation and humanity, a plan that involves calling individuals by the Spirit to accept his Son by faith, and then leading those individuals forward toward Christ-likeness in a process that cannot be derailed by any power because it is emeshed in the Love of God, and a process that he helps along by weaving 'all things' toward that very specific purpose.  Something to that effect.  I could make that run-on sentence into a paragraph, page, or chapter while still trying to convey the essence of Paul's words, but the original that he wrote will remain the most profound way to say it.

God isn't in the business of making this world a better place.

Thought I'd leave that sentence by itself to let it sink in.  His redemptive actions in history will certainly have that effect, but that isn't the goal, but its treating the symptoms of the disease, not eradicating it.  The goal is fellowship with humanity under his rule as Lord.  God is working "all things together" in order to redeem out from humanity his chosen people, mold and shape them through discipleship toward Christ-likeness, and eventually present them before his throne holy and righteouss in his sight.  God's purpose is far higher, far nobler, and far more difficult than simply making this world a better place.  Jesus would not have taken upon himself humanity for such a lowly purpose, and certainly would not have needed to die upon the Cross, if making the world a better place was the goal.  If that was all God had in mind he could have used people like the prophets of old to accomplish it.  Moses, Elijah, Esther, even Jonah once he got straightened out, could 'make things better' with God's power.  No, Jesus came to this earth for a much bigger project, a project he alone as the God/Man could accomplish.  When Satan offered him rule over the kingdoms of this world, Jesus refused.  Jesus as King of the World would have resulted in a massive improvement in the lives of everyone on this planet.  Can you imagine a more wise and benevolent ruler?  But Jesus isn't tempted, he isn't here to work through the systems of this world, but to overcome them, and destroy Sin and Death in the process.  Jesus' sights are set much, much higher.

God's business is the making of a holy and righteous people

So, in the end, while Manifest has an interesting premise, and I'll finish watching the series, the God that it is portraying thus far isn't God enough, whatever the end game the series has for its characters, thus far none of them are actually living lives that reflect Romans 8:28, for none of them are being called to repentance, faith, and worship of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father.  Romans 8:28 is part of a powerful and profound promise to those whom God calls that whatever happens in this life, the hand of God will continue to work in us, and through us, to transform us to Christ-likeness.  Manifest, like so many non-contextual interpretations, falls short of this glorious promise.

The Problem with claiming to be a Prophet: What happens when you're wrong?

I'll confess up front, I'm not comfortable with charismatic expressions of Christianity, never have been.  They don't fit well with either the more stoic tendency of my personality, nor the analytical nature of my thinking.  In fact, in high school I was asked by one of my best friends to accompany him to a charismatic church service because he was interested in a girl but nervous about going to her church.  Baptists are in many ways adjacent to the Charismatic Movement.  A  minority of the people in our churches like to lift their hands when singing, some like to respond to the prayers of others out loud with "Yes, Jesus!" and the like, this affinity is typically even more pronounced among our majority Black congregations.  In my mind, there has always been a significant divide between enthusiastic worship expressions (more of a personality thing) and manifestations of the Spirit like speaking in tongues or faith healing (a question of theology).

Which brings us to recent events and the question of prophets.  You may or may not be aware of it, but a number of prominent "Prophets" in the Charismatic Movement predicted that Donald Trump would win the 2020 election.  Given that there were only two real possibilities, and the advantage that Republicans have thanks to the Electoral College, that was at least a 50/50 shot.  But he didn't win.  Now what?

Until yesterday I had never heard of Jeremiah Johnson of North Carolina, although he has 60k followers on Facebook which is about 6,000 times as many as follow me.  Jeremiah Johnson was one of the ministers who predicted that President Trump would be reelected, evidently because of a dream in which he also predicted that the Dodgers would win the World Series this year, and Amy Coney Barrett would be elevated to the Supreme Court.  As Meatloaf famously said, "Two out of three ain't bad".  Except when it comes to prophecy it isn't.  Two out of three is as bad as two out of one hundred when you claim to be a prophet, we're not talking about stock tips or guessing answers while watching Jeopardy.  Prophecy is supposed to be the sharing of communication from Almighty God, since God exists outside of time as the Alpha and Omega, how can true prophecy every be wrong?  There's the rub.  True prophets are always right if what they're given by God is a prediction concerning the future.  Their words may unfold in unexpected ways, or at unexpected times, but they never fail because true prophets speak God's words and His Word is forever True.

How did Jeremiah Johnson respond to his error?  He actually did the right thing and repented of leading his flock astray on this issue, and took a step back from his involvement in politics with some introspection.  He also notably didn't blame Christians for failing to pray hard enough to 'make God's will happen' (there's a number of theological questions about that notion that are prickly), or tell them to cling to the false hope that the election results will be miraculously changed in the next few days (as some false prophets continue to do).  The result of this public apology and willingness to admit error?

"Over the last 72 hours, I have received multiple death threats and thousands upon thousands of emails from Christians saying the nastiest and most vulgar things I have ever heard toward my family and ministry. I have been labeled a coward, sellout, a traitor to the Holy Spirit, and cussed out at least 500 times. We have lost ministry partners every hour and counting.

After publicly repenting on January 7th, I fully expected to be called a false prophet etc in some circles but I could have never dreamed in my wildest imagination that so much satanic attack and witchcraft would come from charismatic/prophetic people. I have been flabbergasted at the barrage of continued conspiracy theories being sent every minute our way and the pure hatred being unleashed. 

To my great heartache, I’m convinced parts of the prophetic/charismatic movement are far SICKER than I could have ever dreamed of. I truthfully never realized how absolutely triggered and ballistic thousands and thousands of saints get about Donald Trump. It’s terrifying! It’s full of idolatry!"

Jeremiah Johnson's FB feed, the post quoted is from 1/10/21

Jeremiah Johnson's public apology

When you mix false prophecy with fervent political partisanship, the resulting concoction is highly volatile, like nitro glycerin, shaking it is not recommended.  Rather than focus on the question of how so many 'Christians' can justify such hate in the name of Christ, let us ponder the question of prophetic error.  

What does scripture say about the prophets who predict rightly versus prophets whose word fails?

1. Prophets who try to lead the people away from God will not be tolerated.

Deuteronomy 13:1-5  If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

2. God's people are to reject false prophets whose predictions fail to come true.

Deuteronomy 18:14-2214  The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the Lord your God has not permitted you to do so. 15 The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. 16 For this is what you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the Lord our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.”

17 The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. 19 I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”

21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.

3.  True or false prophets can also be recognized by their morality.

Matthew 7:15-20  “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

4. The claim of being a prophet is no guarantee of a right standing with God.

Matthew 7:22  Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’

5. False prophets are expected and will deceive many.

Matthew 24:24  For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

6. The true prophet speaks for God alone, not himself.

2 Peter 1:20  Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things.

I certainly don't know Jeremiah Johnson well enough to know where he went wrong, his public confession feels like at least a step in the right direction of correcting that error, but in general anyone who claims to be a prophet, that is someone SPEAKING FOR GOD, whose word turns out to be a lie, should clearly be rejected as a prophet.  As I pastor I sometimes misspeak, and I sometimes say things in error, but I've never claimed extra authority as a prophet to tell my congregation a word directly from God.  Those who claim greater authority must accept greater responsibility {Peter Parker's Uncle Ben said something like that}.  The scriptures repeatedly warn the people of God against trusting false prophets.  Israel had to contend with them on a massive scale, both those claiming to speak for the LORD when they did not, and those representing false gods like the prophets of Ba'al that the true prophet Elijah humiliated and then had put to death.  The Church too is warned of the prevalence of false prophets and the need to weigh what someone claiming to speak for God is saying to determine if it is true.

There is a vast difference between attempting to interpret the revealed Word of God enshrined in scripture, what I and many like me attempt to do each week, and presenting yourself as someone with a direct connection to God's words here and now.  When I fail, that's on me, because a correct interpretation of the scriptural passage in question has no doubt been made by many during the history of the Church, but when the supposed prophet fails, that failure calls into question the veracity of God, threatens the faith of those who have followed that prophetic voice, and brings the name of God into disrepute.  To falsely prophecy is no small thing and is in fact extremely troubling, but it should serve as a severe warning to the Charismatic Movement within the Christian Church that Jeremiah Johnson received death threats and profanity laced tirades when he admitted he was wrong, not from those who felt betrayed because they had wrongly trusted him when he was wrong, but for admitting his mistake, from those who would rather believe a false prophecy than objective reality.

The purposeful tension between Unity and Purity within the Church: A Scriptural Mandate

One of the earliest impulses toward schism within the Early Church, preceding even the great theological controversies regarding the nature of Jesus Christ in the 3rd and 4th centuries that led to the Council of Nicaea {A brief theology derived from the Nicene Creed}, was between those who believed that the Church was intended to be a small community of spiritually elite disciples, hand-picked by God for salvation, and those who viewed it as a mixed group of sinners and saints (tares among the wheat), all works in progress, even the redeemed.  The monastic movement, soon to become one of the central forces in the Medieval Church, was a response to the mixed company of the local church, that allowed those seeking a deeper commitment to live among like-minded individuals.  Likewise, the Donatist Controversy that tore apart the North African Church for six centuries began as a squabble between those who had fiercely resisted the great Roman persecutions and remained true to their faith, and those who had succumbed to imprisonment and torture by recanting.  After the time of persecution ended, those who had risked death were unwilling to allow anyone short of the bishop the authority to welcome the 'lapsed' Christians back into the fold.  St. Augustine weighed-in against the majority 'pure only' Donatists, even welcoming Imperial persecution of them for not returning to the official Church, for he believed that the Church was not reserved for the pure alone, but for all those seeking to become pure.

{For more on Church History: What Every Christian Should Know About: Church History, scroll down to the bottom of the page}

While the tension between unity and purity is inherent when working with flawed human beings, some of whom will always be more committed to spiritual discipline (or further along the journey) than others, it is also inherent within the text of Scripture.  In other words, God commanded his people to care about both unity and purity, knowing that these two ideals would be at times in opposition, and knowing that his people would at times struggle to balance them.  Why?  Because both unity and purity have value in the Church, both are necessary.

Consider a hypothetical church that stresses unity at the expense of purity: By what standard will admittance into this church be made?  How will such a church respond to beliefs and practices that are contrary to Scripture, even harmful to the Gospel?  A church that accepts everyone and every belief ceases to make progress toward transforming those who belong to it into Christ-likeness.  Such a church lacks both discipline and definition.

Consider a hypothetical church that stresses purity at the expense of unity: How will such a church fulfill the call to evangelism?  How will such a church avoid endless schism, and avoid becoming a church where only those who agree on everything are welcome?  A church that accepts no one but like minded individuals can neither grow nor impact its culture.  Such a church lacks both freedom of conscience and grace.

Examples abound, to varying degrees of churches that exemplify both extremes.  Going beyond a balance of the two priorities is unhealthy, whether one emphasizes unity or purity.  This observation is not my own brilliant analysis, rather it is in keeping with the thesis of Dr. Ronald Mayers book, Both/And: A Balanced Apologetic.  I have a much highlighted copy on my shelf, having had Dr. Mayers as my professor for nearly half of my religion classes at Cornerstone, and having even taught two of his classes during my senior year while he was at a seminar.

It is one thing to say that the Bible says this or that, another to demonstrate it.  The following examples are thus offered as a partial demonstration, they are but a sampling:

Texts on the importance of unity:

John 17:20-21 (NIV)

20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

Ephesians 4:1-6 (NIV)

4 As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. 2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Titus 3:9-10 (NIV)

9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them.

1 John 4:7-8 (NIV)

7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

Texts on the importance of purity:

Matthew 7:15-20 (NIV)

15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Galatians 1:6-9 (NIV)

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

1 John 4:1-2 (NIV)

4 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

Notice that examples can be found stressing both purity and unity from Jesus in the Gospels, as well as the writings of the Apostle Paul.  The two examples from 1 John are instructive.  They occur only a few sentences apart, and while John throughout his letter stresses the absolute need for Christians to love each other, going so far as to declare that without love for the brethren an individual should doubt that he/she is genuinely saved, he still feels that it is necessary to warn his readers that not every person claiming to represent God is actually doing so.  John applies a standard for unity: affirmation of the incarnation.  

{For more on the theology of 1 John: The Ecumenism of 1 John.  In the book I explain John's threefold test of faith (1. Affirmation of Jesus Christ, 2. Righteous living, aka 'walking in the light', and 3. love for fellow Christians.)  That standard is then applied to various groups to see if they belong inside or outside of the Church}

In the end, the Church needs to honor the tension inherent in the Scriptures by being both ecumenically minded, with a tent as big as Scripture allows, and on-guard against false teachers, maintaining the purity of the Gospel message.  My own life in ministry reflects my belief in this principle.  On the one hand, through the Franklin and Venango County ministeriums and Mustard Seed Missions, I regularly work with committed Christians from both a variety of Protestant churches and Catholics, and on the other hand, I consider it an obligation of my ordination to point out the dangerous and heretical views expressed by others, especially those that endanger the evangelistic mission of the Church by either warping the Gospel (for example: the Prosperity Gospel) or damaging the character/reputation of the Church itself (for example: the marriage of Church and politics).  It may seem odd to be both ecumenical and judgmental (in a good way, hopefully) to those who are not aware of the reasoning behind such a stance, but it is in keeping with my understanding of what the Scriptures require of both the Church and its ministers.

[In Evangelical Perspectives: Toward a Biblical Balance, a companion to Both/And: A Balanced Apologetic, Dr. Mayers identified twelve scriptural issues that require a both/and perspective: (1) Reality: Both God and Creation, (2) God: Both One and Many, (3) Christ: Both Divine and Human, (4) Man: Both Dignified and Depraved, (5) General Revelation: Both Within and Without, (6) Special Revelation: Both Event and Word, (7) Inspiration: Both Holy Spirit and Human Authors, (8) Testaments: Both Continuity and Discontinuity, (9) Salvation: Both Provision and Response, (10) Holy Spirit: Both Holiness and Eternal Security, (11) Church: Both Proclamation and Charity, and (12) Last Things: Both Already and Not Yet.  It is my view that Church: Both Unity and Purity fits within this framework.]

"What does the Bible say about systemic racism?" by WWUTT.com - an error filled and shameful tragedy that only makes things worse

 

Every once in a while, you see something that reminds you of how far from the Truth Bible-believing, people of good intentions (giving them the benefit of the doubt on both counts) can be.  An example of which is the recent video by When We Understand the Text, a popular Youtube ministry of Pastor Gabriel Hughes, whose website states that the scripts of all videos are approved by the elders of the First Southern Baptist Church of Junction City, Kansas.  In addition to being incredibly dismissive and tone deaf about racism, the WWUTT team decided to make a video mocking the idea of systemic racism during the fall of 2020, after months of protests around the country (and even around the world) concerning this very subject.  They, evidently, wanted to push back against the ongoing American reckoning with racism; hard.  It isn't difficult to discern how Pastor Hughes and his church leadership feel about any attempts to rectify the racism that exists in America today after watching this video.

I've been aware of the WWUTT series for several years, and have often been bothered by the lack of actual biblical exegesis in these super short videos, especially since the very premise of the series is to consult the Bible for Truth, this latest one is probably the most egregious example to date.

1. To ask the question, "What does the Bible say about..." any modern topic, is both a waste of time, and a not-very-subtle attempt at dismissal.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the Bible doesn't use the words rocket or scientist.  Words for things which did not yet exist when a text was written (any text, not just the Bible) will not appear in that text!  The Bible also doesn't mention the internet, does that mean the the moral principles contained in the Bible have no bearing on how people use the internet?  Of course not, so why bring up this obvious lack of  biblical anachronism as your first point if you're not trying to set the tone that the Bible is against whoever is using this 'new fangled' notion called systemic racism?

2. After defining systemic racism, the narrator stunningly concludes that the definition of systemic racism means that everything is racist!

This after the definition that is quoted specifically says that systemic racism is about benefits and disadvantages (thus eliminating anything that doesn't produce one or both of those) designed to help Whites and harm minorities.  If you're going to 'win' a one-sided argument, one of the easiest things to do is to create a Straw Man, a fake version of what your opponent believes that you can then tear down, even though your opponent doesn't say or believe what you've pretended (by way of the Straw Man) that they do.  This is what WWUTT is doing here, citing a definition of systemic racism and then with no proof simply stating that systemic racism means everything is racist, which of course it does not.  This isn't argumentation worthy of a Christian apologist.

3. Follow up the Straw Man with Culture War red meat examples

Rushing past the "systemic racism = everything is racist" false assertion, the video next lists in quick succession four things that are designed to reassure White people that systemic racism isn't real but rather just a silly notion.  These include two decisions by private companies to alter their products (Aunt Jemima syrup and Land 'O Lakes butter), the decision of some realtors to stop calling the main bedroom in a house the 'master bedroom' (a reference to Southern slave masters, or aristocratic masters and servants), and finally the mix-up involving Bubba Wallace and the noose found at the NASCAR track.  None of these items has anything to do with real systemic racism, with real benefits to white and real harms to minorities, but by lumping these Culture War items in with the discussion, a Red Herring is created.  This is, sadly, another form of argumentation not worthy of a Christian apologist.  The next screen then shows a woman outraged at the seemingly never ending things that systematic racism will go after next, an appeal to hysteria, not actual real life.  At no point in the video, are the actual issues of systemic racism (criminal justice, education, voting, housing, healthcare, etc) even mentioned.

4. "That's what happens when you give up the Gospel"

Wow.  So anyone who believes that systemic racism is real has given up the Gospel?  Has walked away from the true Church?  Once again, no proof of this massive assertion is offered, simply another giant leap from talking about syrup bottles to the abandonment of the Gospel.  My apologies to the millions of Black followers of Jesus Christ in this country who know all too painfully that systemic racism is real, you do NOT have to pretend otherwise for the sake of the Gospel; this is a shameful assertion.

5. The claim that the debate over systemic racism doesn't offer any solutions

This is simply laziness.  Many different organizations and individuals have called for reform in the education system, the criminal justice system, and for the protection of voting rights, to name three massive issues that are plagued with ongoing racism, and regarding which, a variety of mitigating efforts are available.  That there is not an immediate and total solution to a problem doesn't make it any less real.  Was the Opioid Crisis in America only real once there were concrete plans offered to curb the devastation it was causing?  Is that crisis any less real because those solutions haven't been 100% effective?  Of course not, but WWUTT wants to dismiss systemic racism as a 'needless argument' on this basis. {Remember, they chose not to mention the real issues of real systemic racism}

6. The use of 1 Timothy's 6:4-5's warning against needless 'quarrels' is both selective and not exegetically sound.

On what basis is this text applied to this case?  Paul was writing to Timothy about internal Church arguments, are we to believe that Paul wanted Timothy to avoid dealing with issues of immorality and evil that infected the Church?  Is it not the function of Church leadership to be concerned with Justice and Peace in society?  Are these really the things that Paul wanted Timothy to clamp down on?  How does the discussion of racism in America in any way fit a definition of a waste of time??  None of these questions are addressed, but 1 Timothy 6:4-5 is offered as a proof text just the same.

7. "Our problem does not have to do with skin, it has to do with sin" makes no sense.

Sin is indeed at the heart of all immorality, this is basic Christian theology.  But, that sin manifests itself in a variety of ways.  What is the purpose behind trying to separate sin from its particular manifestation if not to minimize that particular type of sin?  Would you also say, "Our problem does not have to do with pornography, it has to do with sin" and then go on to say that pornography isn't a real problem??  Racism is a manifestation of sin.  It is the way in which sin is made real in the lives of human beings with darkened hearts.  This is logic similar to that of Pastor Robert Jeffress, which was equally invalid {Mitigating racism can't wait: Why Pastor Robert Jeffress is wrong}.  We, human beings, have a problem with every kind of sin, and wherever that sin shows itself in our lives, and in our society, we must combat it.

8. Acknowledging that the System has faults does NOT eliminate personal responsibility.

I've heard this argument before, and it holds no water.  The classic example is the Nazi Final Solution and individual German SS soldiers.  Were they not responsible for murder because the system gave them orders to kill?  Acknowledging that individual responsibility, would anyone then say, 'Don't blame the Nazi system, its the individuals who are the real culprits'?  And yet, the WWUTT video puts forth the argument that if we acknowledge that the System (whether that be Educational, Criminal Justice, Housing, etc) has immoral structures or policies we are somehow removing personal responsibility.  This is utter nonsense, and yet another Red Herring.  Systems, created by sinful people, will contain within them immorality.  It is inevitable because they're created by flawed human beings.  Are we to never correct these errors, never to try to mitigate the effect of human sinfulness in society, or should we just ignore them when the system's flaws are related to racism?

I don't understand what Pastor Hughes is hoping to accomplish with this video, but it is flawed from beginning to end, will be used by those who wish to minimize racism, and will send a message to our Black brothers and sisters in Christ that White Christians in America really don't care about the racism they've experienced.  Therefore, I categorically reject the message of this video, from beginning to end.