This blog serves as an outreach for Pastor Randy Powell of the First Baptist Church of Franklin, PA. Feel free to ask questions or send me an e-mail at pastorpowell@hotmail.com
“I mean, we have a Torah club group in Oil City, Pennsylvania that is now multiplied to 10 different Torah clubs in that area. So you see like a spiritual renewal taking place, which is incredible. But yet the pastors that have 25 people in their church are coming against the work of the Torah club because it's something that is not in alignment with their historical doctrines of their particular denominations." -Boaz Michael on Messiah Podcast #29, 05/13/23, starting at the 32:30 mark
Until a fellow Christian church leaders pointed it out to me, I didn't know that the First Fruits of Zion had responded at all in 2023 to the Franklin Christian Ministerium's effort to warn the Christian community about their unorthodox teachings. There are several interesting things in this short statement:
(1) The assumption that numeric success equals spiritual renewal. Just because people are participating in something, it doesn't mean that God is or is not behind that effort. For example: the Prosperity Gospel, Word of Faith, and New Apostolic Reformation movements are all growing rapidly in the world today, does that mean they're advancing the Kingdom of God? Are they proof of spiritual renewal? Popularity is not a measure of true discipleship.
(2) The sneering shot at the health of churches in Franklin based upon a numeric valuation. Its an insult, but it isn't even a true one. Truth be told, the pastors who signed our original statement serve churches that range from 25 to 350. Some of them, like myself, serve as a solo pastor, others have multiple staff members. Some have one service, again like us, and others have multiple services every Sunday to accommodate the crowd size. But, and hear this clearly, church size is not proof of faithfulness (or unfaithfulness). Church size is not proof of righteousness (or unrighteousness). Church size is not proof of God's approval (or disapproval).
(3) The assumption that a pastor of a small church doesn't need to be listened to. This is a problem that affects the Church in America on many levels. Almost all of the popular books, podcasts, YouTube channels, etc. are focused on pastors of mega-churches, that is, on "successful" pastors. Those of us serving faithfully in the 98% of churches that are under 250 people rarely have our voices heard. The results of this popularity-based leadership have been disastrous as popular pastor after popular pastor who had been lifted up crash and burn one after another because too many of them lacked either the moral qualifications of pastoral leadership, or the wisdom to teach biblically. But they were popular, so people listened to them, they were popular, so people followed them. If a pastor who has 9 people in his/her congregation is speaking God's Word prophetically, working within the parameters of the historic/apostolic/biblical orthodoxy of the Church, that man or woman should be listened to far more than the pastor who has 15,000 people in his/her congregation and bestselling books galore, but is perverting the Gospel with materialism, nationalism, or any number of false teachings that will not stand the test of time.
(4) The assumption that our opposition is based upon denominational doctrines. This couldn't be further from the truth, the pastors who signed represent in no particular order: Anglican, Methodist, Episcopal, non-denominational, Lutheran, Church of God, Presbyterian, and of course Baptist churches. There is nothing "particular" about our united opposition because we represent a broad spectrum of historic Christianity. What does unite us in opposition is our common defense of the historic Gospel, the kind of teaching affirmed by the Nicene Creed or the Apostles' Creed. This is a basic, fundamental, and historic defense of the Gospel. It has nothing to do with the secondary issues that differentiate a Baptist from a Lutheran, and a Lutheran from a Methodist. In fact, the objections we have stated are equally at the heart of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches as well, they are teachings that precede by 1,000 years the Great Schism and the Reformation by 1,500 years. Why? Because we object to FFOZ based upon the New Testament where God has preserved the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.
{Note: Our objections would have been even stronger if we knew in Feb of 23 what we know about FFOZ in April of 24, what we knew then was enough to convince us all to reject it.}
The Trinity is not a "historic doctrine of our particular denominations."
Jesus' fulfillment of the Law as the ultimate and last sacrifice for humanity's sins is not a "historic doctrine of our particular denominations."
The Fruit of the Spirit as the test of true discipleship, not the keeping of the Law of Moses, is not a "historic doctrine of our particular denominations."
These teachings, and others like them, are what our ancestors in the faith believed, it was the Gospel they preached, and it was the truth they were willing to be martyred while believing rather than betray.
We didn't unite to oppose you, Boaz, over petty differences but over the core of the Gospel as it has been preached, received, and celebrated for 2,000 years.
We didn't unite to oppose your organization, First Fruits of Zion, to protect our own turf, but the sheep that God has given us to shepherd and the spotless Bride of Jesus Christ, his Church.
In this 3 part series, Pastor Powell seeks to highlight some of the most important ideas, people, and movements within the universal Church during its two-thousand year history.
In part 1, the Early Church, the Early heresies regarding the person of Jesus, the Ecumenical Councils, and St. Augustine are the focus.
There was a commercial that aired when I was a kid that asked the philosophical question, "how many licks does it take to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop?" After three licks the wise old owl gives up and bites the sucker.
I thought of that when compiling my list of scripture passages from my seminar on The Church and Politics which is largely built upon Pastor Gregory Boyd's book, The Myth of a Christian Nation (click for my response to the book). How many passages of scripture would it take to refute 'Christian' Nationalism? If God had given us two or three such admonitions, would it be enough to sway those infected with this heresy? This is the first post in a (intended) series of 62 such passages. Some of them will be redundant, but that too adds strength to the case against this ideology. This is not an exhaustive list, other portions of scripture could be cited, but in the end the question remains: Are 62 passages of the Word of God enough?
Note: History refutes 'Christian' Nationalism. Any non-jaundiced look at history will show time and time again the danger to both Church and State when the two are melded together, but people have an amazing ability to ignore history (See: The Puritans in England under Cromwell) or rewrite it to suit their agendas (See: the Lost Cause in the South after the Civil War). The Word of God is supposed to be different for Jews and Christians. It is supposed to have an authority greater than that of philosophers, historians, politicians, and even pastors. Are those who call themselves Christians in America today willing to listen to God's Word?
Genesis 25:29-34
29 Once when Jacob was cooking some stew, Esau came in from the open country, famished. 30 He said to Jacob, “Quick, let me have some of that red stew! I’m famished!” (That is why he was also called Edom.)
31 Jacob replied, “First sell me your birthright.”
32 “Look, I am about to die,” Esau said. “What good is the birthright to me?”
33 But Jacob said, “Swear to me first.” So he swore an oath to him, selling his birthright to Jacob.
34 Then Jacob gave Esau some bread and some lentil stew. He ate and drank, and then got up and left.
So Esau despised his birthright.
At first glance one might wonder what this passage has to do with 'Christian' Nationalism, but it offers up two powerful moral lessons: (1) Perspective is important: Esau overvalued his immediate hunger and undervalued his birthright. In so doing he placed the fear/worry of now above concern for the future. 'Christian' Nationalism does the same by proclaiming that Kingdom of the World (human nations) cares and concerns are greater than Kingdom of God (The Gospel, the Church, Spirit) commands. It is an imbalance in priorities, the putting of that which is essential below that which is temporary. This is a theme we will see repeated in many of the passages to come. (2) God decides who we are supposed to be: 'Christian' Nationalism fails to appreciate the reality of what the Church is supposed to be, i.e. its birthright. Why are we here in this world, what are we to strive for, and how are we to go about it? All of these questions are answered in detail in the biblical texts (again, themes we will be returning to) and all are under-represented, if not outright ignored, when following the path of 'Christian' Nationalism.
Lastly, a definition that will help bring this ongoing discussion into focus:
What is 'Christian' Nationalism? "Christian Nationalism is an ethno-cultural ideology, that uses Christian symbolism to create a permission structure for the acquisition of political power and social control." - Jemar Tisby, author, historian, and committed Christian
Note: The use of 'air quotes' around the term 'Christian' is on purpose. It is not the generally accepted usage, but one that I will endeavor to remember to always use that signifies my deep felt conviction that there is nothing historically, theologically, or biblically Christ-honoring about 'Christian' Nationalism. As such, I choose to use the air quotes as a reminder of the danger of allowing people (especially non-believers) to believe that Christians in general support this aberrant heretical position.
The Bible doesn't support Democracy. Then again, the Bible doesn't denounce it either. In fact, the Bible mentions Democracy not at all. Most people familiar with the Bible and world history would assume this already, but there are numerous modern topics that were not part of the conversation in the Ancient World. The Bible doesn't address any of these topics directly. How could it? What language would it use, and how could the original audience possibly understand it if it did and thus be edified by it? Remember, the portions of scripture that collectively make up the Bible were first given to specific people on specific occasions, for specific purposes. Because it is God's Word it has meaning and application beyond those initial considerations as part of its enduring quality, but not without them. In other words, "It cannot mean for us what it never meant for them."
The Bible was written in a world that knew only variations of one-man rule (occasionally one-woman rule). Emperors, Kings, Chieftains and the like, some kind and benevolent, some vain and cruel. It did not know Communism, Republics, Constitutional Monarchy or Democracy {The short-lived experiment in 'pure' Democracy in Athens being, if anything, a cautionary tale thanks to its demise, and by the time Rome became a part of the story in the New Testament it had long since ceased to be a Republic}. As such, the Bible neither supports nor condemns modern concepts related to other ways to govern a nation. This gives Christians freedom of conscience when considering what type of governmental system they prefer. Instead of commands in this area, the Bible gives Christians principles to seek to apply such as the Golden Rule, "Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6:31) or "He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." (Micah 6:8)
That being said, there is a growing trend in the West (Hungary is already there, but also Poland, France, and America) of Christians (a mix no doubt of self-professed cultural 'Christian' and genuine disciples of Christ) supporting Autocratic tendencies in government. In response to societal pressures and fears, a growing number of Christians are beginning to prefer a 'strong man' type leadership to the leadership derived from fair elections. In other words, they would rather have their team win without democracy than risk losing with it. There are increasingly supporting having the policies they champion imposed by any means necessary, regardless the legality of the methods or the rights of others. The most common rationale is to view modern politics as a war, one in which it doesn't matter how you play the game, only whether or not you win or lose. In this view, democratic norms and morality are naïve, only power matters because the stakes are too high {There is much Christian Apocalypse related imagery and reasoning here as well.}
I have written often about the dangers of choosing power over principles, might over right, but what about the danger of choosing Autocracy over Democracy? Are Christians obligated as a matter of morality to support, even defend, the modern concept of liberal democracy?
The answer is yes, and the reason doesn't have to involve a philosophical discussion regarding governance. One need only ask this question, "If democracy falls, what will replace it?" History has shown, repeatedly, that the answer is: something less just, less fair, and more prone to evil. It would be the height of folly to believe that this time it will be different. That we can hand power over to one man, one family, or one cabal, without watching our society descend into persecution of those who oppose the regime. Until the invasion of Ukraine, it was fashionable in some Christian Nationalist circles to view Vladimir Putin as a 'savior' of Christianity against the forces of Islam and Liberalism. As the mass graves in Ukraine, the rape of a country previously at peace attest, autocrats are no friend to Christian morality. There is NO scenario where the American system of elections, of sharing power based upon their results, is replaced by one in which 'our team' has permanent rule that does not involve a massive increase in Evil.
Perhaps some Christians are thinking, "this time it will be different, you'll see." They're wrong; both history and human nature make trusting the leadership of a nation to an autocrat to be a folly, but let's move to a 2nd line of reasoning: Do Unto Others. Would you want to be on the losing side of an Autocratic regime? Would you want your rights taken away by 'them', your role in choosing your nation's future reduced to nothing? The answer is no, it would be tyranny and you would hate it. HOW then can any Christian support the notion that Autocracy is just fine when my team wins if they would violently oppose it if the shoe was on the other foot? If Christian Nationalists are not willing to live with permanent rule of the Democratic Party, how can they cheer on the notion of permanent rule by the Republican Party? To do so, those trending toward autocratic methodology must consider the people on the other side to be less than us: they are less than those of us who are the 'real Americans'. An ethic that follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, that views every person as your neighbor that you must 'love as yourself' cannot tolerate this dissonance. In fact, to embrace us over them, even to see the world as divided into these competing camps, is to begin to walk down the road that negates the truth that every person is made in the image of God. {Yes, the world is divided into Redeemed and Lost, Sheep and Goats, but those are not the lines being drawn here, this is political not spiritual warfare}
Can a Christian, in good conscience, turn against Democracy in favor of Autocracy? Not if he/she loves their neighbor whom such a system would harm, as Jesus commanded us to do.
Is the Bible the Word of God? That is a question that only faith can answer. Is the Bible we have today an accurate representation of what its authors originally wrote? That is a question that evidence can prove. The Bible is by far the most well attested ancient document with a rich manuscript history and a fascinating story of ordinary people who rose to the occasion to protect it, or sank to the depths to try to keep it from the people. It is a story of hand-written copies, and a story of translation efforts from the original Greek and Hebrew. This three part series will open the door to the much larger subject of the history of the text of the Bible, its preservation and transmission from the ancient world to the plethora of English Bibles that we have available to us today. Along the way, it will help answer questions about the reliability of our text, the affect that variants have upon our confidence in the text, as well the reasons why we have so many translations in English today.
There are skeptics who don’t believe that we can have any confidence that our text is the same as what was originally written. Amazingly, they agree with the essential facts of history that the Bible’s manuscript tradition is rich and ancient, sadly, they draw opposite conclusion from this evidence and end up with nothing but doubt. There are “perfect” Bible zealots who have complete confidence in one particular translation of our text, made 400 years ago, who are immune to evidence because their belief in the text of the Bible is a matter of faith not facts. Both of these groups think that ordinary Christians will have their faith destroyed if they learn the truth about the history of the Bible, they’re both wrong. The Word of God has been handed down to each new generation throughout the history of the Church, and that story is something that every Christian should want to know.
Parts 2 & 3 to follow (previous versions already available via the History of the Bible tab at the top of the web page) next week and the week after.
The United States is as closely divided as one can imagine. When all the dust settles on the 2020 election, the Presidency will have been decided by razor thin results in a few states, the Senate will be within a seat or two, and the House will be within a handful. The issues that divide us are plentiful, the visions being offered about the future seemingly incompatible. What do we, as a Church, do now? How can we chart a way forward when the present is so volatile?
The Way Forward begins by looking backward. Before they were first called Christians, those who believed in Jesus Christ were known as "The Way" (Acts 9:2), and this designation is a useful reminder to us. Jesus Christ said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6, NIV) So, as his followers, the early Christians were known as the people who followed 'the way' that Jesus had established, and that way was centered upon himself. In other words, Jesus both established the way (as a trailblazer and guide) and was literally the way itself (as the atoning sacrifice that opened the way to the Father).
At any point in its history, when the Church has wandered from its foundations or been infected with dangerous ideas, the solution has always been the same: go back to the beginning, go back to 'the way'. So, what does the way forward look like for the Church in America in the 21st century?
The Way Forward is...
(1) Christ-centered
When other things push their way toward the center, the Church loses its purity and purpose. Christ, and Christ alone (i.e. God), belongs at the center. We operate by God's power, not man's. We seek God's glory, not America's. We proclaim God's Truth, not our 'truth'.
(2) Biblically guided
A Church that does not take the entire moral counsel of the Word of God seriously will falter. Morality matters, within the Church first and foremost. For example: The Word of God declares the value of human life, created in God's image. Because we are made in God's image, every human life has value, our attitudes, words, and actions need to reflect that reality. The way forward for the Church is holistically pro-life. That is, from the unborn to the elderly, from citizens of our nation to immigrants and refugees, from those who look like us to those who do not. We need to find a way to meaningfully support all people, as God's image bearers, as people for whom Christ died, overcoming the host of issues that try to wedge between the people of God and those to whom we are called to minister. We need to do this in a way that upholds biblical morality without invalidating the call to 'love our neighbors as ourselves'. The challenge is immense, but not optional. This list needs to be exhaustive, including LGBT individuals, minorities, and those with a criminal record (among others). The Gospel has one solution for all of humanity, the Church needs to figure out how to maintain that belief and not act as if some people need the Gospel less or others need it more (Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord."). That some individuals and some groups believe they have no place in the Church, assuming they answer the call to repent and believe like anyone else, is a tragedy we must find a way to overcome.
(3) Grace infused
There is no meaningful path forward that is built upon our pride. In addition to needing humble servants, the Church needs bridge builders not moat diggers, and the people of God need to seek and embrace common goals (within and without the Church), not partisan advantages.
This list is certainly not exhaustive, but it is foundational. The Church has two thousand years of history behind it. The portions of that history that bring honor and glory to God have been all three of the things I've listed: Christ-centered, biblically guided, and grace infused. We need a way forward, and for that we need to go back to the beginning.
Exodus 20:7 (NIV) “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
To abuse Scripture to portray God in a light contrary to the Word of God is a violation of this commandment. This is a danger that faces those who purport to speak on God's behalf, a warning of the need to treat the Word of God with respect and honesty.
PragerU is not a university, or an educational institution of any kind, rather it is a popular social media content company founded by talk show host and writer Dennis Prager (co-founded by Allen Estrin), and funded by billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks (from the petroleum industry. The Wilks family founded the Assembly of Yahweh church, a group with numerous non-orthodox/heretical beliefs {they're essentially unitarian, denying the Trinity and making Jesus a created being; not to be confused with the Unitarian Universalist Church, that's a very different group}). PragerU espouses a Conservative, often Libertarian, consistently Republican viewpoint. This being America, PragerU has every right to support these views, to share them in any legal manner, and those whose beliefs coincide with those views have every right to appreciate the content that PragerU creates. However, PragerU decided to bring God into the conversation, to declare that the Bible (and God) 100% supports their position on an issue, that the Bible (and God) 100% condemns the other side on this same issue, and that those in the Church who disagree are, in essence, fake Christians. If you're going to take such a God-centered position, you'd better be able to back it up with theology drawn from the whole Bible (not just cherry-picked verses), from Christian theologians and thinkers throughout Church History, AND you'd better present your argument with honesty and integrity, "for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."
Below is the transcript (in this font) of the PragerU video (link above, please watch it to see for yourself). My comments upon the video will appear in bold.
The Lord is a God of social justice.
That’s the message in many—maybe most—churches and synagogues in America and the West today.
But here’s the problem: The Bible doesn’t actually say that. It says (in Isaiah), “The Lord is a God of justice.” You’ll find a lot of references to justice in the Bible. But you’ll never find it preceded by the word “social.”
1. The "____ is not in the Bible" argument is both foolish and disingenuous. Why? Because it can easily be used against any modern concept. Let me show you. "The Lord is a God of democracy...But here's the problem: The Bible doesn't actually say that." Other words not in the Bible: capitalism, socialism, America, vote, Republican, Democrat, free trade, minimum wage, etc. I've seen this argument used before, and it is always an exceedingly weak one. Not only are modern concepts not in the Bible, which is of course a document written in the Ancient World, but the Bible you and I read isn't in its original languages. The Bible was written in ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic (just a few verses), and thus whether or not a particular English word or phrase is in our Bible is also a translators decision.
But you’re probably thinking, “What’s the difference? Isn’t God the God of justice and social justice?” Well, not if He’s consistent. You see, God cannot be the God of justice and social justice because social justice is not just.
2. Here is the premise of PragerU's argument: Social justice isn't just. That's a serious theological position to take, one that would require numerous examples of social justice movements and advocates actually seeking injustice, as well as significant exegesis of Scripture to establish, but instead of that, PragerU's video will next create a false Straw Man version of Social Justice to attack, declare that version to be unjust, and move on hoping nobody noticed the bait and switch. They are correct that God cannot be the God of injustice, nor of immorality of any kind, including dishonesty.
Justice is getting what you deserve without favor. Social justice is getting what you don’t deserve because you are favored.
3. Here's the Straw Man: "Social Justice is getting what you don't deserve because you are favored." No it isn't. From the Oxford dictionary: "The objective of creating a fair and equal society in which each individual matters, their rights are recognized and protected, and decisions are made in ways that are fair and honest." Or from Dictionary.com if you prefer: "Fair treatment of all people in a society, including respect for the rights of minorities and equitable distribution of resources among members of a community." Here's an important lesson in language: Word usage determines word meaning. How words are used is what they mean. Dictionaries tell us what words mean based on how people are currently using them. PragerU has decided to make up their own definition of the term social justice, which is not a definition at all, but a critique from their own political philosophy. That's not how dialogue works, but it is how punditry works, and this sort of 'argumentation' is one of the reasons why Americans are often at each other's throats. In addition to be unhelpful in actually discussing an issue, this is dishonest. The vast majority of people who advocate for social justice do NOT believe that people should get what they don't deserve. And since PragerU brought Christian Churches into this conversation (in order to condemn them), there are few Christian Churches who believe that their efforts for social justice have anything to do with PragerU's 'definition'.
Justice is blind. Social justice is not.
4. Here lies the heart of the matter and the fundamental flaw in PragerU's viewpoint: Justice isn't blind, not in the real world. It may be blind, ideally, but throughout human history it has rarely been so. Social Justice is the response to this perverted justice, it is an effort to re-balance the scales of justice, to take away the advantages that certain people/groups have (in America that would be, in order of importance for having 'justice' tilt in your direction: rich, males, who are white) with respect to justice, and also taking away the disadvantages that certain people/groups have (in America, again in descending order that would be: poor, minority, female) with respect to justice. The Rich have one version of justice (in America, throughout the world, and throughout history), the poor have another. The powerful (often associated with class, caste, or ace) have one version, the weak have another. And yes, men have one version, women have another.
Let's say a man robs a store. Justice demands but one thing: that he be tried in a court of justice, and, if he is found guilty, punished.
That is not how social justice works. Social justice doesn’t only ask if the person is guilty. It asks about his economic condition: Is he poor or wealthy? About his upbringing: What kind of childhood did he have? About his race or ethnicity: Is he a member of a group that has been historically oppressed?
5. The Straw Man version of social justice once more in action. I've never heard anyone advocating for social justice proclaim that a criminal who is a minority should be given a 'get out of jail free' card. Again, justice isn't blind. The system of criminal justice (as the example is about crime) both in America today and throughout the world and its history, is one that is unfairly tilted toward those with power (typically wealthy, but also things like aristocratic birth). The system affords them ample opportunities to avoid true impartial justice, while at the same time, stacking the deck against the weak and powerless. This is a fact of both history and the world today. It is beyond dispute, yet PragerU mentions this disparity in their video, not at all. This is the heart of social justice movements, but PragerU is declaring that God hates social justice without touching upon this element.
Justice demands that everyone be equal under the law. Social justice demands that everyone be equal. Period. Economically, socially, and in every other possible way.
Justice asks, “Who did it?” Social justice asks, “Why did he do it?”
Lost in all these social justice considerations is the individual’s own responsibility for what he did. That’s why social justice advocates have abandoned the term “justice.” They deem justice alone as unfair. And sometimes it is. A man who was beaten by his father and abandoned by his mother is more likely to commit a violent crime than a man raised in a loving home. But those facts cannot and should not determine his innocence or guilt.
Why? Because justice is, first and foremost, about truth: Is the person guilty or innocent of the crime? None of us is omniscient. We don’t know why people do what they do. After all, the vast majority of people raised in abusive homes do not commit violent crimes. Nor do the vast majority of people who are members of an historically oppressed group.
6. PragerU is arguing from the false standpoint that justice is currently fair and that those seeking social justice want to make it unfair. If that were true, they might have a point, but it isn't, neither part of it. The secular justice system in America should take into consideration if a defendant was an abuse victim, if he/she has a mental illness, and other mitigating factors. A TRUE search for Justice (with a capital J) has room for compassion, has hope for rehabilitation of offenders, and takes into consideration the circumstances behind why a crime is committed. Why? Because that's the way God judges us (more on that later). Again, this is a broken record, but PragerU is arguing against a false version of social justice, as if the idea of social justice is to excuse the guilty from any/all punishment, rather than seeking to actually allow justice to operate without its prejudices.
So, how does God judge human beings? Are we treated equally for fairly?
James 3:1 (NIV) Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.
Luke 12:42-48 42 (NIV) The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43 It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.
47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
Hebrews 6:4-8 (NIV) 4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen[a] away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.
More examples could be given, but when studying God's interaction with human beings in his Word it becomes apparent that God's justice is not 'blind'. It does indeed take into account the attitudes and knowledge of the people being judged, and it holds those who have received more blessings, MORE accountable. God is not a computer, he's a person. God views humanity with both righteousness (his holiness requires it) AND compassion. With both anger toward the wicked and mercy toward the repentant {See Jonah: Jonah didn't want to go to Ninevah to share God's warning with that wicked people precisely because he wanted to see them destroyed not saved, “Isn’t this what I said, Lord, when I was still at home? That is what I tried to forestall by fleeing to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity."}
As Christians, what kind of Justice ought we to imitate? Blind justice, or God's justice? One could argue that a secular society should seek to administer blind justice and not be influenced by Judeo-Christian ideals, but that's the opposite of what PragerU is saying here as they're actually advocating for blind justice (which we don't currently have, and won't have without social justice, an irony to be sure) in the name of God, and condemning those who want a justice system that more closely resembles the way in which God judges people.
Being a victim, however that is defined, is no excuse for hurting other people. And what about those who are hurt—the victims of those crimes? Shouldn’t they, and other law-abiding citizens, be society’s first consideration?
7. Social Justice doesn't care about victims. That's a big statement, if only it were backed up with any evidence...Oh, and if you're going to bring God into the picture (which PragerU purposefully did), don't spend the whole time talking about Law with no mention of Grace. If the character of God is the barometer of whether or not our system of justice is a righteous one, it had better take into account BOTH God's willingness to punish the wicked, AND God's willingness to have mercy upon the wicked. So far this presentation is 100% Law.
Social justice advocates say no. They say we need social justice to even things out. And that means favoring the have-nots over the haves—the poor over the rich, the female over the male, and the brown or black over the white.
The Bible does not see the world this way. In fact, it speaks against it in very explicit terms.
Here’s a law in the Book of Exodus: “Do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favoritism to a poor person in a lawsuit.”
Here’s one in Leviticus: “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great but judge your neighbor justly.”
Moses, the greatest lawgiver in history, declares in Deuteronomy: “Follow justice and justice alone.”
And the New Testament declares in the Book of Romans: “God shows no partiality.”
8. Here is the entirety of the thesis that the Bible is against social justice: 4 verses of scripture. Of the 4 verses chosen by PragerU, two warn against favoring the poor, and two speak of impartiality in general. If only the Bible spoke, anywhere, about NOT favoring the rich and powerful, if only the prophets had bothered to speak on this topic too...Here is a list of 100 verses commanding God's people to protect/advocate for the helpless (poor, widow, orphan, foreigner, oppressed): What does the Bible say about protecting the Helpless? Let me highlight a few of them below:
Deuteronomy 27:19 ‘Cursed be anyone who perverts the justice due to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’
Psalm 12:5 “Because the poor are plundered, because the needy groan, I will now arise,” says the Lord; “I will place him in the safety for which he longs.”
Proverbs 14:31 Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker, but he who is generous to the needy honors him.
Isaiah 1:17 Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause.
Isaiah 58:6-7 “Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?
Jeremiah 21:12 O house of David! Thus says the Lord: ‘Execute justice in the morning, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed, lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of your evil deeds.’
Jeremiah 22:16 He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well. Is not this to know me? declares the Lord.
Matthew 23:23-24 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!
Romans 5:6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Or if you prefer, here is what Compassion International (one of the most respected Christian charities) has to say about God's relationship to the poor: What the Bible Says about Poverty
The point is, PragerU has badly cherry-picked scripture to create a false impression, one that it simply tries to dismiss with its next paragraph. Why does the possibility (not the reality, this isn't happening now) of the poor being favored offend PragerU so deeply (its the only type of injustice they mention) but the reality of the rich being favored day after day isn't an issue?
None of this means that there is no place for compassion in a system of justice. Of course, there is. The Bible is preoccupied with the protection of the widow, the orphan, and unfortunate. But compassion follows justice. It doesn’t precede it.
9. Yes! The Bible is preoccupied with the protection of the weak and powerless! How can your very next sentence start with 'But'? "Compassion follows Justice. It doesn't precede it." Thank God this isn't true. Compassion is integral to Justice, Mercy is foundational to Justice, Love is intertwined with Justice. Does God execute complete Justice with regard to human sin? Absolutely, that's why Jesus died upon the Cross, to take the full weight of our sins upon his perfect shoulders. {See the book of Hebrews for a detailed discussion} Do we experience complete Justice? Thanks be to God, we do not. Christ died for the ungodly, Christ died for the undeserving, Christ died for sinners. THIS is the character of God, this is the Justice that we should aspire to.
Well meaning and God honoring Christians can, and will, disagree about HOW MUCH injustice exists, about which particular examples are unjust, and about HOW TO CORRECT that injustice. These can be normal healthy disagreements and discussions about the command we have received from the LORD to administer true justice, protecting the powerless. What does not fit within a Biblical framework is a viewpoint that treats the effort being made to correct injustices as an abomination to God. That viewpoint, expressed as it is here in PragerU's video, is taking the name of the LORD in vain and misrepresenting his Word.
Also, justice, in and of itself, is compassionate. First, to the victims of crime and to their loved ones. And second, to the criminal: How can you become a better human being if you don’t first recognize that you’ve done something wrong?
That’s why any time we put an adjective before the word “justice,” we no longer have justice. Economic justice, racial justice, environmental justice—any form of “social” justice which seeks to “correct” actual justice—undermines justice.
10. The word social preceding justice automatically negates it? As a former English teacher this claim leaves me scratching my head. This is another argument that doesn't make any sense because it could equally be used against other uses of adverbs and adjectives in front of nouns with silly results. For example: Agape Love, Brotherly Love, Loving Kindness, Saving Faith, Holy Spirit, etc. Why is this one example with the word justice, somehow evil when we use words like this all the time, and so does the Bible? The answer is PragerU's political philosophy, not Biblical theology.
"Any form of 'social' justice which seeks to 'correct' actual justice- undermines justice." This would only be true IF actual justice were actually happening. To correct injustice IS justice. To stop further injustice IS justice. This is the Straw Man still going, social justice doesn't seek to undue true impartial justice, but rather the perverted form of justice that many people in society have to reckon with. What actually undermines Justice in a society? When the rich and powerful guilty are allowed to go free (or get greatly reduced punishments) and the poor and powerless have the full weight of the system upon their backs, whether or not they are guilty. Is the LORD supposed to be pleased with this? Is God supposed to be smiling upon America (or any other nation) as a paragon of true Justice? If the prophets of old excoriated Israel for failing to follow God's Law with justice, what makes you think any other nation is beyond God's ire?
So, then, if social justice is not a biblical concept, why do so many churches and synagogues promote it?
Because many Christians and Jews no longer regard biblical principles as binding. Because it’s a lot easier to dispense compassion than hold people to a biblical standard. And because leftism has superseded the Bible in many houses of worship—and leftism, as a guiding principle, holds that the weak are good and the powerful are bad.
That’s why the great battle of our time is between Judeo-Christian values and leftist values. The former is rooted in justice; the latter is not.
11. And the icing on the cake? PragerU has declared that Christians and Christian Churches who follow the Bible's commands to advocate for the poor and the powerless are in fact fake Christians who care more about Leftist politics than they do about God. This is a sweeping and broad condemnation, one that would include MLK Jr., Mother Theresa, St. Francis of Assisi, the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, John the Baptist, and of course Jesus himself who had a pesky habit of siding with the poor and the oppressed against the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin.
What does the Bible say about Right vs. Left? Nothing. What does it say about Capitalism vs. Socialism? Nothing. Take these fights outside and stop dragging God into them.
Here's an uncomfortable truth for PragerU: The only economic system that God ever created was that of ancient Israel through the Law of Moses. This system was NOT a free-market land of rugged individualism, but rather a system designed with a safety net for the poor {See Ruth and the law of gleanings} as well as a powerful mechanism to rebalance economic inequality in the Year of Jubilee. Every 50 years the entire nation of Israel was required to return all property to its original owners (leaving no families destitute with generational poverty) and free all slaves. God required his people to RESET the wealth/poverty ratio on a regular basis. This was not 'blind justice' in action, but God's justice, for it contained both mercy and grace.
I’m Allie Beth Stuckey, host of Relatable on BlazeTV, for Prager University.
12. I have nothing against Allie Beth Stuckey, but if you're going to claim that God is on your side, maybe chose a theologian and not a pundit to make the case.
Acts 20:27 (NIV) For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God.
There is plenty of room within orthodox Christianity to discuss the issue of social justice with fairness and honesty. There is plenty of room to disagree about the extent of injustice and the potential solutions to it. I have family and friends, and members of my church whom love, who disagree with me on issues of social justice (racial, economic, etc.) We disagree about how to obey God, and that's ok, we're living and learning together. Historic, orthodox, Christianity, grounded in the Word of God has maintained an advocacy for the poor and the powerless, and it has maintained a prophetic voice against the abuses perpetuated by the rich and powerful. This stance honors our God, for it imitates him. PragerU is free to make its arguments in the political sphere, but if its going to try to dictate the will of God to the Church, it had better go back and read the WHOLE Bible.
"While justice can be used to talk about retributive justice in which a person is punished for their wrongdoings, most of the time the Bible uses the word justice to refer to restorative justice, in which those who are unrightfully hurt or wronged are restored and given back what was taken from them. Taken this way, the combination of righteousness and justice that God dictates means a selfless way of life in which people do everything they can to ensure that others are treated well and injustices are fixed."
"Justice flows from God's heart and character. As true and good, God seeks to make the object of his holy love whole. This is what motivates God throughout the Old and New Testaments in his judgments on sin and injustice. These judgments are both individual and corporate in scope."
One of the things that has been misconstrued, particularly by some Protestants, and often by Evangelicals in particular, is the notion that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is only really about saving souls. This tends to manifest itself in an abnormal focus on getting people to say a 'Sinner's Prayer' together with a lack of follow-up discipleship. In other words, it is a focus on the beginning of the Christian experience to the detriment of what follows after, on becoming a Christian but not on being a Christian. This imbalance isn't healthy, and it isn't what the Scriptures have taught us about how the Church should function.
Ephesians 2:8-10 New International Version 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
Too often, Ephesians 2:8-10 is quoted as Ephesians 2:8-9, but Paul didn't end his thought there, our salvation by grace through faith is the first step toward the 'good works' that we are called to do once we are saved. These 'good works' are not an optional part of being a Christian, for God himself has 'prepared in advance' what we are to accomplish because of our redemption has made us capable of so doing.
James 2:14-18 New International Version 14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.
Here we see faith in action, knee deep in issues of poverty, those same issues that are often derided as 'social justice' by those who claim the Gospel has no room for them. Can we afford to address social issues ONLY and neglect the spiritual need of the Lost? Of course not, but we are equally unbalanced when we, as a Church, put all our emphasis on spiritual needs and neglect physical/emotional/social needs. Every Christian, and every church, needs to be able to 'show me your faith' through acts of righteousness.
2. The Bible is full of examples of systematic actions taken in response to sinful behavior.
If the only progress we could make in society against evil was to convert the Lost, why in the Bible is God always taking larger, more systematic actions? The examples are plentiful, from the flood of Noah, to Joseph's program to feed the people during the famine, to Moses leading the people out of slavery (when Pharaoh was in no mood to change his mind), to the punishment of the people of Israel wandering for 40 years in the desert, to the command to Joseph to eliminate the Canaanites as God's wrath against multiple generations of wickedness, to the the Law of Moses' provisions to help the widows and orphans (which benefited Ruth because Boaz obeyed them), not to mention the Year of Jubilee's commands to free all slaves and forgive all debts. The ideal society, envisioned by the Law of Moses, contained example after example of rules, from God, designed to ensure justice and to eliminate generational poverty. When the prophets cried out against the mistreatment of the oppressed, they were addressing the spiritual need of the people, because that injustice was one of the ways in which spiritual illness manifested itself. Pastor Jeffress rightly understands that racism is connected to darkened human hearts, but has decided that only one tool can be used to combat it, thus abandoning the example of how the prophets sent by God addressed the spiritual need of Israel: holistically. The cancer analogy he uses is a false one. When fighting against cancer, doctors use everything that will help the patient survive, just because chemotherapy (for example) is what is needed to kill the cancer cells and other efforts would be futile without it, doesn't mean the patient won't also receive IV fluids or steroids; a holistic approach is needed in medicine, and in society as well.
Jesus himself continues this trend, challenging the Pharisees by healing on the Sabbath, overturning the tables in the Temple, and even rejecting the half-measure of establishing a Messianic Kingdom in favor of a far deeper and more systematic upheaval in the form of his own vicarious death and resurrection. When Jesus saw injustice at work, he confronted it directly on an individual level, challenged those who upheld the system that created it, and ultimately gave his very life to destroy the root of the problem. Had Jesus followed Pastor Jeffress' racism approach, he would have told those seeking healing that their suffering was a symptom, and thus not his problem, would have ignored the Pharisees (rather than going out of his way to confront them), and would have simply waited until his Passion to address the 'real problem'. Jesus, of course, did not such thing. Even though he fully intended to conquer sin and death to set the spiritual captives free, he still did everything he could to help both the individuals who were suffering and to challenge society's injustices.
The Bible doesn't advocate a principle of minimalism regarding societal evil. It doesn't consider these evils to be inevitable or beyond change. The reality of human nature, fallen and in rebellion against God, guarantees that we cannot create an utopia on earth, but the impossibility of eliminating an evil entirely in no way diminishes our responsibility to mitigate it in our time and place. While the Word of God calls for individuals, families, communities, and even whole nations to repent and turn to the Lord (i.e. to have changed hearts), it doesn't hit pause on the need for structural change until that day comes.
Zechariah 7:8-14 New International Version 8 And the word of the Lord came again to Zechariah: 9 “This is what the Lord Almighty said: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. 10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.’ 11 “But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and covered their ears. 12 They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the Lord Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. So the Lord Almighty was very angry. 13 “‘When I called, they did not listen; so when they called, I would not listen,’ says the Lord Almighty. 14 ‘I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations, where they were strangers. The land they left behind them was so desolate that no one traveled through it. This is how they made the pleasant land desolate.’”
Does God care about societal justice? God was willing to send his people, those with whom he had a Covenant, into exile because they weren't willing to change their hearts and minds, as evidenced by how they treated the widow, orphans, foreigners, and the poor. Are we to understand that God would have told the Jews living prior to the exile to not bother fighting against injustices because their efforts were only 'a Band-Aid'? Note also, the entire nation was sent into exile, including the righteous, because of the collective injustice (sin) of the people. Surely God takes injustice seriously. Here's the thing, America isn't in the place of privilege of Israel (Judah), we don't have a Covenant with God, which should make us less complacent about injustice in our society, for there is no promise from God to America that would ensure a return from exile should God, by way of administering his justice, choose to punish our nation. God was willing to chastise his own children, can we expect to escape unscathed?
3. When will there be 'enough' Christians to confront racism in America?
If America didn't have enough hearts trusting in Christ during the height of the Jim Crow era (when the vast majority of Americans were self-professed Christians), when exactly in the future is Pastor Jeffress suggesting it will be time to confront racism? If America couldn't mitigate racism through the hearts and minds of individuals, alone, when 75%+ of those individuals claimed to follow Jesus, what percentage is required? Clearly, the Church is not capable of eradicating racism, even within its own members, through solely spiritual means. The shameful evidence of our past and present confirms this. There needs to be an effort, in combination with, ongoing efforts to win souls to Christ to address the legal and societal frameworks of systematic racism. That some Christians are unwilling to consider this option, or even actively oppose it, calls into question how serious an evil they believe racism to be.
A parallel might help with understanding the situation. Abortion has been legal in America since Roe vs. Wade. Over the past few generations, Christians (and others) have worked continuously to shape hearts and minds on this issue, AND at the same time have opened hundreds of crisis pregnancy centers (We have one here in Franklin, ABC Life Center), have supported adoption agencies, fought battles over school sex education curriculum, put together lists of judges who are Pro Life, and have again and again advocated for and supported political candidates who promise to work to overturn Roe vs. Wade. In the case of abortion, we are not told to wait until the day when Christ has changed enough hearts, but to fight on every front, to continue the fight year after year until the goal is achieved. Why can't we wait until the demand for abortion ceases because Christ has changed hearts? Because unborn lives matter.
Perhaps you may have heard, Black Lives Matter too. But with racism the answer is different. Some say that racism isn't real, and even complain about reverse racism. Others deny that racism is systemic, claiming that only 'bad apples' exist, and that every law and policy is already as it should be, that race isn't a factor in justice (again, some even going further, claiming society favors minorities above Whites). Evidence to the contrary is belittled, treated as anecdotal only, or simply smeared with political epitaphs like 'socialism' or 'liberal'. There is absolutely a different tone and attitude among millions of (mostly White) Christians (going by self-profession) when it comes to racism.
4. You don't have to wait for the cure to fight against evil.
The COVID-19 pandemic has certainly taught us the need to take steps against it while we wait for a vaccine. By the same logic employed by Pastor Jeffress, the only cure for COVID-19 is a vaccine, any efforts at social distancing, mask wearing, or therapeutic treatments being researched to keep those infected alive, are only a Band-Aid. We have already lost 180,000 Americans, and rising, to COVID-19, imagine the death toll if we had taken no measures against it.
The Gospel's efforts to rescue hearts and minds from darkness have not made murder disappear, but it is still illegal, those who commit it are prosecuted, and a myriad of measures are in place to mitigate the risk that those willing to commit murder would be able to do so. Likewise, after 9/11 we didn't wait to convince the Jihadists of the error of their ways, we took extraordinary safety measures, and took military action against terrorists and their supporters.
The ultimate, final, solution against any evil is the victory of Jesus Christ over sin and death. What Christ has accomplished for us, and what Christ can do for anyone wiling to repent and believe, does not eliminate our responsibility to do our part to fight against evil.
I refuse to believe that we have to wait to fight against racism.
As the global pandemic from COVID-19 continues to disrupt our world in ways not seen since the Spanish Influenza, the predictable sermons referring to this particular outbreak as a sign of the End Times have also begun to multiply. There are however, important reasons rooted in proper biblical interpretation, history, and evangelism to caution any Christian, let alone a minister of the Gospel, from declaring that he/she sees current events as a sign of The End.
Biblical Interpretation:The proper foundation for interpretation of Scripture, or of any written or spoken statement for that matter, is exegesis. That is, drawing out from the text what its author intended to be there, rather than eisegesis, which is putting into the text our own thoughts or biases. The need to do this is especially acute regarding the Word of God, as our primary focus must be to determine what message God intended to send through the human authors he inspired. If we ignore the intended message, and replace it with an interpretation that is derived from what we want the text to say, we not only disrespect the Scriptures, but are functionally denying the doctrine of inspiration as well.
The danger of eisegesis is very present when seeking to interpret prophetic texts whose prophecies we believe to have not yet been fulfilled. The reason is simple: every generation is tempted to see these prophecies as being fulfilled in their own lifetimes through the set of circumstances they are living through. We need only look at the period of history before the life of Jesus to see this in action. Numerous false Messiahs rose to prominence, exciting the people's expectations that the messianic prophecies were being fulfilled in their midst, only to have those expectations amount to nothing when the 'signs' turned out to be falsely interpreted. Part of the problem revolved around this reality: There could be only one Messiah to fulfills God's promises, all others must needs be false alarms, either willing or unwitting charlatans.
So it is with the prophecies concerning the End Times. Since they were given, an unknown but sizable number of those who believe in the validity of the prophecies in question have thought themselves to be living in the times in question. There is evidence that some of the Apostles themselves believed that Jesus would return in their own lifetimes (John 21:22-24 for example), but they were wrong, the desire of God to further spread the Gospel to the ends of the earth continued beyond them. When Rome fell, it was interpreted as the beginning of the End, but it was not. And so on throughout Church History, as crisis after crisis and unexpected event after unexpected event were viewed through the lens of the End Times, and would-be Antichrists were 'identified', all to no avail. The End had not yet arrived, the various interpretations of Scripture that claimed it had was faulty. Only one generation can be correct on this matter, each and every preceding one will be wrong.
What differentiates this pandemic from the Spanish Flu or Black Death as being a 'sign of the End Times'? What makes this government response a plot of the Antichrist as compared to previous government actions? The only answer can be an act of eisegetical interpretation. "Because I say so" is not a stable foundation upon which to understand and apply the Word of God.
In the end the words of Jesus must be authoritative. I will be scoffed at by those who claim to 'see' what is going on, called a fool or a patsy perhaps as well. But there is no way possible to get around the explicit statements of Jesus on this topic, the only workaround is to ignore them. Immediately AFTER a detailed series of signs about the beginning of the end, Jesus says, "But about that day our hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Matthew 24:36) And then the very next statements of Jesus are multiple instances of warning about being in a constant state of readiness, no matter what, precisely because nobody knows when The End will come. Hear this: It was not Jesus' purpose that one specific future generation would hear his words, interpret them correctly, and thus guess what "only the Father" knows. How could they? Rather, Jesus' purpose throughout the passage in question is that EVERY generation to come who would walk by faith would do so knowing that The End will one day come, as a surprise, and that each and every generation must live as if it will be interrupted by these cataclysmic events, and as if they will live out their days to a natural conclusion. It is the tension of not knowing for sure when, but still knowing for sure, that we as disciples of Jesus are to embrace.
History: When looking back on history, we are not remotely living in times that justify a, "how could things get much worse?" attitude. During the Middle Ages, the Church endured countless invasions of murdering barbarians intent upon taking women and children into slavery, who also regularly desecrated churches and slaughtered priests, as well as the unprecedented horrors of the Black Plague. But these in time faded, with missionaries converting many of the pagans, and life improved. At the end of World War I, with the Austro-Hungarian and German Empires crumbling, Russia in the throes of Revolution, and four years of bloodshed on a scale unimaginable previously fresh in the collective nightmares of much of the world, Spanish Influenza swept the globe killing more than the war had. And yet, it was not The End. In those generations, there were many who 'saw the signs' and yearned for the Second Coming, but such was not the will of God.
One popular interpretation of the Apocalyptic literature in Scripture revolves around the notion of a One World Government (referred to these days as the New World Order). In a previous generation, the United Nations was the sign of the One World Government, but the UN has sadly proven unable to prevent either war or genocide, let alone bring the world's nations together. The European Union was supposed to be the harbinger of this, but now that unity is fracturing and far more likely to weaken than strengthen. Nationalism is on the rise once more, not cooperation. And yet, the response to COVID-19 will usher in a New World Order? This is not the direction that the world is heading in, and even if it was, the interpretation of Scripture that sets forth this One World Government/New World Order as a 'sign' reflects the political/philosophical views of those promoting it (what they fear), not an exegetical interpretation of the relevant prophecies. Remember, that the writers of the New Testament lived in an Empire spanning the entire Mediterranean world, and that our concepts of civil rights, personal freedoms, and constitutional liberties are foreign to their frame of mind, as is the fear of a government spanning multiple peoples/ethnic groups. The history of the Ancient Near East was a history of multi-ethnic empires. Therefore, when the interpretation of Apocalyptic literature in Scripture supplied by post-modern American Protestants happens to focus heavily on the this very fear, with a strong Isolationist and Libertarian element, how is it that this is supposed to reflect the original intent of authors to whom these concepts would be foreign? How is this interpretation supposed to be one that could have been understood by the original audience?
Long story short, if the current interpretation of Scripture is more reflective of our own worldview than that of the authors, how can any 'signs' that we may see, even if they're seen correctly, be valid? In other words, the 'sign' that you think you see is no sign at all if it has nothing to do with what the Word of God was actually predicting. History has shown that even great theologians of the Church are not immune to reading God's Word through their own perspective and coming to erroneous conclusions because of that bias. In the case of COVID-19, those who proclaim certainty regarding the End Times are guilty of both a recency bias (where current events outshine past ones in our minds) and the interpretation of Scripture through a post-modern American lens.
Evangelism: What, in the end is the danger of shouting, "The sky is falling!" prematurely? We know The End is coming, what's the harm if we jump the gun? The most immediate impact will be a distrust of our own government (not exactly a commodity with room to spare), as well as international medical associations, treatments, and vaccines that will lead people to, erroneously, balk at safety measures that they now view as tools of the Antichrist to institute the One World Government. If this leads to violence, it will be doubly dangerous, but it will almost certainly lead to unnecessary deaths from this pandemic, especially if a vaccine is developed and refused by millions. As dangerous as the implications may be in the public health/political sphere, they extend further. What danger does it pose to the reputation of the Church and the sharing of the Gospel?
You don't want to be the next Millerites. Who were they you ask? The baptist lay preacher William Miller used calculations of Daniel's 2,300 Day prophecy to determine that the Second Coming of Jesus would occur on October 22nd, 1844. When that day passed, those who had believed Miller's prediction suffered The Great Disappointment, and while most returned to their lives as they had been before, some sought explanations as to why Miller's calculations were slightly off, offering new dates in the near future. Miller had tapped into a feeling of expectation that would be continued by the Adventists (whose doctrine of the Investigative Judgement is an attempt to explain the delay), the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Mormons. While one of those three retains orthodox trinitarian beliefs, the Witnesses and Mormons have left behind the teaching of the Apostles. Church History has shown that 'certainty' about the date of the Second Coming is NOT a positive for the people of God, but a danger.
1 Peter 3:15 New International Version (NIV) But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect
We are called upon to offer a explanation for the faith that we have. That explanation becomes less comprehensible to those outside of the Church if they witness those acting in the name of Christ repeatedly proclaiming that they see 'signs' of the End, only to have the crisis pass and life return to some semblance of normal. When the boy cried, "Wolf!" the villagers at first rushed to assist. After several more false alarms, they ignored his final call. The message of the Gospel is far too important for us to place an unnecessary barrier between ourselves and those with whom we hope to share the joy of faith in Christ.
I would imagine that most pastors, let alone most Christians, are unfamiliar with the work of CSNTM (gotta love acronyms). The Center For The Study Of New Testament Manuscripts is an organization founded by noted New Testament manuscript expert, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace (a personal favorite) in 2002. What does CSNTM do? The organization's mission is to utilize emerging technologies to preserve and study Greek New Testament manuscripts. Since then, CSNTM has collaborated with more than forty institutions on four continents to produce hundreds of thousands of images of New Testament manuscripts. In the process, CSNTM has discovered dozens of New Testament manuscripts. - From the About page of the CSNTM Website
What is the importance of this work? By cataloging surviving NT manuscripts, and digitally preserving them, CSNTM is helping to add further depth and breadth to our understanding of the original autographs of the NT.
Why don't we just look at the originals? Easy enough to answer, they no longer exist. No autograph (original from the hand of the author) of any ancient document {excluding those carved in stone, not exactly an option for the entire NT) has survived to the modern age. Time, wear and tear, natural disasters, and deliberate destruction (think marauding barbarians gleefully setting fire to libraries) have seen to that.
What do we have then? Around 5,800 NT manuscripts (some whole, some very fragmentary) in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in various other languages (the non-Greek being translations, still useful, but not as much as those in the original language, Greek). The further beauty of CSNTM is that they have discovered, cataloged, and digitally photographed 90 previously undocumented NT manuscripts. In other words, the surviving evidence of the original NT text is getting stronger thanks to this work.
How is the work of CSNTM utilized? Scholars are able to remotely study individual manuscripts much easier than finding them and gaining permission to view them, without risk of damaging this delicate ancient documents. In addition, the printed Greek text that underpins nearly all English translations (exceptions being the KJV and NKJV which use the Textus Receptus, and the Douay-Rheims based on the Latin Vulgate {the Catholic Bible, based on Jerome's 4th century translation into Latin}) is today the Nestle-Aland's 28th Edition or the United Bible Societies' 5th Edition both of which are in a continual process of being updated to take advantage of new discoveries and new scholarship (like that of CSNTM) to further refine the 99% accuracy of our current text.
For further study, check out my 6 hour lecture on the History of the English Bible (located conveniently at this blog), where I delve into the history of the copying by hand of the NT, the advent of printed editions, and the translation work that brought the Bible from its original hand copied Hebrew and Greek manuscripts to our printed English texts today.
I've taught my seminar on the History of the Bible several times in person, at my own church and at 4 other area churches, but now (in part because of the need to offer ways to connect remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic) there will be an opportunity for many others to virtually attend this seminar online via ABCOPAD and Zoom.
Here is a description of the seminar: The history of the copying, preservation, and translation of the Bible will be given in a three-part seminar taught by Pastor Randy Powell of First Baptist of Franklin. This seminar will include helpful visual aids that will assist in the telling of the amazing history of God’s Word, beginning with the original manuscripts in Hebrew and Greek, and ending with the modern English translations that we read today. When we understand the history of how an accurate rendering of the original words of the authors of the Bible have been preserved for two millennia, our faith in its trustworthiness will only increase. The seminar will include an opportunity for Q&A, is free and open to the public with no reservation required; it will be a benefit both to novices and to those who only need a refresher, including pastors.
To take advantage of this opportunity, follow the link below to ABCOPAD's website (American Baptist Churches of Pennsylvania and Delaware) which contains the link to Zoom {It is very easy to join a zoom meeting, even tech novices can handle it, here is the link to the Zoom help center to answer any questions}. If you have any questions, please call me at the church office prior to the first class (814-432-8061).
As an alternative, if the day/time of the seminar doesn't work for your schedule, or you'd simply like to take the material at your own pace, I do have a high quality recording (thank you 1st Baptist of Linesville) of this same material made a few years ago that you can watch via Youtube.
In the moment, when our passions are aroused, we have a hard time seeing it. But there are always logical and historical implications when an organization (governmental, corporate, charitable, educational, religious, etc.) makes a momentous change. In 1215, When King John signed the Magna Carta , the trajectory of Western Civilization was dramatically altered, although none then could have imagined that it would one day lead to English colonies across the Atlantic Ocean declaring their independence of the British Crown. So it is with the sea change that is taking place in portions of the Church today. What we are now experiencing is a significant change from what was generally accepted as the Truth by the Christians who passed down their faith to us. There will be logical implications to these that we have not fully thought through, there will be unintended consequences, and there will be historical implications to this that we cannot yet see. Perhaps, as we continue to lob verbal grenades at each other, and continue to fight this theological war as a proxy in the political realm, we ought to try to take a step back and consider what some of those implications might be. What will we hand down to future generations in the faith?
Let us then posit the existence of a Church that by and large has become Pro-LGBTQI+ and/or Pro-Abortion. {Not a Church that considers how to show compassion toward and minister to those who embrace LGBTQI+ behavior, nor to those who have had abortions. Both of those things the Church should already be doing, although doing so is certainly difficult. Nor a Church that is neutral toward these issues, neither celebrating nor condemning them. The question at hand is this: What about a Church that has chosen to celebrate these things?} These are the two primary ideas that the Church is being asked to accept, that some within the Church have reluctantly tolerated, and some have enthusiastically embraced. With all of the yelling going on, perhaps looking toward the past and future will offer some perspective. 1. Our perspective of the past will change significantly
We are always reevaluating the past, appreciating things we hadn't noticed before and regretting things that were once commonplace. This is not new, not avoidable, and not necessarily a bad thing. Our ancestors once considered slavery to be something they could not rid the world of, until a Christian named William Wilberforce (among many others) spent his adult life convincing England to outlaw the practice. Now, when we consider that chattel slavery was once practiced by "fine Christian gentleman" it makes our skin crawl. So what will we think of (for example) Moses, Paul, Augustine, Martin Luther, or Billy Graham should the Church fully embrace these two moral positions? All of them will be viewed as muchmore flawed than they currently are. And while no man or woman called by God to serve his kingdom is free of flaws, it will be hard to avoid the conclusion that these former stalwarts of the faith were either cowards (for failing to be a lone voice in their culture) or bigots (for actively opposing the behaviors in question). In other words, nearly all of our heroes of the faith, certainly almost all those who lived before the 20th century, will have to be reevaluated, and most will end up on the list of "enemies of God". Instead of good men and women who did their best by faith, they will be fools who were blind to the 'truth'. It will not be a stretch to then believe that if their hearts could be so closed to what now has been determined to be true, that the vast majority of the heroes, and regular folk, who proceeded us in the faith, are in fact in Hell {for those who retain a belief in Hell}. If one hates what God loves, and forbids what God celebrates, what other conclusion is left? Hebrews 11 offers Christians a "great cloud of witnesses", heroes in the faith from the past to inspire us to live faithfully today. What happens to that inspiration when the past has been rewritten and the heroes are now all villains?
In addition to the reevaluation of individuals, ancient Israel and the Church until the 21st century will also come under scrutiny for their 'unenlightened' viewpoints. And while there were dark periods for both Israel and the Church in their history, times when people claiming to follow God have acted in shameful ways that we rightly condemn, it has until now been accepted that orthodox belief and practice did in fact triumph, by and large, in the end. That when Israel embraced as canonical the writings of the Tanakh (what we call the Old Testament) and treated them as Holy Scripture, that they were correct to do so. That when the Church accepted the brilliance of St. Augustine's argumentation, that it was correct to do so. But if both Israel and the Church have been so egregiously in error, about so fundamental and issue as human sexuality or the sanctity of life, does it not follow that the entire contribution of these two would now become suspect? That our connection to both Ancient Israel (as the tree onto which the Church was grafted) and the Early to Modern Church is false? What they believed, will no longer be what we believe. What they condemned, we will celebrate. The connection to the 'faith of our fathers' will be lost. 2. God will not have been active (or effective) in the past
If, as some within the larger Church are now contending, it was always God's intention to be pro-LGBTQI+ and/or pro-abortion, if these things are not merely permissible in a civil society (where we are now) but far beyond that, to be encouraged, celebrated, and embraced as glorifying to God, then it becomes readily apparent that God's effort to share this viewpoint with his people, and have them conform to it, was woefully inadequate in the past. There is not a plethora of writings from rabbis or church elders urging the acceptance of (let alone celebration of) these two activities, which either indicates that such voices were crushed by orthodox ones, revealing that God was powerless to promote and preserve them, or they did not in fact exist, in which case God was powerless to inspire those voices. Either way, for the past 4,000 years, God has done a woeful job of making this aspect of morality known to his people, and thus to the world.
As a corollary, if only orthodox voices were accepted, promoted, and preserved by Israel and the Church (reflected thus in the canonical scriptures), then immediate questions arise concerning the truthfulness and value of the scriptures that we do have. Because the Bible does not promote {Yes, I know a no-holds-barred battle is raging about whether or not the Bible condemns either homosexual behavior or abortion, this is the question beyond that one} homosexual behavior and abortion, as morally good and upright acts of righteousness (as is does, for example, repeatedly and strongly promote caring for widows and orphans, obeying your parents, or having a servant's heart), but those positions are now being declared to be such by the Church, the implication is that the Scriptures are corrupted in deep fundamental ways. As such, trust in the scriptures as a guide to life and morality will be, in a future Church which has chosen to be pro-LGBTQI+ and/or pro-Abortion, far less absolute, thus bringing to a final end Martin Luther's call for Sola Scriptura as well as the Catholic Church's reliance upon the traditions handed down from the Apostles. 3. Jesus will not be the Jesus of our ancestors in the faith
As much as we might admire the Apostle Peter or Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in the end, it all comes down to Jesus. To change our perspective regarding the hundreds of men and women who have walked in obedience before God as Jews or Christians is one thing, to take the traditional, orthodox, view of Jesus, and redefine it significantly is another. As is the case with the Bible as a whole, the Gospels do not make any sort of pro-LGBTQI+ or pro-abortion case. The Jesus that they relate to us, while full of compassion for the downtrodden of society, is at the same time extremely serious about the need for purity before God and the impact of sin upon the lives of people. That these two issues were settled matters within 1st century Judaism (thus largely explaining Jesus' lack of focus upon them), would thus not excuse Jesus from speaking out in favor of those with non-traditional sexual desires, or unwanted pregnancies. If Jesus is the champion of those in need that we all believe him to be, why did he leave the people in his midst who had these issues in the lurch? Jesus was willing to eat with "tax collectors and 'sinners'", it would have been even more scandalous, and thus made his point about self-righteousness even more poignantly had Jesus sought out an example from either of these two groups to embrace in front of the Pharisees.
And yet Jesus didn't do this (or at least the Gospels don't record it, which instead of lowering the view of Jesus, lowers that of the Scriptures, an equally untenable solution). He didn't take the opportunity to overturn the Jewish understanding of marriage and the sanctity of life. Judaism in the first century viewed marriage and children as highly admirable, as the ideal for all those who could enjoy its blessings, and yet Jesus didn't call them out for their, apparent, bigotry. The Jesus of the Gospels (the only one we know) is no hero to the LGBTQI+ movement, nor to pro-abortion champions, and thus he too will be reevaluated by a future Church that has embraced these ideas.
There are more implications for the future relating to the debates raging within the Church today than these three, but these three ought to be sufficient to give committed Christians a reason to think more deeply about these issues. Set aside the politics, set aside the cultural implications, ask the most important question: How will this change affect the Church/Gospel/Bible if it is fully embraced? The Church is a living thing, made up of flawed but redeemed people, and it needs to find a way to face the challenges of today without abandoning its historic and scriptural roots; to do so we need compassion, courage, and wisdom.
