Unworthy rebels, redeemed by the King of Kings and made servants fit for His use.

Category: Blog Articles (Page 2 of 5)

Philosophies and Empty Deceits – The Battle for the Sufficiency of Scripture

In his letter to the Colossians, Paul repeatedly urges his readers to grow in faith, maturity, and knowledge. And from that growth, he calls on them to live in such a manner as they honor and obey God. It is precisely because Christ has redeemed them and made them new creations that the Colossians are not only able but expected to grow and live in this manner. Throughout his writings, Paul makes it clear that unsaved people are unable to honor and obey God. They are dead in their sins and cannot be pleasing to God unless they are made holy in Christ. Yet, to Christians, Paul gives repeated commands to demonstrate holiness and obedience to God. Followers of Christ are to reject the ways of the world and cling tightly to the commands of our sovereign Lord.

To the Colossians, Paul’s ever-fervent prayer is that they will “be filled with the knowledge of his [God’s] will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding” (1:9). Paul wants Christians to not only know God but to know His will. He prays for this so that the Colossians will “walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God” (1:10). In other words, knowing God’s will (what He wants us to know and do) makes it possible for the Christian to actually live their lives in a manner that bears godly fruit. In order to practice rightly, they must know His will rightly.

A Battle Brewing

In our current age, there is a battle over the sufficiency of God’s Word. Many professing Christians will claim they believe Scripture is inerrant but demonstrate in practice they find it is not sufficient. By stating that the Bible is inerrant, Christians are proclaiming, rightly, that all that God has spoken in His revealed Word is without error. That the perfect and holy God did not allow for error to be written into the Scriptures. This has been a battle long fought for many generations. And it is a battle that must still be fought daily as many progressivists in our current age still deny God’s Word is divinely inspired.

The battle today is one of the sufficiency of Scripture. Does the Word of God contain all that is needed for faith and practice in the life of a Christian? Does it speak to the issues of our day and does it give the answers we need? Can we trust that this document, despite its Divine authorship and whose canon was closed approximately 2,000 years ago, actually understands the conflicts, sins, and issues of the 21st Century? The answer for the Christian must be a resounding “Yes!” For if we cannot trust that God provided us with sufficient instruction in the Scriptures, then we cannot trust that God is truly omniscient. And if God is not omniscient, then He is not God and He ought not to be trusted when He tells us that salvation is in Christ alone. In short, if Scripture is not sufficient, then God is not trustworthy and we have no hope of eternal life.

Yet, there are those today who, if not by full admission then by practice, deny the sufficiency of the Scriptures. Perhaps the most evident indication of this is the ongoing debate over the matter of social justice. No matter which form it takes – critical race theory, gender theory, queer theory, etc. – social justice advocates proclaim that the ideological framework of Theory is an analytical tool by which we can understand systemic oppression and then go to the Scriptures to apply the gospel imperatives. Such argumentation, no matter the claims of those who deny it, practically puts the ideology above Scripture because we must use the analytical tool to understand how and why such oppression occurs. Therefore, it is a practical denial of the sufficiency of Scripture.

Rejecting Plausible Arguments

In Colossians, Paul tells his readers that he has written to them and prayed for them to grow in knowledge “in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments” (2:4). Paul literally labors and struggles for those in the church that they may “reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery” (2:2). He does this so that the arguments of the world can be distinguished and separated from the true knowledge of God. Paul does not want his readers to be beguiled by claims of knowledge that seem to have a veneer of truth but ultimately lead one away from godly life and practice.

Paul writes to the Colossians, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ” (2:8). Paul is warning the Colossian believers that there are worldly arguments that are antithetical to the teachings of Scripture. They are man-made and without biblical substance. They come from the wicked heart of sinful men and are not from Christ. And he makes it a point to tell the Colossians that these arguments are capable of taking a person captive. They are that persuasive. These arguments seem to be legitimate. There is something about these philosophies that, without examining them against the light of Scripture, a person might just find themselves caught up in them and believe them wholeheartedly.

Later in chapter 2, Paul points out two types of arguments that fall into this category. First are those arguments that appear biblical, but neglect the full revelation of Scripture. “Therefore, let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ” (2:16-17). In the early church, there were many who tried to call Christians to come back under the Jewish law, to practice circumcision, and to adhere to the festivals and sacrifices. Paul admonished the Galatians in his epistle to them for doing this very thing. This is because the Old Covenant had been a type and shadow of the “things to come,” pointing to their ultimate fulfillment in Christ under the New Covenant.

The Old Covenant could never bring about salvation because it was intended to be a schoolmaster, pointing the Jews to the fact they never would be able to earn merit with God as they were dead in trespasses and sins. It was a signpost pointing to the coming Christ who fulfilled the law in its entirety and who was the perfect sacrificial lamb who would take away the sins of the world. For the Colossians, Paul was warning them against any argument which would take them back under the law. They had the sure word of God in all of Scripture revealing to them that Jesus was the promised Messiah and it was He alone who was the substance of these things. They did not need to listen to those who were outside of Christ and who rejected the revelation He was their promised deliverer. To go back under the law was to reject the revealed Word of the one whose prophets foretold of Christ’s coming. It may have sounded plausible, but in truth, it was a complete rejection of the revealed Word.

Secondly, Paul writes about arguments that appear to have some kind of biblical basis but are entirely worthless. He states, “let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,” (2:18). He later writes in verses 20 to 23, “If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were alive in the world, do you submit to regulations – ‘Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch’ (referring to things that all perish as they are used) – according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh” (emphasis added).

These arguments seem to have a connection to the Old Covenant. Certainly, the Jews had laws regarding dietary restrictions, not touching dead bodies, etc. However, never were they commanded to live ascetic lives, never were they allowed to worship angels, and anyone with a claimed vision better have it proven 100% accurate or the were to be slain as a false prophet. Paul makes it clear that, no matter how persuasive these arguments may have seemed, they were without any biblical support. A Christian may have thought practicing these actions could have somehow added to their holy walk, but in fact, they were completely worthless. By examining such claims against the genuine knowledge found only in God’s revealed Word, the Colossians would realize that all of these arguments had no value in combatting the desires of the flesh. They were worldly practices that did not even point to the God of Scripture and were never commanded by Him at any time.

Paul was concerned for the Colossians that they were to understand, firstly, they belonged to Christ and that He purchased them by His blood. He pointedly writes about how Christ is the creator of all things (including the Colossians) who made all things by and for Himself. He is the image of the invisible God who is now revealed to the saints and is the Savior of all, Jews and Gentiles alike. It is in His Word these things are revealed and there was no worldly argument, no matter how plausible it seemed, that could change this very truth. Therefore, Paul commands the Colossians to reject those arguments which could lead them into prideful practice, thinking they somehow could add to the work of Christ and achieve something of their own merit.

Paul calls upon the Colossians to live in a manner worthy of Christ. “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry” (3:5). When Christians adhere to the Word of God, our desire ought to be that which denies the desires of our flesh and submit humbly to God.

Social Justice – An Empty Deceit

This takes us back to the arguments of our current age. In the matter of social justice, what are the advocates of such a philosophy concerned with? Equality. Specifically equality of outcome, especially in the arena of worldly wealth and power. Social justice claims that oppression is systemic in culture and that those who have power and wealth have obtained it unjustly by oppressing certain groups. Primarily, the oppressed groups are argued to be minority ethnic persons, women, and persons who practice sexual immorality. Advocates argue that for true justice to reign, the oppressed persons must be elevated and given the wealth and power denied them by the oppressive group (which by definition are caucasian, heterosexual men). Social justice is focused on earthly matters which can only be defined by earthly categories. It then takes those categories and attempts to force them into God’s Word by insisting the world’s definitions are the same as the Scripture’s definitions.

This is a perfect example of the type of “philosophy and empty deceit” against which Paul warns. Certainly, Christians are to be concerned for the oppressed and downtrodden. We are called to love our neighbors and are to care for those in need (staring within the church first, then extending outward to the world). Christians live in a world that is broken and ruled by tyrants. While we are to be obedient to those in authority over us, we are also expected to call our leaders away from sin and to repentance (see John the Baptist’s interaction with Herod for example). However, Christ makes no command within Scripture to be concerned with the overtaking of government, to reign in politics, or to command arbitrarily what is to be considered equal or equitable. Rather, the command of Christ is to go forth and preach the gospel to the nations. Our primary mission is to call the world away from sinful, worldly desires and to follow Christ.

The beautiful thing about such a command and call is the impact it brings to the nations who follow Christ. As people reject sinfulness and embrace Christ, they have a new nature that leads them to walk in the commands of God. People develop loving hearts and desire to help others. Wherever Christianity has blossomed, nations have changed for the better. Therefore, the most loving thing we can do is preach Christ and Him crucified to the world. This doesn’t mean we don’t call out sinful governments and practices, we most certainly do. But we are not caught up in the vain pursuits of the world, trying to make a utopia in a fallen creation.

Social justice, however, commands the opposite. It divides people into oppressors and oppressed. It stirs anger, evil desire, and covetousness. It focuses on our earthly identities and makes them unchangeable. It tells people they are either always victims or always victimizers. There is no hope of atonement, only the never-ending treadmill of works one must do in hopes of receiving a token of acknowledgment for their efforts. It promises worldly possession and powers on the basis of victim status and perpetual punishment to those who do not accept their designation as oppressors. It brings no promise of joy everlasting, no hope of salvation, and no possibility of unity. Social justice is posited as a “plausible argument” but is nothing but “empty deceit.”

God’s Word Humbles and Equips

In Colossians 3, Paul commands the church to not only reject what is earthly in us but also put on what is fitting as God’s chosen ones. We are to put on “compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so also you must forgive” (3:12-13). Genuine knowledge of the Word leads us not to that which keeps us in pride-filled division. Rather, it leads us to humble submission to one another, loving one another, and most of all, forgiving one another. We are not lead to hate another for what they have that we do not. We do not desire their downfall that we might be lifted up. Rather, it is a joyful self-giving to one another, not that we are benefitted in a worldly way, but that we would glorify Christ who purchased us.

We build each other up by letting “the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teach and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God” (3:16). We identify ourselves as one body, unified in Christ, “Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all” (3:11). We are not divided by earthly designations, but we are united in the Savior who was promised by the prophets in the Scriptures as revealed from God. We look solely to His Word which commands us and rejects the precepts and philosophies of this world.

Brethren, far too many Christians and local churches (not to mention parachurch ministries and “celebrity Christians”) have been taken captive by the empty deceit of social justice. In doing so, they have denied that God’s Word sufficiently speaks to the issues of our day. They claim that only modern-day “Theory” can adequately explain how and why society is in its current state. They allow worldly definitions to replace the meanings of justice and equality that God has laid out in His Word. They tell us that we must embrace these “plausible arguments” which have an “appearance of wisdom” if we are to do the work of the gospel. But in truth, these arguments are worthless and have “no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.” Therefore, I implore the reader to stop being swayed by what the world is demanding we accept. See social justice for what it is, a worldly system by which we can be taken captive and lead from the truth of Scripture. Apply yourself daily to the reading of the Word and pray God gives us all wisdom to speak the truth in a time such as this.

Being Imitators of God

“Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” (Ephesians 5:1-2)

Paul, in the 5th chapter of Ephesians, tells the church in Ephesus to be imitators of God, walking in love as Christ did. Quite often, there are those who love to preach how God is love and that the most important aspect of the Christian life is that we are to love others. They implore Christians to accept people as they are, affirm their lifestyles, and refrain from any kind of negative judgment. Anything that makes a person feel hurt or unaccepted is to be considered unloving. It is hateful and judgmental to tell someone they are sinning and to repent. In fact, one of the most commonly used claims in this argument is that we are to stop telling people what we against and start telling everyone what we are for. The argument boils down to, if we are to be imitators of our Savior, we need to be kind, accepting, affirming, and never, ever calling someone to abandon anything that is essential to their personal identity.

Certainly, biblical love involves a certain amount of sacrifice on our part. Christ our Savior left Heaven and willingly became a man. He left the throne room of glory and took on humanity, becoming a servant that He might redeem mankind. He endured trials and tribulations. He lived in poverty. Had those who claimed He was of questionable heritage. He was called a heretic and a blasphemer. Then He willingly went through a mock trial and allowed Himself to be executed for crimes He did not commit. All that He might rise from the grave, defeating sin and death, that He would redeem the elect for the glory of God. You cannot describe a more sacrificial love.

In doing all this, Christ never once objected and demanded His own way. He willingly endured all of it that He would glorify His Father and demonstrate His love for the saints who would be redeemed. It cost Him everything to do this, yet never once did He claim His own right as Creator to be treated differently. It was the greatest act of self-sacrificing, humble servitude. Thus, when we are called to love as God loves, this is the very behavior we are to model.

Does this mean that the progressivist or nominal Christian is correct when they say that love means never being corrective? Are we to just love people as they are and never call them to repentance since Christ Himself was so self-sacrificial to die for them? Absolutely not.

In the verses following Ephesians 5:1-2, Paul immediately tells his readers just what imitating God looks like:

“But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not become partners with them; for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret.” (Ephesians 5:3-12)

Paul actually commands the Ephesians of what they must not do when they are imitating God. They are commanded to turn away from the sinful acts and attitudes of the world. In other words, in order to tell the Ephesians how to imitate God, they had to first understand what God was against.

Biblical love, that which most imitates our Lord and Creator, hates sin. Such love desires to do that which God loves and to turn away from that which God hates. The very reason Christ demonstrated His love at the cross is that He was paying the price all men owe for rebelling against God. The wages of our sin is death (Romans 6:23). We deserve eternal death and condemnation for disobeying God’s commandments and choosing to live life according to our own rules. Christ’s love is sacrificial because He did that very thing, He sacrificed Himself by dying on the cross in the place of sinners. The sinless and perfect Son of God took on the role of sinful men that He might taste death in their place. He literally sacrificed Himself in love that men might be redeemed. Therefore, it was sin, that lawless rebellion against God, that required Christ to demonstrate His love as the spotless sacrificial lamb.

When Paul writes to the Ephesians to be imitators of God, the first thing he tells them is to hate sin and turn away from it. And he even names the sins that God abhors: sexual immorality; covetousness; foolish talk and crude joking. All these things are acts of rebellion against our Lord and Creator.

God created man and woman. He created the institution of marriage to between one man and woman in which sexual intimacy is to be confined. Any sexual act outside of that design is to reject His authority, His right to determine and command us in such unions. To claim any sexual “lifestyle” is acceptable and cannot be judged is to tell God He is wrong.

Covetousness (which is idolatry) is rejecting that God is our provider and sustainer. Christ taught us that God knows our needs and we are to trust in His provision (Matthew 6:25-34). When we covet, we desire that which God has not provided and act as if the only possible way we can be made whole is to have that very thing. We are telling God He either does not know our needs and cannot be trusted to provide, or He is a selfish and cruel God by denying us our heart’s desire. We are actually worshipping the item over the Provider and Sustainer of our very lives.

Foolish talk and crude jesting reveal the wickedness of our hearts. Out of the abundance of our hearts, our mouths speak (Luke 6:45). We show no restraint when we speak in such ways, allowing the wickedness that resides with us to pour forth. We cut people down, we mock and deride, we demonstrate crassness and show no sense of decorum. We reveal that we do not believe that God is Lord even over our very speech, acting as though He has no right to command how we should speak to others.

In all this, Paul is calling upon his readers to see that all such behavior is antithetical to God and His nature. To be imitators of God, we must purge ourselves of all those things which are inconsistent with who He is and that which are acts of sin against Him. You simply cannot act and love like God if you are practicing the very things that He hates.

Therefore, those who elevate God’s love to the primary and sole attribute that matters still fail to recognize that genuine, godly love rejects and hates the things that oppose His nature. Christians are not called to simply love and accept people as they are. They are called to point people, in love, to the very one who paid the penalty for the sins they callously commit against God. Furthermore, Christians are called to examine their own walk, recognizing and repenting of all those things for which Christ died. We are to urge one another to good works and call each other to repentance for sins.

The most loving thing we can do is not allow someone to live in open rebellion against God. Sacrificial love means emptying ourselves of our fear of man, our love of self, and to trust wholly in God’s Word when we confront sinners. We know that Christ willingly endured the hatred and attacks of men when He called sinners to faith in Himself. We must do likewise. True biblical and godly love means I am willing to endure the slings and arrows of the culture, to have my name and reputation be dragged through the mud, and to have all hate me if it means even one soul is brought to Christ. It means accepting the loss of status, of friends, or even family if it means that I rescue my brother or sister in the faith from the path of sin and judgment.

In sum, those who tell us to stop being against sin, that we should simply be for people and to show them “love,” simply reject God’s Word. They seek to satisfy their own desire in corrupting what true love looks like. Therefore, the world must not only know what we are for (calling people to salvation in Christ) but also what we are against (willful rebellion and sin inviting God’s wrath) if we are to imitate God and demonstrate the love He has for us.

True Biblical Love

One of the more interesting aspects of leftist/progressivist “Christianity” is the emphasis that true Christians love people no matter what. If a person is LGBT+ for example, then true Christianity embraces that identity and loves that person, including them in the faith, affirming their identity with no judgment whatsoever. This is predicated on the idea that God is love (1 John 4:8), therefore, genuine Christianity loves a person no matter their identity.

The problem, of course, is this runs entirely in contradiction to the commands of Scripture. Yes, God is indeed love. In fact, God demonstrated His love for us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). This is the key to understanding God’s love. God loves sinners. And sinners, by definition, sin. And sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4). In other words, God loves people who, by their nature, rebel against Him and seek to seat themselves on His throne. Sinners deserve God’s wrath for the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Yet, God in His love sent Christ to die in the place of sinners so that they may be redeemed (John 3:16). Therefore, it is not embracing or accepting sin that is love, but rather the sacrificial death of Christ on the part of sinners that they may be saved and made a new creation that demonstrates His love.

Furthermore, when a person is redeemed in Christ, they are made a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). They have a new heart with new desires (Ezekiel 36:26). We are freed from the shackles of sin and death, becoming slaves to Christ (Romans 6:20-22). Because of our new heart, we desire to live in such a way that we are willingly obedient to Christ. He has said that if we love Him, we will obey His commandments (John 14:15). And to us who are truly redeemed, His commandments are not burdensome (1 John 5:2-4). We desire to turn away from the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21) and embrace the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-24).

Genuine Christian love is that which calls people to Christ: to repent of the sins which put us at war with Him; to turn to Him in faith, trusting in His completed work; to be born again by the power of the Holy Spirit and be made a new creation; and to become a willing servant of our Lord and Savior, seeking to obey all that He commanded us.

To aid, grow and guide us, God has given us His revealed Word, that we might know His divine will (2 Timothy 3:16-17). We cannot, apart from His revealed Word, rightly know and practice His commandments. Our flesh, though redeemed, is being sanctified. It is not yet glorified and we must war against the very desires of our flesh (Romans 7:14-25). Therefore, it is God’s revealed Word where must spend our days prayerfully seeking to understand His commandments, renewing and washing our minds (Romans 12:1-2). And God has not left us alone in this endeavor. He has equipped brethren in our midst to be teachers and preachers that we might know and understand His Word more fully (Ephesians 4:10-16). In fact, the apostle Paul repeatedly prayed that those to whom he wrote His letters would come to a fuller knowledge of God and His Word (Ephesians 1:15-23). Thus, it is imperative in the life of a believer in Christ to seek to know and understand God’s Word so that our practice in life may come into accord with His commands.

Therefore, genuine love is that which commands Christians to reject the sinful desires of this world and to seek to become obedient to the commands of Christ (Ephesians 4 & 5). What is unloving is the paganistic idea that we can remain in our sinful identities – the very acts which define rebellion against God and invite His judgment – and call ourselves followers of Christ. Such a concept is not only antithetical to Scripture, it is blasphemous to suggest the One who died and rose Himself from the grave to pay for those sins could accept such behavior as loving or holy.

Christians, true biblical love is that which identifies sin as sin, points to the cross of Christ as the only place where those sins can be cleansed and calls those in Christ to live in loving obedience to His commandments. Anything else is simply a sinful and false teaching.

Thought for the Day – Critical Race Theory and the Bible are Incompatible

The more I read and learn about philosophies such as Critical Race Theory (CRT), the more I realize how badly the church is being hoodwinked to believe the ideas of men. These philosophies and Theories are built upon the shifting sands of postmodern ideology and Marxist political activism. They in no way are compatible with Scripture which asserts itself as THE truth. Not a truth, not a localized/cultural truth, not production of knowledge made by groups in power, but THE very truth of God Himself.

You cannot marry philosophies built on the denial of objective truth with God’s one and only truth in Scripture. You cannot use something like CRT as an analytical tool to help you understand and apply Scripture. They are mutually exclusive. They are completely at odds with one another.

CRT demands that you believe the postmodern ideology that language is not only inadequate to determine what truth is, but that language is the tool of oppressors to control knowledge production. CRT requires you to tear down the very tools necessary to read, understand, and apply Scriptural truth because white, western control of language has allegedly caused oppression to those who would know and understand biblical truth differently. It requires you to believe that reading the Bible literally, understanding it contextually, seeking to know what the writers actually meant and what the original audience would have understood are tools of oppression.

This is a lie straight from the pit of Hell! This is why CRT and the like are not and cannot be compatible with Christianity. They are based on the ideas of men which are wholly incompatible with Scriptural truth.

Listen, I get it we are all getting weary of this debate. I understand that. But, this system has been built under our noses for generations now. We didn’t know it because we didn’t know what to look for. We saw snippets of it, but it was easy to dismiss, or so we thought. Now it is at our doorstep, it’s in our homes, our churches, and our families. We can’t just ignore it and hope it will go away.

These Theory philosophies are imbedded in our everyday lives now. And they will seek to destroy our very faith in God’s Word. It’s time we stop seeking to bury our heads in the sand. It’s time to stand up, understand the battle plan of the enemy and engage in the very war for truth. Future generations will be impacted by the decisions we make today. So, open your Bibles, study, pray, and get to work.

The Laws of Men and Societal Change

Proponents of Critical Race Theory, those who believe racism is systemic to our culture, often argue that the solution to racism is the creation of new laws. That, by giving the power to government to enact legislation that requires people to divest themselves of “white privilege” and to elevate persons of color will bring about the necessary societal change to defeat racism. As many others have pointed out, this is little more than social Marxism. That the “haves” (those with white privilege) must give up their positions to the “have nots” (disenfranchised persons of color) so that society will be equitable. That there cannot be equality without equity.

Unfortunately, there are great many Christians who have fallen prey to this line of thinking. In an effort to demonstrate their care and concerns for perceived victims of racism, many Christians have been lulled into the idea that systemic injustices exist because disparities exist. They unquestioningly believe people’s “lived experiences” and see them as evidence of ongoing racism in our culture. Because they see God as a God of justice, they have bought into the lie that social justice (an unbiblical concept) is actually an outworking of the gospel to bring about true justice into the culture. Thus, many have supported the idea that increased legislation is actually doing gospel work in our nation so that we are “loving our neighbors.”

This, however well-intentioned, is entirely misguided. The establishing of new laws cannot bring about societal change as so many have argued. We know this because we can see from Scripture that God’s own laws, which are righteous and perfect, do not bring about a utopia on this world. In fact, as Paul argues in Romans 7:7-25 that, while God’s law is perfect, man is utterly incapable of keeping it. The law exposes a very real problem in the heart of man, sin. Mankind is born in sin, we have a corrupted nature that rebels at the very mention of the law.

Paul demonstrates this when he writes, “Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’ But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead.” (Romans 7:7b–8). Our sinful nature immediately reacts to any law placed upon it with rebellion. You see this when we read a sign that says “Wet paint, don’t touch,” or “Keep off the grass.” Our very first instinct is to do that which we have been told not to do. The law exposes that our hearts are rebel factories, simply looking for a reason to act in contradiction to anything we’ve been told to not do.

Paul rightly points out that the law is not responsible for making us sin. We break the law because our default state is to sin. God’s law is perfect and the fact we even think about wanting to break it proves that the law is good. If our hearts are sinful by nature, then we show that God’s law is good because our hearts do not want to obey it. Therefore, law cannot and does not change our default desires. Law only exposes that we will rebel when given a chance to do so.

Naturally, it is right to understand there is a distinction between the law of man and the law of God. His laws are always right and true. He cannot make law that is not perfect because His laws are a reflection of His glorious nature. Man’s laws can either be good, insomuch as they reflect the nature of God, or they can be bad, in that they contradict His nature and commandments. For example, laws that forbid lying, theft, and murder reflect the nature of a perfect God who does not lie and provides what is needed for His people whom He created in His image and likeness. Yet, laws such as allow for abortion, the wanton murder of a life in the womb of a mother, is incompatible with a God who has commanded we shall not murder. We recognize then that man’s laws are not always right and good. Yet, whether a law is good or bad, man by nature will always desire to rebel against any command placed upon him.

When it comes to the matter of laws regarding social justice, we must come to realize such laws do not have a Scriptural basis. Social justice argues that true equality only occurs when all persons have equity of outcome. It is argued that any disparity between people groups is proof of oppression. The only way to overcome and end the oppression is to tear down the existing unjust system and rebuild a new society based upon equitable distribution of wealth, position, and power. Nowhere in Scripture can anyone find such an argument. In fact, Scripture speaks of private property ownership. It also allows for the possession of wealth, yet not the misuse of it to deprive others of the wages they have earned.

Christ’s teachings with regard to wealth and power were not that the mere possession of it was sinful, but the desire to have it over and above the desire to love and obey God was. Those with power were not to lord it over others, but to use their position to serve. Those with wealth were to be willing to provide for the needs of others, not out of compulsion, but out of a sincere desire to love God and love others. Christ never taught for the tearing down of entire systems of wealth and power, rather that those who had such never place them before the love and service to God. If having such caused one to be idolatrous, then we were to give it all up for the sake of Christ.

Christians ought to recognize that bringing in laws which declare possession of power, wealth, or position are inherently evil have no basis in Scripture. Furthermore, God does not command that we not only believe such persons are oppressors by nature and that the existence of disparities now or throughout history prove racism. God holds each person accountable for the thoughts, words, and deeds of his own heart. He does not hold the son guilty for the sins (real or perceived) of the father. He does not declare that men and women are guilty of oppressing others simply because an unbiblical philosophical claims it to be so. And He gives no biblical command to take from one group and give to others to make right perceived unjust disparities. Yet, proponents of Critical Race Theory are arguing for such laws and far too many Christians are towing that line.

We must recognize that any law placed upon men will immediately result in a desire to rebel against said law. While, perhaps, it may act as a curb against certain behaviors, it cannot change the heart’s desire. Many a neighbor has likely been spared a punch to the face because someone feared arrest for Battery. Yet, the existence of Battery laws does not change the hate a man will feel in his heart toward his neighbor. The law may cause him to obey out of fear of legal action, but it will not keep him from desiring to harm another.

Likewise, we must also understand that unjust laws, such as those that declare a man guilty of a crime he never committed and take from him to give to another, will give rise to bitterness and anger. Being told that you are guilty for the perceived sins of generations past and that only by bowing to the new order of things can you make restitution, will cause many persons to feel they are being treated unjustly. In fact, the new order of things actually tells a man that even feeling angry over being charged with such a “sin” is proof of his guilt. How then can we expect that such laws will bring about a change of heart and mind? Such laws may bring about an outward appearance of equity of outcome, but there will be no heart change of any kind. Yes, there will be a redistribution of wealth and position, but rest assured, those who have been charged as guilty will chafe under unjust chains which they have been placed under. Resentment and bitterness will grow. Love for one’s neighbor will be quashed as the heart, already a factory of sin, will find further reason to hate those who have placed him under perceived bondage.

The human heart rebel’s against good and just laws. Such laws are good for us. They hold us accountable when we disobey God’s righteous commands and harm others. Yet, as Paul argues in Romans 7, those laws only expose that we cannot be made righteous by them. When man creates unjust laws and demands obeisance, men will double in their desire to disobey. Unjust laws cause us to become bitter and angry, which the sinful heart will only magnify. In either matter, it is the issue of the heart that must be addressed. And laws, neither good or bad, can change the human heart.

This is where Christians and the church need to shine. We already know that laws cannot make a man righteous. Only the gospel can accomplish this. Only God can send His Spirit into the heart of man, regenerate him, and make him a new creation. Only Jesus can take the wrath man deserves and, in turn, clothe him in righteousness. Only then does man desire in his heart to love his neighbor as himself. Only then does man desire to obey the just and good laws of God. Only then is he willing to sacrifice of his own time, wealth, position, or power to share and care for others. Law of itself cannot ever accomplish this, only the gospel can. And such a changed heart will distinguish between just and unjust laws. It will greatly desire to obey all that God has commanded. But, often it will rightly recognize and reject those laws that are manmade, which are in contradiction to the Word. This should be encouraged to grow and mature, not silenced and told to obey because social justice demands it.

Churches that seek to create societal change through unjust laws betray the gospel message. They reject the notion that law cannot change the heart. They seek to impose godless ideologies on people and claim this is the outworking of the gospel. Nothing could be further from the truth. What they believe is a good work is actually seeking to add more law over and above the commands of God. They claim this will accomplish change and establish justice in culture, but in fact it will create further rebellion in the hearts of men. And what little cleaning of the outside of the cup they may accomplish, they will only stir up further poison and sin on the inside.

Christians, we must first seek the kingdom of God. We do this through the preaching of the gospel. We identify what is truly sin and call people to repentance and faith. We call people to love Christ and love their neighbor. We command those in the church to live according to the commandments of God and reject godless ideologies which seek to rewrite and corrupt Scripture. We do this, not because we seek societal change, rather we seek to bring rebel sinners into communion with God. We do this to save them from His just wrath and for His glory. Then, we trust in God to work through the Spirit in the hearts of men to love and treat their neighbors as they are commanded to. And, should they fail to do so, should they sin against their brethren, we come alongside and lovingly rebuke or correct them.

The church is not a societal change agent. The church is the bride of Christ. Time for us to get back to being what He has called us to be.

Thought For The Day: Words Matter – Our Identity

We have to get this right. There is a difference between temptation which we struggle against and identifying ourselves with said temptation as though it is part of our makeup.

If I said I was a “lust-attracted Christian” or a “theft-attracted Christian” we easily see the problem. It makes zero sense to identify ourselves by our temptation to sin. So calling one’s self as a “same-sex attracted Christian” makes it possible for someone to hold onto the lie that we are identified by our sexuality.

A Christian can struggle against sexual temptation & still be a Christian. We all struggle against sin daily. But giving sin identity and merging that with the name of Christian is a slap in the face to what Christ did in and for us.

We are no longer the old man. We are new creations. We are no longer slaves to sin. We are slaves to righteousness. We are identified as followers of Christ, serving a new Lord and Master.

Thus, to wed sinful desires to the name of our new Master is an utter contradiction in terms. It is nothing more than an attempt to appease those of the tolerance crowd who have complained the church has been too mean to homosexuals.

So, the wedding of these mutually exclusive terms is an attempt to soften the blow by saying being a homosexual in identity is OK, but acting on it is not. Folks, this needs to stop.

No, we cannot add offense to the gospel for the sake of being offensive. But, the gospel message is in fact offensive to a sin-hardened world. It tells us to reject the sins of our heart and turn to Christ. He is our Lord, He is our Master, and He is our identity.

Let us forsake the merging of the profane with the holy that we might somehow seem more “loving.” Rather, let us in love call out sin and call people to repentance without equivocation.

Book Review – White Fragility

American culture is currently embroiled in an ideological battle over which worldview will determine the course of the nation’s future.  One of the most vocal ideologies in this battle is Critical Race Theory which is seeking to supplant the existing framework of Western Culture.  This theoretical ideology essentially states that the existing American culture is a direct result of hundreds of year of ethnic oppression of blacks by white persons. The oppression is so ingrained in the fabric of American life that white persons will always have a built in advantage to grow and succeed where black persons will always be relegated to being an oppressed class. This systemic racism has allegedly been built into the foundations of our government, schools, businesses, and so much more.  It is entirely pervasive, there is no aspect of our lives it has not impacted.  

Under this ideology, racism is a system, not an act.  A person is not a racist because they actively hate or mistreat another on the basis of ethnicity. Rather, a person is a racist because they are part of the white oppressor class, born with innate privileges over the black oppressed class. One simply has this privilege on the basis of their skin color and they will live, think and act in such ways as the dominant white culture has taught them to act, as person who see themselves as superior to those who are being oppressed.  One need not hate or mistreat the oppressed class to be racist.  One need only exist as a member of the privileged class, receiving the benefits of their privilege, failing to recognize or admit that they are privileged, failing to be fighting against their privilege, and by nature they are racist.  The ideology of Critical Race Theory teaches that the white person must not only admit they are racist by nature, but work actively to absolve themselves by renouncing their white privilege and working to overthrow the racist system in order to make some level of atonement.

Enter “White Fragility” by Robin DiAngelo.  This book, authored by Ms. DiAngelo, has become a best seller and the go-to instruction manual for many who are seeking to teach and train white persons to actively repent of white privilege and overturn the systemic racism of our culture.  It has become almost synonymous with the anti-racism movement and has even been used in local municipalities as a training manual for city diversity classes.  This is not an obscure or unknown book.  Ms. DiAngelo has become a sought after speaker and training coordinator in anti-racism/white privilege seminars.  Her material has become a go-to resource throughout the country.  Therefore, it behooves us, especially as Christians, to read and understand such materials so that we can not only rightly understand the arguments, but rightly refute what Ms. DiAngelo and others are actually saying as opposed to straw man representations.  

To that end, I spent several weeks reading and interacting with the text. For transparency, the extensive time it took to read the book was simply because I could not make it through more than a couple of paragraphs before I felt the need to highlight and write responses in the margins to DiAngelo’s various claims throughout the book.  Thus, I often had days go by before I could pick the text back up and devote time to critically reading the book.  And critical thinking is a must with “White Fragility.” To tip my hand early, this text is not a book which encourages you to think deeply, question things and respond thoughtfully whether you agree or disagree.  “White Fragility” is a prime example of leftist propaganda and indoctrination. DiAngelo does not encourage her readers to examine her claims critically.  She dictates from page one what you must believe and what you must do.  

I felt it important to write this review and address several problems I discovered while reading the book. As the issues are pervasive throughout the text, rather than take the review as a chapter by chapter examination, I have chosen to highlight the issues in a series of themes that I found as I read the text.  I hope this review helps our readers understand why the current debate over Critical Race Theory is important and ought not be dismissed as having no real impact in our lives.

Biased Presupposition:

Ms. DiAngelo starts her book stating she does not intend to prove to her readers that systemic racism is real.  She pointedly states that she starts with the assumption that it is real and writes entirely from that perspective.  Admittedly, DiAngelo has not written a book discussing what Critical Race Theory is and is not seeking to prove that systemic racism exists.  Rather, she has written a book that intends to address what she believes are the evidences of white persons acting on their racist foundations and failing to, or being unwilling to, change the system that has benefitted them for so long.  Thus, since the premise of her book is to get people to renounce their privilege and work toward dismantling a racist system, it is understood that she would start with the concept that systemic racism is real.

The problem lies in the fact that Ms. DiAngelo is so settled in the assumption that systemic racism is real that she must treat any disagreement with that premise as de facto proof of a conspiratorial effort to maintain white dominance in culture.  DiAngelo’s standard drum beat throughout the course of her book is that, when white persons are confronted with their “racism,” any reaction other than immediate acceptance and contrition is evidence of their white fragility.  By asserting a narrative that is to be considered as absolute fact, DiAngelo deftly avoids any need to honestly interact with opposing viewpoints and narratives.  

Furthermore, she makes the claim that the traditional understanding of racism – a conscious, directed hatred or discrimination against an ethnic group or person – is not actually racism.  Racism is not an act, it is a system.  Traditionally understood racism is actually just an obvious manifestation of real racism which works systemically in culture to oppress people of color and elevate white persons. This effectively neutralizes any effort by a white person to deny they are racist.  You cannot ever not be racist because pointing out that you don’t have racist attitudes or behaviors is an insidious effort to maintain your white dominance.  The systemic nature of DiAngelo’s racism definition makes it nebulous, without any real evidences that can be addressed and repented of. Rather, it is a constant moving of the goal posts that a person can never reach and a constant state of guilt of which no one can be absolved. 

DiAngelo’s biased presupposition sets the standard for the entire book and she controls the narrative by never treating competing perspectives as ever having equal weight or value. 

Reductionistic History:

Ms. DiAngelo does attempt to address the history of American culture with regard to racism.  However, her treatment of history is terribly reductionistic, boiling everything down to racist motivations and intentions.  The problem with history and cultural development of attitudes and behaviors is that one cannot simply ever point to one singular stream from which they developed.  Attitudes and actions develop over time in culture, coming from multiple streams and sources.  Religion, society, family, ethnic traditions, and more often work together to develop how a society acts and thinks. Additionally, one cannot simply attribute one ethnicity as being solely responsible for these developments. Cultural development can often cross ethnic lines, especially in a diverse society as America.  To boil down everything to white supremacist racism is to to intentionally ignore all of the rich history, both good and evil, many people and groups have brought to the table.  It is an exercise in intentional ignorance.

Also to be considered is that DiAngelo’s efforts to address history are solely based in race and power dynamics.  The only motivations ascribed to groups in American history are either to gain and maintain racial power, or to survive as a racially oppressed group.  There is no allowance for any other possible motivations. DiAngelo always describes history as developing specifically under the quest for racial dominance, thus painting everyone existing today as either having benefitted from or as being oppressed by this history. And the reader is specifically told they are never allowed to be divorced from their history. You own it, you belong to it, and you will be held responsible for it.  There is no escaping the reductionistic history she has assigned white persons and they are expected to bear the guilt of that burden perpetually.

Lack of Competing Citations:

Ms. DiAngelo cites numerous scholars, books, and studies throughout the book.  However, virtually every citation given is from a source that favors Critical Race Theory.  While it would make sense that an author will use sources friendly to their stated premise, proper research mandates that they consider other arguments as well.  Remember that DiAngelo gives no credence to objections to systemic racism.  She argues repeatedly that any opposition is de facto proof of white fragility.  Therefore, by failing to cite any sources which challenge Critical Race Theory or systemic racism, DiAngelo further cements that her narrative is the only possible narrative that can ever be allowed to exist.  

When one researches for the purpose of writing an article, paper, or book, it is necessary to challenge one’s presuppositions by looking at what those who take alternate positions believe.  By doing so, one is not compromising their premise, but is often helping to refine their argument.  Understanding the opposition helps one avoid the inevitable straw man argument and may even challenge the writer to abandon a poorly held premise in favor of a better position.  By rightly and respectfully researching those arguments which challenge one’s own, the end product is made all the better.

However, true and respectful research also means treating the opposition as though they have thoughts and ideas that may be on an equal playing field.  When we choose to not interact with those arguments, we relegate them as to having no value and will likely treat those who hold those views as being beneath our recognition.  And this, DiAngelo evidences in spades. She does not show any willingness to listen to opposing positions. To do so would undermine the very foundation of her book.  Thus, her singular acceptance of Critical Race Theory only citations is evidence that DiAngelo is not at all interested in dialogue, but indoctrination.

Lack of Context and Emotional Manipulation:

Throughout the course of “White Fragility,” Ms. DiAngelo uses anecdotes, stories, and studies as evidence for her claims.  Unfortunately, there is a consistent lack of context in her use of these evidences.  For example, DiAngelo often refers to the percentages of white persons who hold positions of government and corporate authority as well as those who have extensive wealth. Yet, no explanation is ever given as to how or why these persons attained those places.  She decries the idea of meritocracy, that people can earn places of power or wealth by their own merit, as part of systemic racism. Thus, the high percentages of white persons in those positions can only be the result of racism.  

Likewise, she discusses several issues within the legal system, such as sentencings in criminal cases. Disparities between white and black sentencings for similar crimes is considered racist; however, she gives no context as to the reason for the disparate sentences (i.e. prior criminal history, victim impact, nature of the crime versus plea negotiations).  Without these specifics, all the reader can see is the differences and is directed to conclude that racism is the cause.

DiAngelo is also fond of using personal anecdotes from training seminars wherein persons who are white are shown as reacting, she would say, with white fragility toward their racism being exposed.  Yet, repeatedly, she fails to give specific context as to what was said, how a person was treated, and what prior interactions lead up to the response which could explain the reaction.  This again leads the reader to believe that the person described is displaying white fragility.

DiAngelo uses these examples as steps to stand upon a soapbox and decry white persons in America as refusing to recognize and own their racism.  Every effort to address the reasons these reactions or incidents as having any validity is seen as yet more proof that she is correct in her assessment and that she must be the one to show the readers the error of their ways.  DiAngelo never allows her readers to believe that there could be reasons that explain or justify what she terms white fragility.  She pounds a steady drum beat in every chapter that each example has no other possible explanation other than a systemic effort to maintain white solidarity and dominance.  The reader is told over and over again they are racist, they must accept their racism, and they can have no reason for their actions except racism.  This is akin to Chinese water torture wherein the reader receives the steady, unnerving drip of the charge of racism page after page. By the end, you either must capitulate to her charges and meet her demands, or you will be outed as the racist you clearly are. This is emotional manipulation on a grand scale, and it is a being peddled in bookstores, schools, governments and churches everywhere.

Ethnic Gnosticism:

The last theme that I wish to discuss is perhaps the one that is most troubling.  I believe it was Voddie Bauchum who coined the term “Ethnic Gnosticism.” Gnostics were heretics that the early church had to contend with.  They taught there was special knowledge they possessed from God and only by adhering to their teachings could one come to gain this knowledge.  Ethnic Gnosticism takes this a step further by ascribing to oppressed ethnic groups a knowledge only they can have, what racism and oppression actually is.  Persons of color are believed to have been oppressed by whites for so long that they have an innate knowledge of racism. This knowledge is almost magically passed down from generation to generation endowing each person of color with the ability to know what is racist in any given circumstance.

This knowledge is not to be questioned in DiAngelo’s book.  She makes it quite clear that if a person of color says something was racist, it is absolutely racist.  She states that it is impact, not intention that matters.  When a person of color feels that a white person said or did something offensive, that offense is real and legitimate.  The white person cannot be allowed to explain their intent, there can be no reason given as to why what was said or done was not actually racist.  The special knowledge possessed by those black persons, or persons of color, prevents them from ever misunderstanding what a white person said, did, or meant.  Thus, there is never a time when the person of color can be held accountable for a false charge of racism, because they can never be wrong.  The white person is always in the wrong (he or she is already motivated by white dominance) and the person of color is always right (as they have an infallible knowledge of racism).

This ethnic gnosticism is the penultimate point of DiAngelo’s book. There can never be a time when a white person is not guilty of racism because there is always an oppressed person who receives the impact of that person’s racism.  Thus, the only hope the racist can find is a never ending treadmill where they chase the ever-elusive goal of anti-racism in hopes divesting themselves of privilege and seeking to reduce offense to the oppressed party.

Conclusion:

Robin DiAngelo has authored a work propaganda for the express purpose of indoctrination.   She makes no effort to prove her primary premise, it is simply assumed and asserted as fact, never to be questioned.  History is reduced to having only one possible motivation, white dominance in Western Culture.  She intentionally ignores and excludes any competing worldview and does not engage critical works which challenge her premise.  Context is often ignored and emotions of the readers are manipulated to a predetermined outcome.  DiAngelo grants special knowledge only available to those of the oppressed group and never allows for her readers to believe that group can ever be wrong.  Readers are expected to take this information as gospel truth and react with appropriate, never-ending penance.  One must accept their guilt and simply now do as they are told.  

Critical thinking is prohibited in DiAngelo’s work. The person who seeks to question and examine the claims of “White Fragility” is written off as asserting their privilege and white dominance.  As such, DiAngelo’s work should be seen for the propaganda it is and rejected wholeheartedly.

 

Modern Day Idolatry

Worship is an act due to God and God alone. No other being, real or imagined, is to receive worship of any kind.  To do so is one of the highest offenses we can commit against God.  Yet, throughout all of human history, mankind has been quick to bow in reverence to creations of their own making. Even worse, in modern day evangelicalism, we can find idolatry in the ranks of professing believers.

“And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.” – Exodus 20:1–6 (ESV).

God is very specific to His people that He alone is to be worshipped. Idolatry of any sort is condemned by God and for good reason.  He is the only God, there are no others. He alone created the universe and all that is in it.  God is responsible for our very lives, the air that fills our lungs, and the blood that pumps through our veins. Without Him we do not fail to live, we would cease to exist entirely.  To give worship to make believe “gods” that do not exist, imaginary deities who have no substance of any sort, to give the imaginations of our heart the worship rightly due to God alone is treasonous. Thus, God rightly commands all mankind to give Him and Him alone worship.

Yet, throughout its history, the nation of Israel routinely fell into idolatry. Even after God had demonstrated His power over Egypt in the Exodus, it took only forty days of waiting at the base of Mount Sinai before they pressed Aaron into making a golden calf that they could worship as their deliverer.  Because Moses interceded for them, the Israelites were not wiped out for this terrible transgression against the God who had saved them.

Despite demonstrating His great power before Israel again and again, the Israelites continued to build and worship idols of their own making.  Bowing to gods that are not while rejecting the one true God of Israel.  So great and continuous was their idolatry, God often sent the pagan nations against them. And yet, so merciful was God that He would send His prophets to the Israelites to tell them of their sins and command their repentance.

In both the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah, we see God chastising and warning His people against idolatry. The Jews were under judgment and would eventually face a desolation of their land for their false worship.  God pointed out the uselessness of the idols by showing them that these worthless gods were nothing more than statues made by the hands of men.

In Isaiah 44:9-20 (ESV) we read:

“All who fashion idols are nothing, and the things they delight in do not profit. Their witnesses neither see nor know, that they may be put to shame. Who fashions a god or casts an idol that is profitable for nothing? Behold, all his companions shall be put to shame, and the craftsmen are only human. Let them all assemble, let them stand forth. They shall be terrified; they shall be put to shame together. 

The ironsmith takes a cutting tool and works it over the coals. He fashions it with hammers and works it with his strong arm. He becomes hungry, and his strength fails; he drinks no water and is faint. The carpenter stretches a line; he marks it out with a pencil. He shapes it with planes and marks it with a compass. He shapes it into the figure of a man, with the beauty of a man, to dwell in a house. He cuts down cedars, or he chooses a cypress tree or an oak and lets it grow strong among the trees of the forest. He plants a cedar and the rain nourishes it. Then it becomes fuel for a man. He takes a part of it and warms himself; he kindles a fire and bakes bread. Also he makes a god and worships it; he makes it an idol and falls down before it. Half of it he burns in the fire. Over the half he eats meat; he roasts it and is satisfied. Also he warms himself and says, “Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire!” And the rest of it he makes into a god, his idol, and falls down to it and worships it. He prays to it and says, “Deliver me, for you are my god!” 

They know not, nor do they discern, for he has shut their eyes, so that they cannot see, and their hearts, so that they cannot understand. No one considers, nor is there knowledge or discernment to say, “Half of it I burned in the fire; I also baked bread on its coals; I roasted meat and have eaten. And shall I make the rest of it an abomination? Shall I fall down before a block of wood?” He feeds on ashes; a deluded heart has led him astray, and he cannot deliver himself or say, “Is there not a lie in my right hand?”

God rightly mocks the false worship of a man who cuts down a tree with which half of it serves as fuel for a fire to make a meal and the rest is used to make a god for the man to worship.  It truly is a ludicrous act when you consider it. It is the act of a man that brings a hunk of timber into a shape that is recognizable as a being of some sort.  He spends hours of skilled labor to take wood, cut it, shape it, sand it, and layer it with metal. In any other instance, such as making tools, furniture, or decorative items, the man would be lauded for what he himself created. But when it comes to the idol, all rationality leaves. No longer is the wooden object a work of craftsmanship. It is now the embodiment of a god of the creator’s imagination. He literally worships the work of his own hands.

Speaking for God, the prophet Jeremiah reveals to Israel that the worthless idols of the pagan nations have absolutely no power to do anything whatsoever: 

“Hear the word that the Lord speaks to you, O house of Israel. Thus says the Lord: ‘Learn not the way of the nations, nor be dismayed at the signs of the heavens because the nations are dismayed at them, for the customs of the peoples are vanity. A tree from the forest is cut down and worked with an axe by the hands of a craftsman. They decorate it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so that it cannot move. Their idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber field, and they cannot speak; they have to be carried, for they cannot walk. Do not be afraid of them, for they cannot do evil, neither is it in them to do good.’” (Jeremiah 10: 1-5)

Israel was not to fear the false gods of the surrounding nations. They literally had no power at all. They could not even move themselves, they had to be carried by their worshippers! They were as useless as straw stuffed scarecrows in a field, they could do nothing! Jeremiah called upon the Israelites to fear the true and living God, the One who had power over all creation and could wipe out the nations with no effort at all.  Israel so often turned to the false idols created by human hands, but they ought to have always feared and worshipped the sovereign God of all creation.

In our modern era, we still do find some objects of idol worship. Clearly, pagan religions such a Hinduism, Buddhism and others have sacred idols that they worship. Further, even religions that claim to be Christian, such as Catholicism, have objects they do not claim to worship as gods, yet venerate, such as the bones of the “saints” and statues of the virgin Mary.  Yet, idol worship is not quite as widespread in our current culture, especially in the Christian church.  Or so we would like to think.

Remember that, at its core, idol worship was a people worshipping those objects made by human hands.  Men and women bowed to the work of their own hands, praying and calling upon gods that they had conjured up in their own minds. These gods had systems of worship, sacrifice and atonement that were demanded of its adherents. And, while they may have appeared have a form of godliness, they ultimately denied the power and existence of the One true God and His revealed Word.  Today, in Evangelicalism, we have a great many idols, we just don’t have the wood carved, gold layered statues to which we must bow down. Today, we have man made, secular psychology styled systems of worship which we have mashed into Christianity and claim they are nothing but God’s Word in practice.

The problem with idolatry is that is substitutes the genuine worship of God and the practice of His commandments with the worship and practice of manmade concepts. False gods are rooted in our own beliefs and feelings. Those gods reflect our own fallen nature and thinking.  It is no wonder that the gods of old were capricious, vengeful, manipulative and highly sexualized.  The false gods are nothing more than man’s sinful heart given “deity” status.

In our modern day, we have rejected religiosity and cloaked our ideas in the robe of scientism.  By attaching psychological significance to manmade beliefs, we give it an air of authority.  No longer do we have to conjure up a spirit to inhabit a wooden doll, we simply must appeal to theoretical systems and the “experts” who developed them.  On the basis that human experts have studied these matters, apart from the God’s Word, and come up with principles of practice, which are not aligned with Scripture, we are told that human flourishing is given its best opportunities when we are obedient to their commands. And, unfortunately, Evangelicalism has too often absorbed these ideas and promoted them as a means of staying “relevant” with modern culture.

Most recently, this includes adopting ideas such as Critical Race Theory which teaches that justice is only served when persons of a white ethnic origin give up or divest themselves of power and privilege in order that persons of black ethnicity can be lifted up. This is based upon the premise that American culture is built upon a white supremacist system designed to keep the black community from prospering.  As such, it is considered unjust that people of color do not have an equal opportunity of outcome.  For actual justice to occur, Critical Theory demands a complete tearing down and rebuilding of the existing cultural and governmental systems. This would remove systems of government that, allegedly, give privilege to ethnically white persons and elevate persons of color based on the amount of melanin contained in their biological structures.  Justice in this definition in not color blind, its entire basis is color.

Because Scripture deals extensively with God’s justice, proponents of Critical Theory argue that their definition of justice is biblical.  Where God is concerned with the justice applied to those who have sinned against Him (which includes sinning against other persons in rebellion to His commands), Critical Theory seeks to redefine sin to mean an unwillingness to tear down existing systems and justice to mean supporting  the establishment of a utopian ideal. By deconstructing the biblical definitions of sin and justice, they seek to import a system of beliefs that are actually opposed to God and His Word.

God’s Word does speak to people individually and His people at large.  God’s commands were given to His people, Israel, nationally in the form of the law.  As a people, they were commanded on areas of worship, sacrifice, moral behavior and even civil financial obligations. The Jews were expected to be obedient to these laws as individuals. It was expected of the leaders of the nation to hold individuals accountable for their transgressions. The priests were to represent God to the people and call them to repentance to God. It was when the people’s rejection of God spread so far and severe, that God would bring His wrath upon them nationally. God would indeed, through his prophets, call out the sins of the nation to include idol worship, sexual immorality, and even depriving the poor of justice. But all of the sins were rooted in the people’s rebellion against God as the sovereign Lord for which they would be judged.

Critical Theory bypasses this and focuses on the idea that oppression of a particular ethnic group (as it defines oppression) is really the greatest injustice with which Christians ought to be concerned. National judgment is based, not upon the growing rebellion of individual people against God, but upon the theoretical concept that a governing system, as it currently exists, is systemically racist.  Thus, a nation can and must be held guilty of sin and must repent in the manner prescribed, not by Scripture, but by Critical Theory. Should Christians reject this proposition, they are considered guilty of injustice, which has been deconstructed and redefined beyond Scriptural bounds.  This is the handiwork of man forced up Scripture and its adherents demand Christians bow and worship the god of Critical Theory.

Much like the lifeless and worthless wooden idols condemned by God, Critical Theory is nothing more than the creation of men. The idols of old could do nothing to help those who created them. They could not even move from one location to another without men to carry them along. Yet, entire nations rose and fell worshipping those lifeless wooden statues. Today, the idol of Critical Race Theory, imagined and created by men, has been carried and propped up into the public square. Men have called upon all people everywhere to stare in awe at their creation and worship at its altar. And worse, they have demanded the people of God likewise bow in adoration.

In Babylon, three young Jewish captives, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, also faced such a demand. In fact, they faced execution if they did not do so.  These three men stood resolute in the face of certain doom and refused to bow to the golden idol. They chose to trust in God alone for their deliverance. And even if God allowed them to be burned in the fiery furnace, they knew they would stand before Him in genuine worship for eternity.  Christians today must choose to stand as resolutely and not bow before the golden idol of Critical Theory. While it may seem as though we may stand alone at times, we are truly never alone. God stands with us unwaveringly. Even if the church faces hard times, or even persecution in full, we can never bow to any false idol or system. May we have the courage of those three young man, trusting wholly and completely in God and His Word alone.

Math is Not Relative But Critical Theory Is

It is a simple math equation, one we all learned in grade school, 2+2=4. It’s pretty much a universal constant, right?  If you take 2 apples and add 2 more apples, you get four apples. It really doesn’t get much more simple than that.  Unless you have an agenda that is.

Since the death of George Floyd, the issue of racism in America, specifically, the charge of systemic racism at all levels of culture, has been at a fever pitch.  Claims of racism in education, government, law enforcement, business, and much more have been levied by everyone with a perceived interest in the discussion.  Simply put, according to the doctrines of Critical Race Theory (CRT), everything in America is guilty of systemic racism.  This is because our nation was built by those who were white European slave owners who believed that white men should always reign supreme, according to the theory. Therefore, according to the theory, everything that the founding fathers established was meant to elevate the white man and never allow the black community to foster.  The argument is that there is nothing in our culture that has not been tainted by white supremacy.  As such, it must all be pulled down and rebuilt if racial equity can ever be established.

Now, we should recognize that cultural biases can exist and can be passed down from generation to generation.  Therefore, it is possible for our national culture today to have ideas and concepts that need self-examination.  Each person should be willing to look at what they believe about others, how they treat them, and why they do it.  For Christians, this really is a no brainer.  We are called to love God and to love others as we already love ourselves.  So treating people disrespectfully, especially due to their ethnic origin, should be foreign to us.  And if we find we are operating on personal biases, we ought to repent of this and make amends to any persons whom we have sinned against.

The problem lies in the fact that CRT assumes that, not only do biases exist but are so ingrained in the very fabric of our existence that any and all white persons in America are de facto racist if they are unwilling to acknowledge they have benefitted from a racist system.  It demands that all persons of Caucasian ethnicity not only admit they are privileged but actively work to divest themselves of said privilege and elevate persons of color to atone for their innate racism.  In order to continue to prove that systemic racism exists at all levels, CRT evangelists have taken to not only claiming government and businesses are infected, but even science, history, and religion are products of white colonialism.

It is important to understand how and why this is being taught.  CRT teaches the entire system is infected with racism and needs to be rebuilt.  For the Christian, however, this is entirely anti-biblical.  Christian doctrine teaches that individuals are responsible for their sin and will be condemned eternally as individuals.  Salvation is a personal matter between a person and God, whom he or she has sinned against.  That person must repent of their sin (of which racism would be included) and trust in the completed work of Christ to be forgiven before God.  As that person is saved, God gives him or her new life and new desires.  That person is a new creation and is free from the power of sin and death.  This means they can live lives of holiness before God and seek to make reconciliation with those whom they have sinned against. As more people come to Christ, they in turn share the gospel with others who get saved and become new creations.  In time, an entire culture can be changed from sinful reprobates to a people who love and care for others.

Historically, we saw this happen as the gospel was preached throughout Europe, and eventually the Americas, post-Reformation.  Missions, hospitals, schools, and churches were planted all around the world.  Christians went forth and not only preached the gospel but loved others to the point of seeking to care for them at every level.  This is the legacy of God’s work and power through the transforming preaching of the gospel.

The gospel does not require Christians to attack cultural biases and demand restructuring of power positions.  What it does demand is to call sinners to repentance and to love neighbors as oneself.  CRT evangelists find themselves at odds with biblical Christians who understand the doctrines of scripture and know that compromise with the world dilutes the gospel message.  Therefore, preachers of CRT seek to redefine what the scriptures teach and say in order to fit their narrative. For example, where the Bible speaks of justice, they redefine justice to mean that all persons must have equality of outcome. Those who repudiate such redefinitions are ridiculed for holding to a white colonialist view and are told they must divest themselves of such thinking in order to hold to a truly biblical view.

What does this have to do with mathematics?  Recently, many Critical Theorists have taken aim at those who claim 2+2 always equals 4.  Why? Because it represents objective truth, something that Critical Theory abhors.  As such, CT proponents have made numerous claims attempting to debunk the idea that math holds rock-solid, objective principals.  They have used examples such as: if two companies have two machines and each has the parts to make half of another machine, if they come together, they can build a third machine, meaning 1+1 = 3; or if you have 2 apples and 2 oranges, you don’t have 4 apples. These examples are meant to show that math isn’t quite so clear cut and allows doubt to be created in the minds of their readers. This is called deconstruction.  Its intended purpose it to break down actual definitions, create doubt in the meaning of things, and introduce new definitions.

But notice what the deconstructionist does.  He states that the actual word problem is two companies added together make three machines, in other words, 1 + 1 = 3.  He has taken two separate equations and mashed them into one, completely disregarding the details, and come to a wrong conclusion.  Yet, for the person who does not think critically, this creates confusion and doubt.  This allows the deconstructionist to redefine how math works and claims that traditional math is a function of a systemically flawed system, i.e. white colonialism.

Let’s look at the second equation: 2 apples plus 2 oranges does not equal 4 apples.  This is correct on the surface. You cannot claim that the two different classes of items added together equal 4 items of one class.  However, if the word problem were written as an actual math problem is traditionally presented, it would read: Billy has 2 apples in his lunchbox. His friend Johnny has 2 oranges.  How many pieces of fruit do Billy and Johnny have?  Of course, the answer is 4 pieces of fruit.  See, the deconstructionist purposely created a math equation that doesn’t exist.  No one with a functioning mind would believe adding apples to oranges makes more apples.  However, adding the number of apples and oranges together does tell us the total amount of fruit present.  The deconstructionist intentionally seeks to obfuscate the actual math problem by asking a question no one had and then uses it to “prove” that math isn’t as objective as we would like to believe.

The goal for attacking math is simple, it is an objective truth that can be tested and proven.  Critical Theorists, especially Critical Race Theorists, in America today cannot abide by having anything that is objectively true.  It destroys the very premise by which they can call for the destruction of our existing culture. In order to rebuild the American culture into something CRT apologists desire, our current way of life must be eradicated.  To do that, Americans must be made to believe that everything they know and believe in is racist and flawed.  But, if even a shred of objective truth exists, Americans can hold to that truth and resist efforts to tear everything down in order to build a Utopia. That is why history, science, math, and even religion must be cast into utter confusion. No truth can be allowed to stand in the path of the CRT agenda.

What can be done? Specifically, for the Christian church, we must resist all temptation to bow to the CRT idol, no matter how castigated we are by the culture at large.  The one true source of objective truth in this world is the Word of God.  It is not a white colonialist construct.  It is the revealed Word of God as given to His people, inspired by the Holy Spirit, through those authors whom He superintended to write what they did.  It is inspired, inerrant, infallible, and all-sufficient. We must stand firmly on His Word and never waiver.  We must preach His truth to the world and never apologize for it.  Additionally, when we look at God’s work in this world through the disciplines of science, mathematics, and even history, we must not waiver and be misled.  Science and math speak to the order and beauty of God’s creation. History, with its good and bad times, show His continued work throughout the ages. It reveals His mercy and kindness to a wicked people and His judgment on nations that refuse His rule over them.  We must never bow to the redefining and rewriting of truth by those who have a stated goal of overturning culture so that they may remake it in their own image.

However, should Western Culture one day fall (and I fear its end is quite near) we must always and forever preach the truth, hold that it is true and never waiver. God is our only sovereign and on His Word, we must always depend.

”Merry Christmas, Now Buzz Off!”

It started with a simple response to a less than charitable tweet, but it turned into a revelation of just how dark even politically conservative-minded persons can be. It is a bit of a rare thing to find a celebrity that holds a conservative political stance, mostly because Hollywood unashamedly blacklists them for not towing the liberal line. So when I stumble across one, I will occasionally give them a follow on Twitter. Such was the case with Kristy Swanson, the actress best known for the comedic movie role of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” (not to be confused with the television series character played by Sarah Michelle Geller). Ms. Swanson proves to be rather direct, blunt, and even confrontational in her pro-conservative values tweets. In fact, there are times I somewhat cringe at her language. However, she has been somewhat entertaining to follow, so I left her in my news feed.

On December 17, 2018, Ms. Swanson posted a meme involving a Christmas tree. Her statement was “just gonna nicely set this down right here…” The meme read, “if the offends you GO **** YOURSELF” (only there were no asterisks, I’ll not fill in the foul word that was posted). I confess, it shocked me. It wasn’t that Ms. Swanson was a rather brash conservative, I’d already seen more than enough evidence of that. It was the fact that, if a person found Christmas celebrations and decorations to be offensive, she felt entirely justified in telling that person, in the foulest language imaginable, to buzz off. She said this regarding Christmas. The season that, at least ostensibly, is supposed to be about the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The Savior. The One who died to take the penalty for sinners that they may be made righteous. The One whom we are commanded to tell the world about that they might bow the knee in repentance and faith because of the great love He demonstrated by dying for sinners. That celebration. And she told them to fornicate themselves for not liking it. Now that is hubris.

I left a simple response for Ms. Swanson. I simply suggested that she consider that she was not likely to win anyone to her argument by treating them so disrespectfully. I never considered I would get a response from her. I would not expect a person with so many followers to have the time. I simply wanted her to stop and think about what she had done. That’s all. And, no she didn’t respond. But it was the other followers who did respond that got my attention. In fact, it is their posts that this article is about.

Several followers of Ms. Swanson took umbrage with my statement. One suggested that there was no way to win an argument with people who hate Christmas so much that they placed a statue of Satan next to a Christmas display (yes, that actually happened). Another claimed that you have to speak the same language as the liberal to even communicate to them. Yet another claimed that “silence is acceptance” and “we don’t want them to think we accept their ideology.” Finally, the one that really got my attention was the person who said “the time for being PC is OVER,” and that it was “time to fight fire with fire.” This is a person whose Twitter account appears to suggest they are at least a professing Christian. And they are supporting the idea that it is not only acceptable but appropriate to tell a person who is offended by Christmas to buzz off with vile and filthy language. This is also the person who later blocked my account for disagreeing with her and suggesting Christmas ought to be a time we share the miracle of the gospel with people. But I digress.

Continue reading

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2024 Slave to the King

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑