There is certainly no condescension or insult behind anything addressed in this post. In fact, vast swaths of self-professing Christians would bristle at or reject what I am presuming to put forth as objectively true for all Christ-followers. One of the worst kept secrets within Christendom is that we are divided and subdivided into numerous denominations; giving the reasonable impression that Christianity can mean many things to many people. I know therefore it is incumbent to make a compelling case for both the unbeliever and self-identified believer about what constitutes a true biblical understanding of being a Christian.
Scripture is unequivocal on the matter of the Christian duty to love everyone and to show compassion for all sectors of society. That being the case, a reasonable skeptic could justly ask why devout Christians fight so strongly against the cultural headwinds that seek to elevate and advance the interests of all segments of society. At least, this is certainly how I believe many earnestly view the challenge of the cultural divide. Why ultimately would Christians cloister ourselves off in ideas that set us at odds with our neighbours and necessarily drive a wedge between us and those who embrace these revised mores?
The answer for this can be found in one of the most misapplied passages in scripture uttered by Christ:
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.” – Matthew 10:34-36
Taken alone, this could certainly sound like a call to Christians to actively pursue violence as our duty is to follow both Christ and his teachings. What must be clearly understood is that, while the Bible is subdivided by chapters and verses, as Christian apologist, Frank Turek likes to stress – there are no verses in the Bible. These semi-arbitrary divisions are merely a handy reference tool, but is artificial and no verse should be viewed in isolation. By reading more of Jesus’ message that precedes these words, he is not in fact advocating violence, but is clearly delineating our relationship with the rest of the culture.
These were the marching orders given as Christ commissioned his disciples to go to their communities and teach about him to what he called “the lost sheep of Israel.”
“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of you Father speaking through you. Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. The student is not above the teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for students to be like their teachers, and servants like their masters. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebul (Satan), how much more the members of his household! So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell…Whoever acknowledges me before others; I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before others. I will disown before my Father in heaven.” (Matthew 10:16-28 & 32-33)
I know this is a long passage, but it leaves no doubt as to the meaning of Jesus’ claim about bringing a sword and of divisions. We can learn a great deal about what it means to fully follow Christ and the implications of doing so that are unequivocal.
- The Christian is obligated not to fall in line with the culture, but in fact will carry a message that will most certainly run counter to the direction in which our nation is heading. Christ is the teacher and master for all who follow him and obeying his teaching is our highest calling. We are not free to compromise on, modify or allow our subjective interpretation to negate or pervert his message.
- Our duty is not just to stand against pressures that come our way, but we are to go forth and present a message that those around us do not want to hear. Ours is an active faith that follows core principles and a specific source. We are not free to view these as passive concepts that we can simply adapt to fit within the paradigm of prevailing attitudes. A Christian not willing to publicly share their faith is being disobedient and we are told that this can severely inhibit our communication with Christ.
- The Christian is clearly in no way the aggressor in this scenario. Taken in context, the sword Jesus is bringing is a figurative weapon fashioned by bringing a message that many are inevitably unwilling to receive. We know that Christians are seen as at fault for the remaining rigid in our message in the face of pressures to update our views to tolerate the cultural shift. Our perceived intolerance has resulted in us being labelled racists, bigots, misogynists, xenophobes, and an array of other epithets. Our counter-cultural message alone is viewed as the motivation that guides those who would commit violence against or even marginalize us. With the Christian guilty of nothing more than non-conformity and failing to violate his core beliefs, we are told we will face persecution, ostracism, and see the end of even our closest relationships.
There is absolutely nothing in scripture that contradicts the above. There is no hidden call to violence anywhere. Given we live at a time where non-believers will insist that the mark of a true Christian requires that we renounce our core teachings and sequester them away from the our evolving social standards, this certainly seems to validate Christ’s warning. That was surely true of the early church martyrs that were legion and continues to be visited on believers in countries with enforced atheistic systems (communist, socialist) or other imposed religions (i.e. Islam). Our persecution is a cakewalk comparatively, but we are no less viewed as pariahs. It should be noted that the “progressive church” does not draw upon scripture to explain their compromise; but they instead insist this is their way of being inclusive and loving.
It should be noted that one of the primary complaints levelled against Christians is that we are hypocrites. While this is a legitimate charge (especially as the call on the Christ-follower is to be perfect as our father is perfect – thus making even minor hypocrisies inevitable based on the use of the term), the secular culture is demanding that we hypocritically violate our faith and conform to the spirit of the age as proof of devotion to our faith. This certainly creates a no-win scenario for the Christian.
What I will address in more detail in future is that the progressive approach of placing individuals within social groupings to determine their standing and commensurate rights based on some social justice scale is anathema to God. Our identity is in Christ and the characteristics of race, sex, gender (identity), socioeconomic status, etc. are inconsequential when we see ourselves based on God’s perspective. We are his creation and are bound by a shared set of guiding principles we do not have the liberty to stray from. Much of this requires not adapting to socially prescribed roles in a mutating value system; but being what Christ refers to as salt and light within the culture. When trends and obligations being imposed venture onto a different track, our secular culture views the Christian as being stubborn; believing their job is to bring our rebellious spirit under control or see that it is quashed.
The way I see the battle shaping up is that while the rules of engagement in our secular culture are mutable, they are also increasingly mandatory. There is a clear prerogative that all need to get on board with the zeitgeist and that it is reasonable and necessary that our institutions enforce adherence to these standards for the sake of unity and tolerance. This is a very dangerous and illogical objective as I will cover in my next article. For now, hopefully the clash can be better understood and why the Christian duty to resist is butting into the societal pressure to conform.
Lynn says: “The Bible is not open to interpretation. “Scripture interprets Scripture.”
Scripture can’t interpret scripture, (besides this is a circular argument). People have to interpret what’s written, and that is open to different ways of reading language/grammar. Also taking into account that the work is translated, (& each language has it’s own interpretation), it further expands interpretations. In a church full of people, each person has their own interpretation of what God, heaven, etc… is.
Lynn says “God’s Word cannot be changed. God is the author of Scripture. Men who were led by the Spirit wrote the Bible – I.e inspired by God. God is immutable, meaning He never changes.”
But God does change in the bible from a jealous God at the start of the Old Testament to a more loving God in the New Testament. Also, the Pentateuch or first 5 books of the Old Testament often have 2 versions of stories side by side. For one example, there’s 2 creation myths in Genesis. Though they compliment in some ways, they conflict in others – such as in the first creation myth God creates animals before Adam, and after Adam in the second. (The nature of God is quite different in the two myths as well). That means it’s impossible to believe a literal interpretation, so it means you can interpret it philosophically, metaphorically, as part of folklore as a people, as a bronze age attempt to explain creation, or other…
Lynn says: “God is finite.”
Am assuming you meant to write infinite?
All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, , for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17
The Bible is not open to interpretation. Scripture interprets Scripture. God’s Word cannot be changed. God is the author of Scripture. Men who were led by the Spirit wrote the Bible – I.e inspired by God. God is immutable, meaning He never changes. God is finite. God created all people in His image – we all bear His image no matter our amount of melanin and language, culture etc. The problem with society is taking God’s Word out of everything and mankind has pushed Him away. People have also created a god of their imagination to go with the changes in our culture. Again, God doesn’t change and His Word never changes! I think I said this once before that we are living in a Romans 1 world – God has taken His hand off us because of the choices we have made and we are now dealing with the ramifications of our choices – abortion (murder of babies), homosexuality (unnatural and a sin), disregard for all life etc. Read Romans 1 and you will see our world today. The problem with our world is a sin problem.
Tom says: “To be a Christian means to be a follower of Christ.”
That’s a ‘circular definition’ that doesn’t explain what it means to follow Christ, which can have many interpretations.
Tom says: “Christ had very specific teachings on how we are to relate to one another (i. e. With regards to loving everyone, forgiveness, generosity, adultery, marriage, divorce, honouring parents, managing anger, etc.).”
You used the term ‘scripture’ before, which is what the bible is – writing. Irregardless of how inspired, it’s still written by humans, just like all other books. As a result, the use of language can be at times open to interpretation. On top of that, the bible in the form we read it is translated, compiled, & edited by people. Not surprisingly, different people can interpret different things in it. There’s also occasional contradictions that you’d expect from a book written by humans, (why are there 4 gospels, discounting the edited out ones). Taking just one of your list for example – ‘managing anger’, you have many examples of turning the other cheek, etc…, but you also have Jesus flipping out when he wants to:
John 2:13-16
“The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves, “Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!”
Can’t a Christian therefore justify two conflicting ideas.
Lynn is right. I know you hold a different worldview. I hold you to the implications of your worldview and expect you to hold me to mine. You are trying to claim the right to hold both of us to your worldview. That is the typical God-hating rhetoric that atheists routinely adopt. There is plenty to support the veracity of scripture evidentially, but that is not my focus. The Christian view is that scripture is God inspired and therefore not subject to personal preference to pick and choose what one will follow. From the outset that’s what I said I would defend. I don’t expect you to accept my worldview as true. I am looking here for the same courtesy to coexist without demanding I come to your view.
I will ask again as I want a genuine response. I’m asking for the third time – did Jodi Foster inspire Hinkley to try to assassinate Reagan? We’re the Beatles culpable in leading Manson to go on his killing spree through hidden messages? Did a dog cause the “son of Sam” to commit murder? If you answer no to these, please explain why Jesus is responsible for people breaking his clear teachings.
As for the temple scene, Jesus is God and having his holy place defiled is legitimate outrage. Note that he did this to those who were his professed “chosen people”. God had plenty of stinging rebukes against the Jewish leaders. He had no log in his own eye. Jesus was the one person justified to do this and he didn’t harm a single person.
The Bible doesn’t say not to be angry. It says, “IN YOUR ANGER do not sin. Do not let the sun go down WHILE YOU ARE STILL ANGRY.” There is righteous rage over horrible sins like abortion, child and spousal abuse, rape, etc.
You may have been busy, but I will give the obvious answer to the question I have thrice put to you because it is key to our discussion. Obviously Jodi Foster, the Beatles and a dog did not inspire others to kill. Similarly, John Lennon did not provoke John David Chapman to assassinate him. Lennon believed in peace, but Chapman didn’t share his view. You cannot blame Christ for things he didn’t say which is why we don’t go outside the Bible to update what we will uphold or deem to be outdated.
Those with socially liberal values resent that Christians don’t adapt our views on sex, marriage, abortion and other social values to comport with the culture, forgetting that one could just as easily decide loving one’s enemies, forgiveness, turning the other cheek and opposition to adultery and violence could end up on the chopping block. Once you reject a foundational standard then you can’t call any act evil. That is my point in the post about the inflexibility of atheists.
If liberals truly did just want the liberty to expand their choices of behaviour without being judged or restricted from doing so, they would not have moved to imposing the same values on Christians that demands endorsing their revised mores. If liberals did not fall for the agenda of the activist left, they would have much more in common with conservatives than self-identified liberals and Democrats. This is why libertarians (classical liberals) have far more in common with and are far more aligned with conservatives.
Tom says: “Do the “Christians” you reference as not conservative provide scriptural support for their liberal social views or are they attempting on their own to recreate biblical teaching to match the culture?
I’ll refer you also to Romans 12:1-2”
This passage, correct? – “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”
It just says be a non-conformist, there’s nothing in there that even remotely mentions ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’. BTW, I’d like to know how do you define ‘conservative’ & ‘liberal’.
The fruit of the spirit is listed as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness gentleness, faithfulness and self control. Is it not safe to assume that if these aspects are completely lacking in a Christian’s life that they appear to not have the Holy Spirit in them and therefore are not in relationship with Christ – who left his Holy Spirit for believers to rely upon? Remember, I’m not looking for your beliefs on this but what how it would apply to the professing Christian.
Do the “Christians” you reference as not conservative provide scriptural support for their liberal social views or are they attempting on their own to recreate biblical teaching to match the culture?
I’ll refer you also to Romans 12:1-2
There is too much there to deal with at once so I’d like to break it down to manageable pieces if that’s alright.
First, I say that Christianity is unifying and respects the individual because it has a specific guiding philosophy and set of teachings that undergird it. Please tell me if any of the following statements is untrue and explain:
To be a Christian means to be a follower of Christ.
Christ had very specific teachings on how we are to relate to one another (i. e. With regards to loving everyone, forgiveness, generosity, adultery, marriage, divorce, honouring parents, managing anger, etc.).
Christ was specific about people falsely claiming to follow him that he rejects as he says, “ never knew you.” (Matthew 7:21-23).
It is reasonable to assume that the man who people claim to follow is the final authority on how one must behave.
The Bible is the singular source we have to know what is required of the Christ-follower.
If everyone genuinely followed Christ’s teachings then there would be unity and respect for each other.
Going against Christ’s teaching is what is responsible for the evil acts carried out in his name.
It is possible to follow your own path based on lying, deception (self-deception or misinterpretation), or mental illness and wrongly attribute your actions to another source (my examples of Manson, Hinkley Jr., and the “son of Sam”.
To challenge any of the above on what the Christian duty is then please refer to scripture to cite your source.
oops – I posted this on the wrong thread. Sorry.
It’s very hard to hold a discussion with you, as you continue to use absolute statements that only a minute’s thought, (or googling) would show you it isn’t true. For example:
“Christianity is unifying and respects the individual.”
You must be aware that it’s easy to find examples where self proclaimed Christians don’t fit that statement. If you mean your idea of Christianity, then you would be falling for the ‘no true scotsman’ fallacy, which would ignore other interpretations. You also appear to aline ‘Christian’ with ‘Conservative’, if so, it would again ignore the complexities of reality. Aren’t there many non-conservative Christians or conservative non-Christians? I’ve run across many in my travels. Besides that you offer numerous anecdotal examples that can be very easily countered with conflicting anecdotal examples. (in the end proving nothing). It would be great if you could recognize and cut down on both these habits, as it’s exhausting and time consuming to keep countering them.
Tom says: “Would you have a problem with “white lives matter” to highlight that far more crimes are committed by blacks and illegals than by whites – especially as a percentage of the population”
You can try to set up such movement, but I doubt you’d find many members as it’s clear to much of society that it’s easier to be white in this world and therefore a nonsense position.
Assuming this statement of yours is true: “far more crimes are committed by blacks and illegals than by whites”. It’s easy to see this would be the logical outcome of discrimination. If you have a group that’s discriminated against, fewer opportunities are available to you. You’d therefore tend in higher numbers to be less educated and poorer, and therefore more likely to resort to crime. Also with less education and less resources, the more difficulty you’ll have defending yourself in court, resulting in a still higher rate of incarceration. (Well funded, well connected white collar crime is rarely prosecuted due to difficulty of conviction & therefore not counted as a crime, even when not just counting convictions). Add to that the higher likelihood you’ll be targeted by police – further skewing the statistics – it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Your inclusion of ‘illegals’ (assuming you mean illegal immigrants) in your statement helps prove that this is the case. Immigrants, (illegal or otherwise) often don’t know the language or culture they are coming to, often are escaping under distress & arriving with nothing. In short, statistically poorer & less educated. A historic event such as war or famine brings a flood of immigrants from the affected nation. The next generation of immigrant is more assimilated into society, and the crime rate for their group goes down & eventually is at par. Looking at North America over the last hundred years or so, different immigrant groups were demonized in succession – Irish, Jewish, Italian, Cambodian/Vietnamese, Syrian,… gluts of refugees that though troubling society with crime at the time, eventually the next generation blends into society and crime rates level out. A couple outliers to this: Latin America is near, very populated and has had many political & economic upheavals leading to a regular flow of immigrants – & visible minorities – (the more visible, the easier to discriminate as the ‘other’).
I have to ask though – if you say “far more crimes are committed by blacks…” and if you don’t recognize that there’s widespread societal racism, do you therefore think that blacks are inherently more prone to crime? Is that how you read Christian scriptures? I’m having trouble following your logic, & can come to no other conclusion.
Tom says: “One of the assertions you have not backed up is that there is systemic racism in society. Please give a concrete example of systemic violence within the police force or other institutions (other than many celebrated as “woke” and promoted as noble by academia and its various allies – which I’ll cover in a future post. Remember, systemic means it is intrinsic and or a requirement placed upon the police officers.”
Try googling something like “black disproportionate police”, or “likelihood of being pulled over” you’ll find many studies – the predominate number of which find racial bias. I would say
You’ve been using the term ‘academia’ as if it’s a synonym of left wing/progressive, etc… which isn’t true. University professors aren’t a unified group, and vary across a wide spectrum of society. I wouldn’t be surprised if, as your link asserts, that more professors are democrats than republican – the platform of the democratic party appeals more to college educated people than the republican. This doesn’t lead any conclusions such as that they’re ‘leftist’, or that only republicans are ‘conservative’ or ‘Christian’. The democratic party in the states would be a centre right party compared to the international political spectrum.
Also, I can’t find systemic being defined as ‘a requirement’. I can, however, find this meaning as I intended it: “Relating to or involving a whole system” (ie: widespread), though just like the protests, the issue is mostly an American one.
Tom says “Does this also mean that whites are victims that are inextricably linked to their antebellum roots and it is wrong to condemn their white privilege and second class treatment of blacks because it is bred into them? Again, double standard?”
Some white people perpetuate an attitude of superiority over black people (whether they’re aware of it or not) – not surprising considering US history. Freeing of slaves in the US was only about 150 years ago. Those who fought for the confederacy didn’t go away, or immediately lose the sense of superiority. After a seismic historical event or change, (like the French revolution, WW1,…) the societal pendulum swings back and forth for a long time after. The virtually unsurmountable task of reconstruction (radical change of a whole economic system, a landscape destroyed by war,…), prolonged the residual conflict to today, though in ever decreasing swings. Over the years, the US went thru the rise of the klan, Jim Crow laws, Lynchings, segregated schools,… & now society is down to addressing a biased legal system.
Is there a reason you are not responding to whether the Beatles, Jodie Foster and a dog are culpable for the crimes Committed based on their purported inspiration?