Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 27

What Is the Gospel?

What is the Gospel? The Gospel is the good news of the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of Jesus of Nazareth.

The Gospel is described as the euangelion, the “good news” (e.g. Mark 1:1). The gospel is news: the heralding of what God has accomplished through Jesus the Christ. News can have a dramatic effect on our lives: consider how you strongly hold on to memories of when you were informed about news regarding major events in your own life, in the lives of those you love, or of national or international significance: getting accepted or rejected by a college or a job; receiving news of illness or death; the acceptance of a marriage proposal; the death of a leader, or a major incident in a nation’s history. News can transform our lives.

Yet the power of news is not in the expression of the information, but in the reflection of reality in that information. The Gospel can only be “good news” if what it says actually happened. The good news is that God really did take on flesh and dwell among us as Jesus of Nazareth; He died, but God raised Him from the dead on the third day; He later ascended and received an everlasting Kingdom from His Father; He will return again soon. If any of these things did not actually happen, or will not happen, then the “good news” is fake, a lie, we bear false witness regarding God, are lost in our sins, and are of all people most pitiable (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:12-20).

For good reason we consider the recounting of Jesus’ life and ministry the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus the Christ. Jesus was born of a virgin as the Emmanuel child, the Son of God, God in the flesh, a powerful miracle that facilitated later miracles. He grew up as a Second Temple Palestinian Jewish man and ministered in Galilee in humble circumstances. He went about doing good and teaching regarding the Kingdom of God. He explained all things more thoroughly to twelve disciples He selected, men of little social standing but chosen to bear witness to what God accomplished in Jesus. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6): in His life He satisfied the Law completely, embodied the story of Israel, and fulfilled all what was written regarding the Messiah in the Law and the Prophets. By His life as recorded in the four Gospels we can know and understand how we should live.

Jesus was betrayed by one of His disciples, tried, tortured, and crucified as a political insurrectionist. The Romans thought they made an example of Him, and yet His death had been foreordained as the means by which God would rescue humanity from their sins. Jesus offered Himself on the cross as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind; the forces of evil subjected Jesus to a wide range of their devices, inflicting mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual trauma upon Him in humiliation, degradation, pain, and suffering, and He overcame it all by enduring it to the point of death, and all without responding in kind. Jesus gave His life so that we might live; yet Jesus’ death is very much a part of His life, and thus part of the way He pioneered that we might have standing and life before His Father. The only way to the Father is the way of the cross: suffering, loss, humiliation, and pain, perhaps even to death.

If that were the end of Jesus’ story it would have been a great tragedy but of little further significance; He was not the first “Messiah” the Romans had crucified, nor would He be the last. Jesus’ life and death can only be “good news” because His disciples bore witness that God raised Jesus from the dead on the third day. Jesus’ resurrection represented the core transformative “news” of the Gospel as the Apostles proclaimed it: it was Jesus’ resurrection that changed everything. Jesus had humbled Himself; His Father had exalted Him. He was raised to die no longer: He endures in His resurrection body to this very day. Jesus overcame death; death did not have the final word. Jesus’ resurrection was the word that turned the world upside down; Jesus’ resurrection made void the power of the tyrant, for those who trusted they would receive a resurrection in Jesus would not shrink back from the threat of death. Jesus’ resurrection assures us there is life after life after death; God has not given up on His creation, and in Jesus we can overcome sin and death.

Forty days after Jesus arose from the dead He ascended to the Father. It was necessary for Jesus to ascend into the heavens in order to cleanse and provide a way for us to stand before the Father; He was established as priest forever, continually interceding for His people before His Father. In His ascension Jesus as the Son of Man received eternal dominion, a Kingdom which would never be shaken and the name that is above every other name: Jesus now reigns as Lord of lords and King of kings. Jesus empowered the disciples who saw Him in life and in the resurrection with power to establish the governance and maintenance of the ways of His Kingdom. These disciples, now known as Apostles, went about proclaiming what God had done in Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, and imminent return, declared He was the Christ, the King, the Son of God, and set forth how Christians ought to live so as to glorify God in Christ. When people accept this good news about Jesus, they ought to submit to Him in trusting faith; when they do so, they can be made a part of the body of Christ, also known as the church, and serve Jesus in His Kingdom. Christians are to jointly participate in life with one another as they do with God in Christ, and all they do ought to be patterned according to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, in hope that if we share in Jesus’ sufferings, we might share in His resurrection.

God has accomplished great things in Jesus, but His purposes in Christ have not reached their ultimate fulfillment. The final enemy, death, has not been fully defeated; we still suffer the effects of the curse and the decay and corruption of the creation. Jesus solemnly promised that He would return one day to judge the living and the dead on the day of resurrection: all would come out of the tombs, the faithful to a resurrection of life, glorified by God, sharing in life in the presence of God in the “new heavens” and the “new earth,” and the disobedient to a resurrection of condemnation, suffering in the lake of fire with the Evil One and his angels for eternity. God has displayed covenant loyalty in Jesus; if we believe in Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, and lordship, then we must maintain confidence He will return soon. We will never know exactly when; such is why we must always be prepared for the Lord’s return, so that whether we live or die we will always be with the Lord.

Thus the Gospel is the good news of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return, as we have heard from the Apostles who saw and experienced Him, and bore witness in the pages of the New Testament. This is the foundation of the faith delivered once for all the saints (cf. Jude 1:3); we cannot add to it or take away from it, for who among us saw Jesus in His life or in His resurrection? All that is true in the faith derives somehow from Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return; any message that would not root itself in this good news of Jesus, or would contravene it in part or in whole, is not the Gospel, but a fraud and imitation, warped and corrupted, the doctrine of demons. We do well to root and ground ourselves in the good news of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return; we ought to proclaim this good news to others, embody this good news in our thoughts, words, and deeds, and always be prepared for Jesus to return and to share in the resurrection of life. May we affirm the Gospel of Jesus Christ, accept no substitutes, and share in life in God in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post What Is the Gospel? appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Eager to Remember the Poor

We now approach the time of year when people begin to think about one another and give gifts and enjoy good cheer. While many times we think of providing gifts for those who are family and friends, brethren, and even perhaps business associates or such like, do we consider giving to those who are in need? Do we seek to follow God’s charge to provide for the poor and downtrodden?

Throughout His dealing with mankind, God has always sought to make sure that His people took care of those in need. We read in Deuteronomy 15:7-8 how God desired Israel to take care of the poor:

If there be with thee a poor man, one of thy brethren, within any of thy gates in thy land which YHWH thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thy heart, nor shut thy hand from thy poor brother; but thou shalt surely open thy hand unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need in that which he wanteth.

Israel, however, many times was faithless in following the command, and we can read how God through the prophets condemned them for it:

The poor and needy seek water, and there is none, and their tongue faileth for thirst; I, YHWH, will answer them, I, the God of Israel, will not forsake them (Isaiah 41:17).

The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery; yea, they have vexed the poor and needy, and have oppressed the sojourner wrongfully (Ezekiel 22:29).

Forasmuch therefore as ye trample upon the poor, and take exactions from him of wheat: ye have built houses of hewn stone, but ye shall not dwell in them; ye have planted pleasant vineyards, but ye shall not drink the wine thereof (Amos 5:11).

It is clearly manifest that God’s concern for the poor was very great, and maltreatment of the poor was a constant grievance of God against Israel.

While we live under the new covenant between God and all mankind through the blood of Jesus Christ, concern for the poor is no less important. Consider the following:

And he said to him also that had bidden him,

“When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, nor thy kinsmen, nor rich neighbors; lest haply they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee. But when thou makest a feast, bid the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: and thou shalt be blessed; because they have not wherewith to recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed in the resurrection of the just” (Luke 14:12-14).

So then, as we have opportunity, let us work that which is good toward all men, and especially toward them that are of the household of the faith (Galatians 6:10).

Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world (James 1:27).

Furthermore, consider Jesus’ presentation of the Judgment scene in Matthew 25:31-46:

“But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all the nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats; and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand,

‘Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me.’

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when saw we thee hungry, and fed thee? or athirst, and gave thee drink? And when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? And when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?’

And the King shall answer and say unto them, ‘Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me.’

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, ‘Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry, and ye did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.’

Then shall they also answer, saying, ‘Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?’

Then shall he answer them, saying, ‘Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not unto me.’

And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life.”

Why would Jesus speak as if how we treated the least of those among us defines how we are judged? Granted, if we help our fellow man but do not obey God otherwise, we will not stand well in judgment (Matthew 12:36-37, Acts 17:30-31, Romans 2:6-10). And yet 1 Corinthians 13:1-8, 1 John 3:16-18: love must undergird all we think, say, and do, and if we say we love one another but do not give the world’s goods to those in need, our love is only in pretense, not truth. If we see Jesus in the least of those among us, we are most likely doing well in glorifying God; yet if we do not see Jesus in the least of those among us, our heart is most likely condemning us in our selfishness, fear, and insecurity. We do well to consider Luke 12:13-48 in terms of the connections among covetousness, hoarding of wealth, and impending judgment.

God loves those who cheerfully give to help others. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 9:6-11 regarding Christians giving to help the needy of Judea, but surely the principle applies to all giving done by Christians:

But this I say, He that soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he that soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. Let each man do according as he hath purposed in his heart: not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound unto you; that ye, having always all sufficiency in everything, may abound unto every good work: as it is written,

“He hath scattered abroad, he hath given to the poor; His righteousness abideth for ever.”

And he that supplieth seed to the sower and bread for food, shall supply and multiply your seed for sowing, and increase the fruits of your righteousness: ye being enriched in everything unto all liberality, which worketh through us thanksgiving to God.

As we have been blessed greatly by God, so it should be a little thing for us to help those in need, both within and without the fold. We can trust His promise: if we give bountifully, we shall be bountifully blessed, spiritually if not physically; likewise, if we give sparingly, we should not expect to gain much of anything.

Our giving helps us to reflect the light of Christ in our lives. Matthew 5:13-16 illustrates how we are to be distinctive and a light to the world: going out and seeking to help those in need allows us to do so. We live in a society that is focused on “me”: what I want, what I need, what I want to do, etc. Focusing on the need of others is distinctive, and if we go out and help those who are in need, not for our own good but for their good, that will be noticed. Your work will never be in vain in the Lord (1 Corinthians 15:58), and perhaps your Christ-like example may lead some to the truth.

We recognize that the Scriptures indicate that providing for the poor among the world is the responsibility of the individual, not of the church (1 Timothy 5:16). It is right for us to make this distinction and that the church should not be burdened with assisting those who are not of the fold. On the other hand, we must make sure that we remember that helping the poor is an essential part of Christianity, and while it may not be the church’s responsibility, it does remain the responsibility of the individual! It is a great travesty if the poor are left wholly unsupported by those who recognize the distinction between the individual and the church in the Scriptures. It is best to help the poor as individuals precisely because it gives us the opportunity to touch individual lives with Christ’s love on a fully interactive basis: to not help the poor either as an individual or as a church is to fall prey to the same attitudes that led to the condemnation of Israel. No one wants that fate!

Instead, brethren, let us share Paul’s attitude in Galatians 2:10:

Only they would that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do.

Paul was zealous, or eager, to remember the poor. Do we share that enthusiasm? Do we seek out to help those in need, to take that opportunity to show the light of Christ and to touch lives with the Gospel lived? Are we truly cheerful givers? Or are we just like the rest of the world and consider our own needs more important than those of others, in direct contradiction to God’s will (Romans 15:2, 1 Corinthians 10:24, Philippians 2:3)?

Let us consider God’s message in the Scriptures and change our attitudes so that we may be eager to help the poor at all times.

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Eager to Remember the Poor appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Persia

The Iranian plateau seems a world away from the lush valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers: it is a more difficult land, akin to the great steppes to its north and northeast. For years its inhabitants were kept in check by the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Elamites, but that would all begin to change in the seventh century BCE. Ancient kingdoms and empires would fall; the new power in the land arose in Persia.

While “Persia” would eventually become the term used to describe the whole of the Iranian plateau and the modern-day nation of Iran, it originally described the territory now known as Fars in southwest Iran, an arid steppe area along the Zagros Mountains. That area was named Persia after the tribe of Persians, an Iranian people who likely came from north of the Caucasus Mountains and moved into that area around 1000 BCE.

Most of the land of modern day Iran was made part of the Neo-Assyrian Empire until the Iranian tribes quietly ceased paying tribute around 625 BCE. Cyaxares, king of the Median Iranian tribes, asserted himself, entered into a coalition with Nabopolassar king of Babylon, and conquered the Assyrians. By the end of the seventh century BCE the Medes had overcome Urartu to the north of Assyria, parts of modern day Turkey and Armenia, northeast into central Asia, and the entire Iranian plateau, including the Persians.

Cyaxares’ son Astyages succeeded him as king of the Medes; in 553 BCE Astyages’ maternal grandson, Cyrus king of Persia, led an insurrection against him and defeated him in 550. Having conquered the Medes and its empire, Cyrus defeated Croesus king of Lydia and conquered the Lydian Empire in 546, extending Persian rule over most of modern-day Turkey. Cyrus is best known for conquering Babylon and thus the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 539 (cf. Daniel 5:1-31). Isaiah foretold Cyrus’ rise and considered him anointed of YHWH (cf. Isaiah 44:28, 45:1); Cyrus obtained the goodwill of the subjects of his new empire by encouraging them to return to their homelands and serve their gods as attested by the Cyrus Cylinder found at Babylon as well as the Scriptures in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23, Ezra 1:1-8, 5:13-14. Cyrus’ son Cambyses is not attested in the Scriptures but is famous for conquering Egypt in 525 BCE, bringing to fruition what was prophesied of Egypt in Ezekiel 29:1-32:32. Thus the Achaemenid Persian Empire had been established, stretching from the Mediterranean and Egypt to the steppes of Central Asia.

A dynastic crisis took place after Cambyses’ death; ultimately, Cambyses’ personal lance bearer, Darius, would ascend to the throne and would be recognized as the next Achaemenid Persian king (521-486 BCE). The Judahites completed the Second Temple in the days of Darius (ca. 516; cf. Ezra 5:1-6:18); it was also in Darius’ day that Persian forces first attacked the land of Greece and were defeated at the Battle of Marathon in 490. Darius nevertheless extended the borders of the Persian Empire to their greatest expanse, including Thrace in Europe, to the Indus River in the east, and into Libya and the Sudan in Africa. Darius efficiently organized the empire, dividing its territories into provinces which were to be overseen by appointed leaders called satraps; he established Aramaic as the language of governance in the empire, as had been the case under the Assyrians and Babylonians, established standardized weights and measures, and developed better roads. All of these improvements led to greater unity within the empire.

Darius’ son Xerxes reigned from 486-465 BCE and is the King Ahasuerus of the book of Esther. He attempted to avenge his father’s defeat at the hand of the Greeks, defeating them at Thermopylae and burning Athens to the ground in 480. His Phoenician navy was defeated by the Athenians at Salamis and his army was defeated at Plataea and Mycale the next year. The military campaign was thus a disaster for the Persians, leading to the loss of Macedonia and the Greek cities of Asia Minor. The Greek historian Herodotus provided the chronicle of all the events described above according to the Greek perspective and the stories he was told in his extensive travels throughout the Mediterranean world in the middle of the fifth century BCE.

Xerxes was succeeded by his son Artaxerxes (465-424 BCE). Nehemiah served Araxerxes as cupbearer and would be allowed to return to Jerusalem to re-establish its fortifications (Nehemiah 1:1-13:31); Artaxerxes commissioned Ezra to return from Babylon to Jerusalem to establish the Law of Moses there (cf. Ezra 6:1-10:44). Artaxerxes is the last Persian king mentioned by name in the Old Testament, and it is likely during his reign that the prophets fell silent.

After Artaxerxes’ death a period of dynastic crisis prevailed until Artaxerxes II, a grandson of Artaxerxes I, ascended to the throne. He would maintain the longest reign of all Achaemenid Persian emperors, from 404 until 358 BCE. And yet the empire was struggling: Artaxerxes II was not able to quell a revolt in Egypt, suffered a revolt from his satraps, and was constantly fighting with the Greeks. He was succeeded by his son Artaxerxes III (358-338); he overcame some military defeats and revolts and finally eliminated native rule from Egypt until the modern era. Artaxerxes III’s son Artaxerxes IV was poisoned soon after ascending to the throne, and his nephew Darius III became the last Achaemenid Persian king. In 334 BCE Alexander II of Macedon invaded the Persian Empire and inflicted significant defeats upon the Persians at Granicus (334), Issus (333), and finally at Gaugamela (331). Darius III died ignominiously and his murderer was put on trial and executed by Alexander. After Alexander’s untimely death in 332 BCE his empire was divided among his four generals; the Persian Empire was thus divided among the Ptolemies and Seleucids.

The Iranian plateau would fall under the rule of another steppe people, the Parthians, from 247 BCE until 224 CE, when they were conquered by another Persian dynasty, the Sassanids, who would maintain their rule until the Muslim invasions of 637.

The Achaemenid Persians oversaw a significant transformation in the ancient Near East; they were the first to subject the entire ancient Near East under the rule of one leader, and its empire was one of the most stable and longest lived. The Hebrew Bible strongly condemned the Assyrians and Babylonians and foretold disaster and distress at the hands of the Greeks and Romans; and yet the prophets, Ezra, and Nehemiah have nothing but positive things to say about the Persians. The dangers faced by Israel in the days of the Persians are attributed to their enemies: the leaders of the Samaritans and others in Ezra, Haman in Esther. The Persian Empire thus gave Israel a chance to return to its land and begin to work to restore their fortunes there, and thus they are remembered well.

The Achaemenid Persians had built upon the infrastructure they received from the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Medes. Their inability to defeat the Greeks would ultimately become their undoing, and their time under the sun came to an end after three hundred years. And yet what the Achaemenid Persians built persevered: Alexander and his successors largely left the Persian infrastructure of empire in place, and for many among the Persians the events of the late fourth century BCE remain very much alive, as if they happened only yesterday. The Achaemenid Persians fulfilled an important purpose in the plan of God; they have passed on, but the word of God endures. May we prove faithful to God’s word and purposes and glorify God in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Persia appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Political Libertarianism

It is said that the two subjects to avoid in polite conversation are religion and politics. Furthermore, within Christianity, there is often an understandable desire to transcend the politics of the day. Politics, by the very nature of the craft, involves compromise and gets very dirty in deal making; furthermore, no political platform fully embodies God’s purposes in Christ, and politicians invariably fall short of upholding what God would have upheld in Christ in every respect. At the same time, Christians in America will invariably be called upon to engage with all sorts of ideas, philosophies, plans, and policies prevalent in American political discourse as members of this representative republic; thus, however Christians engage with politics, they ought to do so in ways which bring the lordship of Jesus to bear, and Jesus ought to be glorified and manifest in how they speak of politics and politicians (Ephesians 4:29, Philippians 1:27, Colossians 3:17). We do well to consider the broad trends in political discourse and how they relate to what God has made known in Jesus.

The vast majority of modern American political discourse takes place within the general confines of philosophical liberalism: a commitment to free speech, freedom of individuals, the fundamental equality of everyone, a commitment to the rule of law, free markets and free trade, freedom of religion, and a primarily secular posture from the government. Within this commitment to philosophical liberalism we presently see three major political postures: progressivism, conservatism, and libertarianism.

Political libertarianism remains perhaps the “purest” distillation of philosophical liberalism: its name comes from terms for “freedom,” and libertarianism in general seeks to maximize the freedom and autonomy of the individual. In political libertarianism everything centers on personal autonomy: the individual is seen as the basic element of society and should therefore enjoy the right of the individual to enjoy life, liberty, and property without interference from the government. While there is a strain of anarchic libertarianism that would advocate a form of libertinism, most political libertarians uphold the importance of the rule of law and understand the primary purpose of government to establish the rule of law and protect the rights of its citizens from internal and external aggression. Political libertarians often believe the order found in society developed from below, not imposed from above; they believe in the dignity and integrity of the individual but do not trust the government to impose such values upon a population. Political libertarians generally uphold social freedoms, highly privileging freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom to engage in countercultural relationships or personally ruinous behaviors (as long as such do not interfere with the freedoms or property of others) without governmental interference: to this end not a few political libertarians would like the government to get out of people’s bedrooms and favor legalization of drugs, gambling, and sex work. Libertarianism manifests divergent postures in economic matters: the more “right wing” form of libertarianism believes strongly in free markets and condemns any governmental regulation of economic markets; a more “left-wing” form of libertarianism condemns the current capitalist system and conception of private property and would advocate for more of a collectivist or mutualist economy based upon sharing the benefits of the earth’s resources. Political libertarianism is generally cast as socially liberal but fiscally conservative; whereas the Libertarian Party has not proven very successful as a force in American politics, libertarianism itself has profoundly influenced both major political parties over the past fifty years as individualism has proven ascendant and the value of community and institutions has faded.

There is much to commend in political libertarianism for the people of God. A high valuation of the individual and his or her conscience is very much a part of the Christian tradition, displayed in Romans 14:12-23. Christians benefit when the nation-state does not interfere in matters of personal conviction and conscience and in matters of religion (1 Timothy 2:1-3); Christians should always remember the lessons of history as it relates to the desire to use the coercive force of the nation-state to advance the purposes of a particular religion or sect. Christians can certainly work and associate and thrive under a libertarian system of governance and economy, working diligently to make their own living quietly while seeking to advance the Kingdom of Jesus (cf. 2 Thessalonians 3:1-15). Political libertarianism also does well to remind all of us that more government is not always the best answer to the challenges and difficulties which might beset a society, culture, or nation-state: expecting change primarily based on legislation and the coercive force of the nation-state is folly.

Yet we do well to recognize the dangers and difficulties which can arise from political libertarianism. Political libertarianism may be the most pure distillation of classical liberalism in the modern political realm, yet for Christians classical liberalism is not an unalloyed good. A focus on the individual and freedom can have many benefits, yet one can all too easily make an idol of either or both: we are made as distinct individuals, beloved by God in Christ, but are called upon to seek relational unity with our fellow humans and what builds them up (Ephesians 2:11-3:12, Philippians 2:1-11). Likewise, we are to appreciate our freedom as Christians, but not as a cloak for wickedness, but to serve God in Christ (Romans 6:14-23, 1 Peter 2:16-17). One man’s “freedom” might well lead to the oppression of another; for many, Kris Kristofferson’s words resonate: “freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.” Christians should consider irresponsible the rhetoric of political libertarianism regarding taxation as theft; taxes have almost always been used for corrupt purposes and lining the pockets of those who obtain them, and yet Paul still expected Christians to pay taxes without grumbling (Romans 13:1-7). Christians must be aware of the power and influence of the powers, principalities, and other cosmic forces in the heavenly places (cf. Ephesians 6:12): it is foolish to believe that developments in society are only based on individuals and individual decisions and to reject the existence of systemic influences and forces, and we do well to confess that Enlightenment thinkers went too far in their rejection of supernatural and superhuman forces. Political libertarians should be careful in how thoroughly they demonize the government: yes, governments are fallen, led by humans corrupted by sin, and in various ways enslaved to the Evil One and his forces (e.g. Revelation 13:1-18), and yet government is also instituted by God, and human authorities are empowered by God for His purposes (cf. Romans 13:1-7).

As with all political philosophies in America, political libertarianism must come to grips with how it required the coercive force of the federal government to break the power of white supremacist Jim Crow legislation and other discriminatory policies, and how a consistent political libertarianism did not and could not suffice to break the power of prejudice and racism against Black people in America. To this end it should not be surprising that political libertarianism is most popular among those for whom the system has been designed to bring advantage and less popular among those against whom the system has continually discriminated. Political libertarians would also do well to maintain the same kind of skepticism they manifest toward government toward those who marshal great power and authority in our capitalist system: to believe that the free market has never failed people, but people have failed the free market is its own kind of fundamentalist religion, and corporations and similar economic forces leverage their power and influence to benefit themselves to the economic disadvantage of others, and often requires an equally potent authority to regulate them: the government. Government is designed to reward the good and punish the evil indeed (cf. Romans 13:1-7); yet it also is called upon to level the playing field, to give justice to the widow and orphan, and to guard against the rich and wealthy leveraging the government or other forms of authority to grind the face of the poor (e.g. Isaiah 1:10-17).

Political libertarianism has its place in modern American politics to remind the state and its citizens that government is not always the answer and to make a principled stand for the freedom of citizens to make their own decisions before God and one another. Yet government is not always the problem; as society becomes ever more atomized and individualistic and as libertarianism in personal philosophy reigns ascendant, we must all the more dedicate ourselves as Christians to serving one another and pursuing the common good as the welfare of the city. May we all seek to glorify God in Christ with the freedoms we enjoy, and serve one another and obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Political Libertarianism appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Fruit of the Spirit: Love

The Apostle Paul, having established his great concern regarding the Galatian Christians turning to the rites of the Law, then desired to encourage them to avoid sin and accomplish righteousness. He did so by condemning the “works of the flesh” and affirming the “fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:17-24). The manifestations of the fruit of the Spirit are enumerated in Galatians 5:22-23:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control; against such there is no law.

Paul did not just begin with love: in the construction of the sentence in Greek, one could say that the fruit of the Spirit is love, and the rest of the attributes serve as commentary. In English “love” is a general and elastic term, describing everything from erotic desire to deep affection. The Greek word translated here as “love” is the Greek word agape, a love and affection manifest in sacrificial service, seeking the best interest and welfare of the beloved without regard to one’s own interests.

The New Testament testifies abundantly regarding agape love. It is the love God has for the world in John 3:16; it is the love demonstrated by Jesus in His death, and thus the model for the love we ought to share among one another (1 John 3:16, 4:7-21). Love represents the ultimate demonstration of virtue: without it there cannot be any true faith, holiness, or righteousness. Love must energize and enervate all thought, feeling, and action if it would glorify God, for God is love, and His love is fully manifest in Jesus (1 John 4:7-21). No wonder, then, that Jesus gave His great, solemn command to His disciples: to love one another as He loved them (John 13:34). Nothing else is as essential: Christians can only be truly known as Jesus’ disciples by their love for one another (John 13:35). Few passages, however, more thoroughly define agape love than 1 Corinthians 13:1-8a:

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And if I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profiteth me nothing. Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not its own, is not provoked, taketh not account of evil; rejoiceth not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth with the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Love never faileth.

Paul centers everything about the Christian life in love. Whatever is not done in love is worthless. Love is manifest according to defined characteristics, and we see those characteristics most perfectly embodied in Jesus. If we replaced “love” with “Jesus” in 1 Corinthians 13:4, the passage still “works.” But will the passage “work” if we substitute “love” with “us”? Do we suffer long? Are we kind? Do we not envy, and do we not vaunt ourselves? Are we puffed up, or do we behave unseemly? Do we seek our own? Are we easily provoked? Do we take evil into account? Do we rejoice in the truth and not unrighteousness? Do we bear, believe, hope, and endure all things? We can certainly see where we fall short. Hopefully, as we grow in faith, we better and more consistently exemplify love according to these characteristics.

In society love is reckoned as a feeling; yet the love God has called us to display in Jesus is truly a decision. The decision to love is not based on worthiness or merit but anchored in God’s love for us in Jesus. For good reason Paul prayed for God to strengthen Christians in the Spirit to better perceive the dimensions of the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge (Ephesians 3:14-19): we will never plumb the depths of that love fully, but the more we recognize its great expanse, the more it overwhelms us, and the more empowered we are to display love in every circumstance. In truth the kind of love we ought to display can only be empowered in Jesus. We might have some kind of benevolent affection for others sustained by a sense of camaraderie or passion, but such humanitarian based love will always have its limitations. It is only when we anchor and root ourselves in the love of God that we can love others as God has loved us: to love the undeserving, the alienated, the sinful, the hostile (Romans 5:6-11). To love one’s enemies and to bless those who persecute you will always prove countercultural; it can only make sense and work in Jesus who lived and died to reconcile sinful and hostile humanity to God (cf. Matthew 5:38-48, Luke 6:30-36). Love demands action: we cannot truly say we love God or our fellow man if our deeds do not display that love. We are to be those who love in deed and truth, not merely in word and pretense (1 John 3:16-18).

Jesus rightly distilled all the Law and the prophets into two commands: to love God with all one’s being, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Matthew 22:35-40). We are called to draw near to God in Christ to share in relational unity with God as He shares within Himself (John 17:20-23, Hebrews 10:22): love defines this relational bond. As we are transformed by drawing near to God, we are able to grow in relational unity with our fellow man in Christ (1 John 1:7): thus we are empowered to love one another as Jesus has loved us (1 John 3:16-18, 4:7-21). Every relationship we have ought to be informed by the love of God in Christ: we approach God in love; we encourage one another as God’s people in love; husbands must love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her (cf. Ephesians 5:22-33); parents and children ought to relate to one another in love; we should express this love to our friends and associates; we should love even those who stand against us and would harm us, for God loved us when we were working against His purposes.

Love is a gift: we only can love because we have been loved, and God empowers us to love others as He has loved us. Love makes life worth living, but proves very costly. We do well to surrender ourselves to the love of God in Christ and love as God has loved us!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Fruit of the Spirit: Love appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Living With the Unanswered Question

Lamentations is one of those books that is easily forgotten. In our Bibles it comes between Jeremiah and Ezekiel mostly because it was believed that Jeremiah wrote Lamentations. The book is full of distressing and painful imagery; perhaps part of the reason it is easily forgotten is that we would like, at times, to forget about those tragic aspects of life!

Lamentations is clearly written in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians and the exile of Judah after 586 BCE. While it remains entirely possible that Jeremiah wrote Lamentations (the timing and the context are right), there is no definitive evidence that he did so. While Lamentations is placed between the prophetic books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, in form and style it is more akin to the Psalms; perhaps this is why, in the Hebrew Bible, Lamentations is in the same part of the Bible as the Psalms (Ketuvim, “The Writings”).

There is an irony within Lamentations that is lost in translation. Whereas the substance of the material laments the violence, humiliation, and degradation of Israel, graphically describing the tragic events of the destruction of Jerusalem, most of Lamentations is written in acrostic form: chapters 1, 2, and 4 have 22 verses with two lines each, and the first word of the first line of each verse begins with each successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Chapter 3 is similar, but features 66 verses, three verses of one line each for each successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Therefore, even though the scenes described are graphic and horrendous, they are presented in this very orderly and tight form of Hebrew poetry, the most orderly form of Hebrew poetry in existence. Lamentations was not thrown together in the wake of the events; it represents a series of very well thought-out and tightly presented laments over the fate of Judah.

But then there is the fifth chapter of Lamentations. Whereas the first four chapters are structured in an orderly form, chapter 5 has no such structure. It is not an acrostic. Lamentations 5 is still written as a psalm, and still represents poetry, but it is markedly different from what came before.

Why is chapter 5 so different? One might argue that it has been added on to the collection, but we are still required to ask why someone felt compelled to add it on when the previous psalms have been so tightly organized. Lamentations 5 is no less a part of Lamentations than the previous four chapters; perhaps the raw emotion and agony could no longer be contained in the disciplined acrostic form.

The end of Lamentations 5 is quite haunting:

Thou, O YHWH, abidest for ever / Thy throne is from generation to generation.

Wherefore dost thou forget us forever / And forsake us so long time?

Turn thou us unto thee, O YHWH, and we shall be turned / Renew our days as of old.

But thou hast utterly rejected us / Thou art very wroth against us (Lamentations 5:19-22).

We want the “happy ending”; no doubt, so did Israel. Nevertheless, that is not the ending that the author of Lamentations sees. He has seen the violence, degradation, and humiliation of his people (Lamentations 5:1-18). Everything that used to represent a prosperous people is gone. The author is most likely still in the exile; even if he is writing after the return to the land, it still feels like exile and abandonment.

We must first note the author’s abiding faith in God. Even though he has seen the destruction of everything that he knew, the author still recognizes that YHWH is God, that He abides forever, and that He still reigns (Lamentations 5:19). In the face of his circumstances this is no small confession! We do not know how many Israelites lost faith in YHWH and turned instead to Marduk and the Babylonian gods, falling for the lie that since Babylon was triumphant, her gods must be true (contra Isaiah 40:6-8, 46:1-4). How could anyone seriously advocate YHWH’s sovereignty when His people are cast down and exiled in a foreign land?

The author of Lamentations is faced with this challenge: how can YHWH be the God of Israel, truly Sovereign, and yet His people are despised and cast off? It is a challenge that has been faced by every person who has placed his confidence in God and yet has endured difficult circumstances. For many, their answer is that there is no God, because they cannot mentally reconcile their current conditions with their picture of God. Most recognize that such an answer does not really change anything and cannot be reconciled with the immanent reality that there is something beyond humanity and the physical universe. Another answer is to confess that “bad things just happen,” understanding the consequences of sin and free will (cf. Romans 5:12-18, 8:20-22). Yet we would think it impious to feel that way about blessings from God, that they “just happen”! We understand that when blessings come from God, we ought to praise Him. So why would we then believe that when adversity comes, that God is entirely uninvolved (cf. Job 1:21, 2:10)?

Another answer is the one on which the Lamentations author has settled: the hot anger of God (Lamentations 5:22). This is an answer with which we must show great care, for it seems that with every natural or artificial disaster there is always someone willing to say that it is a demonstration of God’s anger with those particular individuals. Perhaps God is angry with them; but how do we know that He is specifically angry with them, and how do we know that He is not equally as angry with us or others? How can we presume to know the mind of God toward that particular group of people without specific revelation from Him? In this case, however, the author of Lamentations can know for certain that it is God’s anger that led to these conditions, for such was the warning of the prophets to Israel and Judah (cf. 2 Kings 17:7-23, 2 Chronicles 36:15-21). YHWH was the God of Israel, holy, Sovereign, and very angry with His people because of their idolatry and sinfulness!

Notice that the Lamentations author does not consider God unjust or in the wrong for what He has done to Judah and Israel. He accepts the punishment as a result of God’s anger toward them, and he understands how God has rejected Israel because of sin. Unlike so many today, whose faith cannot seemingly handle much adversity whatsoever, he maintains his confidence in YHWH as the Ruler of the Universe while suffering His wrath. But he still wants to know for how long God will forget Israel. He still begs God to turn back to Israel and to restore her as of old (Lamentations 5:20-21).

Perhaps the author of Lamentations is aware of the message of hope and promise from the prophets during the “latter days” (cf. Isaiah 11:1-10, 65:17-25, Jeremiah 31:31-34, Joel 2:28-32, etc.). We cannot know for certain. But we can see from his writings that if he is aware of that promise, it seems very distant from him. He, and Israel, have drunk the full cup of wrath of YHWH, and while he knows that YHWH is Sovereign, and hopes that God will turn back toward Israel, all he knows is that Israel is as forgotten and forsaken and that YHWH remains exceedingly angry with Israel.

And thus the book ends. The question remains unanswered: why has God forgotten Israel, forsaking her for many days? It remains unanswered not because there is no reason that could be given, but because the pain and suffering is still acute. Whatever may happen in the future is not clearly known. All that the author knows is that Israel is still rejected, still cast off, still forgotten, and therefore YHWH must still be angry with her.

Yes, there would be brighter days ahead. People would return to Jerusalem, but it would be ruled over by outsiders. The promises of the “latter days” would find their fulfillment in Jesus and the Kingdom He established. Yet, until the day of resurrection, days of distress and anguish continue to occur. There are times in all of our lives when we must live with the unanswered question.

Why do trials and tribulations come upon me?

Why is there such suffering all around?

Why does evil still seem to prevail?

Has God forgotten about us?

It is when we are afflicted by questions like these that it is good to return to the book of Lamentations and to gain from the voice of one who experienced great distress in days of old. Perhaps “the reason” involves general distress based on the corrupted environment in which we live; perhaps “the reason” does involve the anger of God; even if we cannot know for certain whether it is or is not, we ought to at least be open to the possibility. Whatever “the reason” might be, we ought to be like Job and perceive God’s blessings and care even in the midst of difficulties and distress. We might also have to, like the author of Lamentations before us, live with the unanswered question. We may be intellectually aware of the hope and promise set before us on the day of resurrection, but we must be ready for those days when that day seems rather distant. We may be in distress; it might seem as if God has rejected us and has forgotten us; but God remains holy, Sovereign, and good. Even in the midst of the unanswered question, we can bless the name of God. In fact, it is only when we have deep and abiding confidence in God, His existence, and His power, that we can truly struggle with the unanswered questions of pain, anguish, and distress. Let us seek to have that level of faith.

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Living With the Unanswered Question appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Lament

Imagine you attend a funeral. The body of the deceased is in the casket for all to see, and everyone is appropriately dressed for the occasion. And yet everyone acts and talks as if the deceased is still living and nothing has really happened. How would you feel?

Now imagine that someone has died in a house and was laid to rest in state in the living room. No funeral was held; everyone carries on with their lives without regard to the body in the living room. What would that house be like?

These seem like strange illustrations, but they help us understand what happens when people do not give space for lament.

Lament is a powerful expression of pain and/or grief. In the Scriptures lament is most commonly associated with the book of Lamentations, composed to give voice for Israel to grieve and lament over the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Most of the Psalms feature lament in some way or another, giving vent to grief and suffering on account of the hostility of enemies, illness, betrayal, sin, and feelings of abandonment. In the New Testament Jesus lamented over Lazarus’ death and the grief displayed by his sisters (John 11:33-35); Jesus promised the disciples would lament His death before His resurrection (John 16:20); Christians made great lamentation over Stephen after his death (Acts 8:2).

No one mistakes lament for a pleasant process; nevertheless, during this life, we will have moments and perhaps even seasons of lament. People around us suffer from sickness, oppression, and death; at times we ourselves suffer from these as well. In lament we confess the brokenness of the world subject to the corruption and decay of sin and death, and our powerlessness to do much about it (Romans 5:12-21, 8:18-23). When informed of tragic news, or having recognized complicity in sinful forms of injustice and oppression or inaction in the face of injustice and oppression, we do well to lament and mourn what has transpired. We may lament as individuals, giving voice to our pain, suffering, frustration, anxiety, distress, or any other malady before God (cf. 1 Peter 5:7); we do well to find relevant psalms and pray them, using the inspired Psalter to help us communicate our grief and pain before God. We also have reason to lament together in community, mourning with those who mourn, and welcoming and accepting those who have suffered among us (Romans 12:15, 1 Corinthians 12:26).

In lament we go to the house of mourning, which the Preacher wisely recognized provided greater value than the house of feasting (Ecclesiastes 7:2). Our modern society is enraptured with the house of feasting: youth and youthful looks are idolized, happiness seems to be the goal, and everyone seems to attempt to showcase their best life on Instagram. By necessity, therefore, aging is the worst and is to be hidden at all costs; any sort of physical, mental, or emotional difficulty is weakness and must be suppressed; discussing or focusing on our mortality is awkward and uncomfortable; and Epicureanism and its attendant desire to avoid all pain and suffering is the philosophy of the day. Very little space is given for those who suffer; anyone going through any distress or pain quickly learns that they make others uncomfortable, and do best if they hide away. They are told to get over it, happy up, or smile, reflecting the vacuous promises of the self-help movement whose promise cannot be sustained in the creation marred by corruption. Depression and suicide are prevalent, and why not? We are made to feel the crushing weight of hopelessness and inadequacy if we are not living up to the pretenses of youth, health, fulfillment, and happiness.

The church ought to be a refuge in times like these, but unfortunately, the people of God have in too many places forgotten the practice of lament. Some remain overly enraptured with the idol of positivity, mistaking Biblical exhortations to joy for the superficial happiness of the world. Most recognize the existence of suffering, pain, and brokenness in the world, but have not been equipped with the resources of lament. The modern songbook is of little use in this regard; precious few hymns give voice to grief or suffering, and they are easily drowned out by the emphasis on praise. Let none be deceived: praise is well, good, and necessary; praise is an important feature of the psalms. Yet more psalms feature lament than praise, and this is not even remotely true of the modern Christian hymnal repertoire. Prayers are often offered for those in various forms of distress, yet true lament over sin, suffering, and the like is also rarely found offered in the assemblies of the saints, and might be considered awkward or embarrassing to some. Not a few Christians have found themselves adrift, despondent and in distress, and do not where to go in order to find acknowledgement of their struggle and the means by which to find sustenance in God to endure and overcome them. Some such Christians fall away, spiritually dying of thirst in an ocean of positivity and praise.

Lament is awkward, uncomfortable, and unpleasant; by necessity it dwells upon our failings, our inadequacies, our shame, our sin, and our suffering, and/or that of others. Yet, just as in Christ we are made strong when we are weak, so in lament we are strengthened and encouraged when we confess our limitations and failures (cf. 2 Corinthians 12:9). In lament we speak the reality of sin, sickness, and suffering; we no longer have to hide in shame from these realities, pretend they do not exist, or anxiously presume they can only happen to other people. In lament we humbly depend upon God, for hope of real justice, grace, mercy, and redemption are in Him and nowhere else. In lament we identify the lies of our society and culture and liberate people from the need to continue to maintain the pretense that everything is great and fantastic all the time. In lament we give space for people to mourn, to grieve, and to come to grips with their faults and failings, all of which are necessary to overcome. Lament, therefore, identifies the “body in the room”: it confesses that a grievous thing has happened, and demands coming to terms with it. If people wish to pretend nothing really happened, or act as if there is no “body in the room,” the environment of their lives, their churches, or even their nations will become toxic, full of rot, and unsafe.

Lament, however, is not an end unto itself; if we grieve and mourn but have no hope, we are no different from the Gentiles. As demonstrated in the psalms of lament and in Lamentations, lament is empowered by a strong faith in God that He will heal, enact justice, and redeem. Lament is the means by which we bury the “body in the room” so that we can find health, wholeness, and healing. The disciples lamented Jesus’ death, but on the third day their lament turned to joy, for the Lord Jesus overcame death in His resurrection (Luke 24:1-53). The hope of resurrection sustains the Christian: yes, in this life we will have suffering, grief, and ultimately death; yet, in Christ, we will overcome sin and death, and share in the resurrection in which there will be no more mourning, pain, tears, or death (John 16:30-33, Philippians 3:20-21, Revelation 21:1-22:6). We lament injustice knowing that the God of justice will soon come and judge the living and the dead and make all things right (Acts 17:30-31). It is fitting, therefore, for all lament to end in declarations of faith and confidence in God. In the world there would be no hope; right would make right; suffering and evil are just the way things are. It is because we have confidence in God as our Creator, a God of love and justice, a God who allowed His Son to die for our sins and raised Him for our justification that we can lament over present illness, pain, sin, suffering, and death.

Lament is no one’s idea of a good time but proves critical to a healthy life in faith. The way to Zion is through Calvary; we will have to endure seasons of lament if we would obtain the resurrection of life. Yet lament is not the end; our ground of hope is in the resurrection of Jesus, confidence in His return and judgment, and eternity in the resurrection in joy. May we grow in faith in God in Christ and obtain that resurrection!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Lament appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Racism and Prejudice

Here in the early twenty-first century Western culture continues to grapple with its legacy of white supremacy. For generations people of European ancestry assumed and presumed superiority over the rest of the world: they believed their civilization and manner of life should become normative and considered any other lifestyle to be barbaric and savage, and they reckoned themselves as a “race,” be it “white,” “Aryan,” “Nordic,” “Anglo-Saxon,” etc., which proved biologically superior to the “races” of people found in Africa, the Americas, and Asia. Such a view of racial and social superiority justified and rationalized dehumanizing, unjust attitudes toward and treatment of those deemed to be racially and socially inferior.

Over the past seventy-five years such prejudicial attitudes on the basis of race have transformed greatly: whereas a good number of people proved very willing to explicitly manifest racism and white supremacy, most today consider such views abhorrent. At least in pretense, most Westerners have returned to what God had already made known in Jesus: everyone is equal in the sight of God, and no specific group of people is intrinsically superior to any other (cf. Romans 2:11, Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11).

Unfortunately, not a few people have therefore concluded that the challenges of white supremacy have been eliminated, as if racism has been “solved.” We wish it were so; however, just because blatant and obvious racism and white supremacy have been routed does not mean that the legacy of white supremacy no longer effects modern Westerners.

To this end the time has come to re-assess “prejudice,” “racism,” and “white supremacy.” Many people associate prejudice, racism, and white supremacy to a narrow and specifically defined group of “bad people”; to be called prejudiced, racist, or a white supremacist is reckoned as a terrible slur. Part of the challenge involves terminology and the need for alterations in our understanding of the terms; another part of the challenge confronts people of European ancestry with the long-term effects of the white supremacist system their ancestors developed and how the legacy of white supremacy affects people today as individuals and in society.

When white supremacy remained ascendant it made sense to those perpetuating the idea to define “racism” and “white supremacy” purely in individual terms: that which a person consciously, actively does and believes. A racist thus is one who would actively, consciously discriminate against others based upon perceived racial identity; a white supremacist would actively, consciously affirm that those deemed to be white people should be in charge of everything and people who do not fit the standard of whiteness ought to be left at some level of disadvantage.

Almost everyone will condemn such blatant racism and demonstrations of white supremacy. But are the only forms of racism and white supremacy that exist thus active, conscious, blatant, and individualist?

If we would listen to the testimony and witness of our brethren and friends of color, we would understand how racism and white supremacy are more deeply embedded in Western culture and society than we might want to believe. Racism and white supremacy are not merely personal matters; they are embedded in the makeup and policies of our cultural and societal institutions and organizations. Racism and white supremacy represent systemic challenges in the modern Western world.

The legacy of racism in the systems of the Western world can be difficult for those of European ancestry to perceive since those systems were built for their advantage. For them it is as a fish understanding they live in water: it is everywhere around them, and it is difficult to imagine life any differently. But to those for whom the system was built to hinder if not disadvantage the difficulties are very real. Unemployment rates are higher for Black people than for white people; studies have demonstrated that even when the resume is exactly the same, a name that might “sound Black” will be less likely to get a call for an interview than names which would seem more “white.” Black income and wealth also remains far lower than white income and wealth in the aggregate, and the wealth gap has only accelerated since the 1960s. Black people are more likely to have home loan applications rejected, and the rate of home ownership among Black people is lower than any other group in the nation. While many more Black people now participate in higher education than before, the rate is still lower than that of white people, and Black children tend to have fewer opportunities for educational enrichment than white children. Black people are extremely overrepresented in the prison population: a third of America’s prisoners are Black, but Black people only represent 12% of America’s population. On average a Black man is five times more likely than a white man to be incarcerated and more than twelve times more likely in their late teenage years. It is well known that Black people have a more difficult time obtaining access to quality healthcare; even when they find it, they often receive substandard care and endure worse outcomes than white people.

These disparities cannot be easily explained by appeals to personal animus on the part of a few “bad apples” that remain racist. Many see such things and shift the blame toward Black people on account of cultural or family factors. Even if we grant some level of personal responsibility in these matters the fact remains that a good number of Black people suffer great disadvantage because of the legacy of white supremacy, past and present. They suffer from the effects the racism built into the system under which we live and operate.

The New Testament warns us regarding the powers and principalities over this present darkness in Ephesians 6:12; therefore, as Christians, we have no basis upon which to deny the existence of evil and sin beyond the thoughts, feelings, and actions of individual humans as moral agents. In Western culture the powers that be built a racist system designed to provide advantages to at least some white people at the expense of many others. As Christians we do well to expose the works of darkness and evil and no longer participate in them (cf. Ephesians 5:11-14). We must recognize the prejudice in people and racism in systems and work diligently to uphold the value and integrity of each and every person in the sight of God.

Yet we must also humbly confess our difficulties and temptations (1 John 1:7-9). On account of the significant social stigma concerning prejudice and racism, many are tempted to treat them differently than many other sins. Almost everyone will admit to being tempted to lust, lie, gossip, and other such sins; yet many strongly deny they participate in any form of prejudice or racism because they do not want to see themselves, or have others see them, as such “backward, bad, bigoted” people. We understand and perhaps even identify with that temptation, but we must be careful lest it blind us to where we fall short. In truth everyone displays prejudice: by our very nature we categorize people into types and presume a given person fits a given stereotype until that paradigm is challenged. In terms of prejudice the goal is to become aware of our tendency to manifest such prejudice so that we learn to lightly hold what we assume and presume about people until we can get to know them (cf. Matthew 7:1-6). All of us were raised in and shaped by a culture and society featuring pervasive systemic racism: we have all participated in such a system, and various aspects of this racism and its legacy of white supremacy have informed our understanding of ourselves and others, regardless of our ancestry. The very fact that so many of us think that people “like us” are those who share the same skin color as we do is a testament to the power of systemic racism and the legacy of white supremacy, defining oneself primarily in terms of skin color over other forms of identity. And so we do well to admit that we have shared in this system and confess and lament how it works to the advantage of some to the harm of others. We should also be willing to advocate for those against whom the system works; as we have opportunity we should work to eliminate those hindrances and disadvantages so that all people can be benefited by the systems under which we live.

As Christians in Western society we will have prejudices; we have been influenced and shaped by a racist system to some degree or another. We should not pretend prejudice and racism are just other people’s problems; we should be actively considering how we display prejudice and work within a racist system and seek to find ways to overcome prejudice and resist the racism in the system. May we all work to glorify God in Christ in how we treat one another, and obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

Works Consulted

26 Charts That Show How Systemic Racism Works in America, (accessed 11/01/2020).

The post Racism and Prejudice appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Anti-Denominational Gospel

The Apostles proclaimed the Gospel in its purity and simplicity. Soon after the forces of deceit and error wrought havoc in the world, resulting in the development of different doctrines and groups and thus the world of denominationalism. It is now for us to meet the forces of denomination in the spiritual battleground and resist them at every opportunity in every possible capacity.

Thus we might characterize the “anti-denominational” gospel. The anti-denominational gospel would not intrinsically deny anything God has made known in Christ yet places its emphasis on the doctrinal disagreements with those in greater Christendom. The anti-denominational gospel is understandable as a product of the Western world from around 1650 until 2000 in which society and culture at least nominally Christian, even though Christendom was divided into various denominational groupings. In such an environment many of the principles of the faith, especially in terms of daily practice, were agreed upon and not in dispute; thus emphasis was placed on those points of disagreement, particularly in matters of doctrine and church organization. As many began to recognize the importance of following Jesus as established in the pages of Scripture without reference to loyalty to a particular denomination or sect, the call to come out from the denominations was advanced. Those who maintained loyalty to denominational organizations and doctrines resisted the restoration plea, and the lines of dispute became hardened. Ever since the temptation of the anti-denominational gospel remains: to maintain a primarily polemic posture toward the Scriptures and those in the world who profess Jesus, and to understand everything in terms of what various denominations advance or teach.

Whenever and wherever the truth of what God has accomplished in Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return has been preached, the forces of deceit and error have arisen to contradict and resist it. When Jesus made it known that Gentiles could receive the Gospel and remain Gentiles, zealous Jewish Christians insisted such would still need to submit to circumcision and the Law of Moses (cf. Acts 15:1-29, Galatians 1:1-5:16). As the Gospel spread throughout the Roman world, others enamored with Greek philosophy denied Jesus’ bodily existence (cf. 1 John 4:1-10, 2 John 1:6-10). Paul, Peter, and Jude all warned Christians regarding the influence of the doctrines of demons and false teachers who would seek to lead the faithful astray (cf. 1 Timothy 4:1-4, 6:3-10, 2 Timothy 4:1-5, 2 Peter 2:1-20, Jude 1:1-23). Faithful Christians for generations have confessed the mystery of what God has done in Christ and the tensions which arise from a multi-dimensional, divinely ordained faith; in polemic argument there remains strong temptation to flatten out these truths, run to extremes, and seek to argue against an opponent more than to uphold the truth of God in Christ. Thus the story of Christendom has sadly become one of rancorous disputation and sectarianism, completely contrary to God’s eternal purpose for the church to embody perichoretic relational unity with God and among the people of God (John 17:20-23, Ephesians 3:10-11).

Christians ought not embody sectarianism yet ought to work together to uphold the truth of what God has done in Christ, since that truth is the foundation upon which all else rests (Ephesians 2:20-22, 4:1-4, 1 Timothy 3:15-17). Christians will therefore be called upon to resist the doctrines of demons and all that is false, correcting with patience those who are in error (1 Timothy 4:1-4, 2 Timothy 2:14-26). While Christians must resist error to affirm the Gospel of Jesus Christ, such does not mean Christians ought to endorse the anti-denominational gospel.

The anti-denominational gospel poses many challenges for the Christian, not least of which involves its framing. There is no such thing as “denominational Christianity,” nor are there truly any “denominationalists”: no one would identify themselves as such. There remain many historic denominations of Christianity, a vestige of how Christendom ordered and reckoned itself for a few centuries between the Protestant Reformation and the modern day, but such a framework is woefully inadequate to describe the present condition of Christendom. Many people attend a given church without having much awareness of the particular doctrines or heritage of that denomination; for that matter, many individual churches have come to disagree with their denominational organization or its heritage. Such presumes participation in a congregation which maintains some kind of denominational affiliation: the twenty-first century has seen an explosion of “nondenominational” churches as a result of skepticism toward inherited authority and historic institutions and the advancement of Christian ecumenism. For many who profess Jesus doctrinal disputations seem functionally irrelevant; they find repulsive those who continually berate and denounce doctrinal opponents. We do better to get to understand what people believe as individuals, establish the point of agreement, point to the truth of what God has done in Christ, and from there explain how we are to work together to glorify God.

Furthermore, what makes a given doctrine or practice “denominational”? Effective arguments can be made with historical support to demonstrate how over time certain ideas developed that were contrary to what God has made known in Christ and then enshrined as dogma in many of the denominations of Christendom. According to the anti-denominational gospel, whatever is believed or practiced by those in denominations is thus rendered suspect. The problem with such doctrines or practices is not that denominations practice them; the problem is that God did not authorize them or commend them in Christ. Nothing is intrinsically right or wrong because of what various denominations believe and practice (or do not believe or practice); what is right or wrong is based in what God has made known in Jesus (Colossians 2:1-11). After all, every true doctrine and practice in the faith is believed and/or practiced by some denomination in Christendom; one could thus call almost any doctrine “denominational” by that standard. Preaching featuring the bulk of the concern of the Apostles in the first century, explanations of what God has done in Christ and exhortations toward faithful living, are maligned in the anti-denominational gospel as too “soft” and “something which could be preached in a denominational church,” as if a more universal applicability of the message somehow diminishes its importance or value. Far too often “denominational” becomes a catch-all boogeyman used not only to identify false doctrines but also cast aspersions on anything which might cause discomfort or seems different from what might have been originally heard and believed.

In resisting error Christians must make sure they uphold the Gospel of Jesus Christ and do not fall prey to anti-denominationalism. It is one thing to handle the truth rightly, compare the truth to various other doctrines, and to explain the truth in terms of what God has made known in Christ (2 Timothy 2:14-26); it is quite another to consider the truth as that which stands against the doctrines of denominations. We can benefit from looking at what the Scriptures teach with an apologetic/polemic lens but will invariably distort the truth of God in Christ if we look at the Scriptures only in terms of how to argue against those in opposition. Many times well-intended disciples of Jesus back themselves into an error or heresy in their attempt to resist and stand against an opposing error or heresy. The opposite of an error is most likely another error; we will not find the truth if all we are doing is reacting to a teaching or practice that is not consistent with what God has made known in Jesus. We must prove more circumspect in regards to the truth, perceiving a greater danger in the areas regarding which we may prove more ignorant or unaware than the manifest, evident danger which may present itself before us.

Jesus declared that we will know the faithful from the false by their fruits (cf. Matthew 7:15-20). The anti-denominational gospel bears diseased fruit because it places the emphasis of faith in the wrong place. Those who make anti-denominationalism the emphasis can easily become the anti-denominational denomination, a partisan sect not unlike those “of Christ” in Corinth (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:12). The standard of judgment is misplaced: the Gospel is not about how right “we” are versus how wrong “they” have become, but that all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory, that all are corrupted in mind, body, and soul, and standing before God can only come through faith in God in Christ (Romans 3:20-28, 5:12-21). The Gospel of Jesus Christ will always resist false doctrines and prophets, including sectarians whose posture remains too ensconced in anti-denominationalism; the message of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, and imminent return will continue to convict those who will hear it regarding their own errors, sins, and difficulties, and will exhort them above all things toward faithfulness to the Christ who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6, Hebrews 4:12). May we resist the anti-denominational gospel and hold to the apostolic message of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return, and abide within God in Christ for all eternity!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Anti-Denominational Gospel appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Political Transcendentalism

It is said that the two subjects people should avoid in polite conversation are religion and politics. Within Christianity there is often an understandable desire to transcend the politics of the day: politics, by the very nature of the craft, involves compromise and gets very dirty in deal making; furthermore, no political platform fully embodies God’s purposes in Christ, and politicians invariably fall short of upholding what God would have upheld in Christ in every respect.

Political transcendentalism thus involves the intention to get beyond or rise above the political fray. The reasoning behind politically transcendent postures varies considerably. Some strive for political transcendence from a “pox on all your houses” posture, frustrated by the partisan climate and the ugliness of the world of political compromise and thus yearning for a more ideal or “pure” form of politics. Others focus on the portrayal of the nation-state as the beast in Revelation 13:1-18 as inspired by Daniel 7:1-12: they strive for political transcendentalism based on a firm commitment to the lordship of Jesus the Christ in His Kingdom and presume the relationship with the nation-state must always be adversarial. Still others challenge the presumption of the efficacy of political processes and behaviors, viewing it all as vanity and a striving after wind; the lack of faith in politics leads such people to political transcendentalism.

We can sympathize with many or even all of these impulses toward political transcendentalism. Politics remains a dirty business, awash in money and rife with special interests; one rightly wonders if any among the people of God could participate in politics at a high level and maintain their faithfulness before God. The political process almost universally disappoints: even if a group of people get what they want, at what cost was it obtained, and for how long will it last before the laws are changed again? John does envision powerful nation-states in terms of beasts, and the illustration “works” because the same tendencies toward arrogance and oppression manifest in Babylon could be seen in Rome and has been visible ever since in every nation-state that has aspired to be like Rome. Even the United States can become an adversary to the Kingdom of God in Christ when it upholds injustice and oppression and co-opts many images of the faith to rationalize and support itself. Furthermore, that which politicians give, politicians can take away: politics is one of those things in the world that proves to be vain and a striving after wind, generating a lot of interest, making some people a lot of money, and all to what end? Brother tears brother apart; political parties and processes will never be satisfied. We can therefore fully understand the desire to dispense with all of it, flee from such a “Babylon,” and declare ourselves above it all, renouncing various forms of political participation.

Jesus expects Christians to respect earthly authorities, to pay their taxes, and to pray for all people, especially those in authority, so Christians can persevere in a quiet and peaceful life with all dignity (Romans 13:1-7, 1 Timothy 2:1-3, 1 Peter 2:11-18). Nowhere does Christ command the Christian to vote or to dedicate or devote themselves to politics and political processes. Therefore, a Christian can renounce many aspects of political participation and still glorify and honor God.

Nevertheless, political transcendentalism in all of its motivations presents many dangers for Christians. While John indeed presents Rome in terms of the beast and Babylon the whore (cf. Revelation 13:1-18:24), Paul set forth how God expected earthly authorities, including Roman authorities, to uphold what was good and punish what was wrong (Romans 13:1-4); he would make appeal to Roman authorities to uphold such justice and entrusted himself to their care (cf. Acts 21:27-28:20). As Christians we must expect to have an adversarial relationship with the nation-state at times on account of our primary loyalty to the ways of Jesus in His Kingdom (cf. John 16:32-33, Acts 5:29); nevertheless, we have no ground upon which to assume the relationship will be purely adversarial. We may be exiles and sojourners for the Kingdom according to 1 Peter 1:17, 2:11-12, but we also do well to seek the welfare of the place in which we find ourselves thus “exiled” (cf. Jeremiah 29:1-9, Matthew 5:33-48, Romans 12:14-21). We must go about doing good for those around us, and to visit widows and orphans in their distress (Galatians 6:10, James 1:27): at some point in seeking to do good for people we will recognize the systemic nature of many of the challenges of the poor and afflicted, and systemic challenges require systemic solutions, demanding some level of political advocacy. It is hard to imagine Christians as hungering and thirsting for righteousness and justice without ever attempting to exhort authorities to uphold what is good and punish what is evil wherever that good or evil might be found (Matthew 5:6): such exhortation is “moral” and “spiritual” but also, by necessity, is “political,” even if not partisan. We have good reason to despair regarding the permanence or perfection of political change, but have we fully grappled with how it was the coercive force of the nation-state along with the powerful stand in faith and conviction by civil rights advocates that transformed attitudes regarding white supremacy and the social standing of black people in the middle of the twentieth century, even though such a message was in the Gospel the whole time and neglected by many?

Yet the greatest danger in political transcendentalism is the presumption of transcendence. Can we truly transcend the world of the political? Even if we renounce participation in politics, we are likely to have views and opinions regarding how the state and its people ought to function. For generations Christians have been tempted to see themselves as greater or better than others based on what they have learned in God in Christ; one can imagine the prayer, “Lord, thank you that I am not like these wretched political partisans; I understand the Kingdom cannot come by means of these, and I keep myself away from such compromises of your purposes” (cf. Luke 18:9-14). We cannot imagine God is glorified in such arrogance; we must remember that we are no better or more or less transcendent than anyone else (Romans 3:23). In Western cultures transcendence tends to have a Gnostic tinge: a yearning for the pure ideal and rejection of what is real in disillusion and despair. We must remember Jesus came into the world, took on flesh, and dwelt among us in our filth and messiness, and loved and cared for us in that condition (cf. John 1:1, 14, Philippians 2:5-11); we must strive to remain unstained from the world but cannot presume to be aloof from those in the world who suffer and are in need. Furthermore, a posture of political transcendence is made easier by privilege: it is not hard to presume to be above the fray when the system generally works to your advantage, and your life is not significantly affected whether one group or another has power. It is quite another when one’s integrity or matters of life or death is at stake. Even if we find ourselves with advantage in society, perhaps we should leverage our advantage to benefit others, and thus to participate politically to some degree to assist others even if it does not likewise benefit us?

Political participation can all too easily devolve into partisan factionalism and/or idolatry; we do well to consider the critique of political transcendentalism regarding participation in the political realm. And yet the posture of political transcendentalism ought to be critiqued itself in light of what God has accomplished in Jesus. Political participation should not be everything, nor should it infringe upon the work of God in Christ; nevertheless, there ought to be a place for Christians to bring the lordship of Jesus to bear on the matters that relate to the city, the state, and the people, and to embody Jesus in their political discourse and posture to a lost and dying world. May we glorify God in Christ in all things so as to obtain the resurrection of life in His Kingdom!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Political Transcendentalism appeared first on de Verbo vitae.