Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 27

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.

Works of the Flesh: “Things Like These”

Having warned them regarding the danger of apostasy in committing themselves to the Law of Moses (cf. Galatians 1:1-5:16), the Apostle Paul reminded the Galatian Christians regarding the conflict between the desires of the flesh and the ways of God in the Spirit, and exhorted the Galatian Christians to manifest the fruit of the Spirit and resist the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:17-24). These “works of the flesh” are delineated in Galatians 5:19-21:

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Many of the first “works of the flesh” centered on challenges and temptations which would prove especially acute for Christians who had recently come out of the Greco-Roman pagan milieu: sexual temptations like sexually deviant behavior, uncleanness, and lasciviousness; idolatry; and sorcery. Paul then established the “works of the flesh” which prove especially pernicious in relationships: enmities, strife, jealousy, wrath, rivalries, divisions, sects, and envy. Paul concluded the list of specific “works of the flesh” with sins of excess: drunkenness and carousing.

But what about behaviors not listed here? Did Paul intend to give an exhaustive overview of all that could be deemed the “works of the flesh”? By no means! He concluded his discussion of the works of the flesh by also condemning “the things like these,” and reiterated how those who do such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God (Galatians 5:21).

Paul might well be using a common rhetorical device akin to our use of “et cetera.” Paul would mention other sinful behaviors in other passages not listed explicitly among the “works of the flesh” in Galatians 5:22-24. These would include murder (not found in Galatians 5:19-21 in the best manuscripts), covetousness, theft, deceit, lying, gossip, slander, and foolish talk (Romans 1:28-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Ephesians 5:3-8, Colossians 3:5-9). In condemning these behaviors Paul frequently used the same type of contrast between the ways of our holy God above from the ways of the corrupt world below; thus we should understand such things as much as “works of the flesh” as those explicitly identified in Galatians 5:19-21.

Thus Paul at least intended for the Galatian Christians to understand “things like these” to refer to other behaviors clearly identified as sinful. Yet the phrasing of the term itself also suggests Paul wished for the Galatian Christians to recognize how many behaviors might be akin to a “work of the flesh” even if not explicitly identified as such. A major such example involves sexual transgressions: in Galatians 5:19-21 Paul condemned sexually deviant behavior, uncleanness, and lasciviousness, whereas in other passages specific forms of these behaviors are condemned, like same sex sexual relations and adultery (e.g. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). The Galatian Christians were expected to understand how these behaviors were “things like” sexually deviant behavior since they fit by definition. Covetousness is explicitly condemned on its own but is also equated to idolatry in Ephesians 5:3, Colossians 3:5: thus Paul would have the Galatian Christians understand how covetousness is a “thing like” idolatry.

This principle extends beyond that which is explicitly condemned in Scripture to the chagrin of many. What God has made known regarding righteousness and sin inverts man’s desires and expectations. Man would like a comprehensive list of what not to do and to assume that whatever is not condemned is approved and righteous. In truth, in Scripture God has equipped those who would follow Him with every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17); Paul confessed that whatever is not of faith is sin, not whatever is of sin is faith (Romans 14:23). The Christian’s confidence lay in God’s revelation of Himself, His character, and His righteousness in Jesus who lived, died, was raised in power, ascended, is lord, and will return soon (2 Corinthians 5:7, Hebrews 11:1); thus, we may know what is right, good, and holy, for it is seen in what God accomplished in Jesus, and we should do likewise (Romans 12:1-2).

To this end we can understand why the “fruit of the Spirit” is a fully defined list of characteristics but the “works of the flesh” are left open (Galatians 5:17-24): righteousness is fully embodied in Jesus, but the human heart is very deceitful, inventing evil, looking for ways to justify and rationalize the desires of the flesh and heart (Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 1:30, 1 John 2:15-17).

Thus, it is not enough to say, “well, God never said not to,” or, “God nowhere explicitly condemns this or that.” Paul recognized how people would be easily tempted to “repackage” some sin or another in a different guise and think it justifiable; thus, not only are the explicit things mentioned in the “works of the flesh” condemned, but also anything similar to them.

To this end Paul called upon the Galatian Christians, and Christians in general, to exercise discernment to understand whether a behavior is a “thing like” the works of the flesh or manifests the fruit of the Spirit. Such discernment must be exercised according to faith in God lest the Christian seek to rationalize their fleshly desires with a righteous veneer and entirely resist the point of Galatians 5:17-24, to crucify the flesh and its desires.

To this end we must first consider the evidence at hand. Did God speak regarding the behavior under consideration? Does it manifestly violate any specific command God has given? Does the behavior run afoul of consistent Biblical principles? If we feel the answers to these questions are ambiguous or allow for justification, we can then consider the profitability of the behavior (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:23). Will this practice commend me before God? What spiritual benefit would it provide? What fruit of the Spirit would it manifest? In short, we are wondering: is this behavior the kind of thing in which we would expect Jesus our Lord and Master to participate?

Many behaviors prevalent in modern society fall under condemnation in this way. Elective abortion may not be explicitly condemned in Scripture, but it is more a thing like murder than anything commended by God in Christ, and thus falls under the same condemnation. Pornography is a thing like uncleanness and lasciviousness. Many think of gambling as harmless fun, yet the entire premise of gambling is covetousness, a thing like idolatry. Recreational drug use would fall under the purview of pharmakeia; those who practiced sorcery also made potions, and many a recreational drug user lives as under a spell.

Paul has listed many ungodly and immoral behaviors as “works of the flesh” in Galatians 5:19-21; those who do such things without repentance will not inherit the Kingdom of God. We must never fall into the legalistic trap of assuming that only that which is explicitly condemned is wrong: Paul’s list of the “works of the flesh” is not exhaustive, nor was it designed to be; humans invent all kinds of new and innovative ways to transgress the purposes of God in Christ. Thus we must understand the “works of the flesh” as representative, and we should not only avoid those specific behaviors, but also anything which is akin to them. We must use our discernment to put all things to the test according to the faith; we ought to live by faith, trusting in the Lord, and doing all things with full conviction of their authority and righteousness based on what God has revealed in Christ according to the Scriptures. May we manifest the fruit of the Spirit, avoid the works of the flesh, and glorify God in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Works of the Flesh: “Things Like These” appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The “Distinctives” Gospel

There was a time within living memory when things were different. Gospel meetings would extend for weeks on end. Preachers would stand firm for the distinctive doctrines of churches of Christ, powerfully denouncing the errors of Christendom and exhorting people to return to the ancient landmarks. These men fortified the faithful with strong preaching highlighting these themes and the church grew and grew. The church now finds itself struggling to grow because preachers have become soft and no longer strongly emphasize these distinctive doctrines. If preachers would only re-affirm the importance of emphasizing the distinctiveness of the church of Christ, then churches of Christ would grow again.

Such is the view of what can be deemed the “distinctives” gospel. The “distinctives” gospel is so named on account of its emphasis on the distinctive doctrines of churches of Christ, including, but not limited to, immersion in water for the forgiveness of sins, weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper, congregational singing and the lack of instrumental music, the nature and work of the church, and all to highlight the uniqueness of churches of Christ. According to the “distinctives” gospel, the church must hear constant preaching and exhortation on these matters in order to continue to affirm and uphold the “ancient paths,” and in preaching these things frequently many will be converted. In this view “strong” or “hard” preaching focuses on these distinctive doctrines; “weak” or “soft” preaching is what might focus on other matters, for one might hear a similar message in denominational churches. Many adherents of the “distinctives” gospel” look to the 1950s or beforehand with nostalgia and to support their premise that preaching on the “distinctives” is what allowed the church then to grow.

As Christians we always do well to keep Ecclesiastes 7:10 in mind regarding nostalgia: the “former times” were not as great as imagined, and this is true of the 1950s as well. It is true the church grew well at that time; various Christian denominations also grew numerically at the time, which complicates any narrative suggesting such growth was entirely due to “preaching the distinctives.”

Let none be deceived: doctrinal and practical matters that prove distinctive among us ought to be preached and taught upon and practiced. The difficulty with the “distinctives” gospel is not in whether we should uphold the distinctive doctrines or not but upon the supreme emphasis on the “distinctives.”

A charitable reading of the “distinctives” gospel would suggest that much is taken for granted. It is not as if those who would assert the “distinctives” gospel would deny Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return, or of anything established in the New Testament; instead, the “distinctives” gospel takes all of these things for granted. The “distinctives” gospel hearkens to a time where people felt reasonably confident that the vast majority of people with whom they would interact agreed that God existed, Jesus was Lord, and upon the general contours of Christian faith and practice, and thus could then focus specifically on the points of disagreement manifest in the “distinctives.” According to this perspective most people already were practicing some form or variant of Christianity, and thus the primary focus should be upon those points of disagreement in order to emphasize the distinctiveness of the church and thus as a call for people to leave their denominational affiliations and doctrines and uphold the nature and work of the church as set forth in the New Testament.

Even if one could have maintained the pretense of living in such a world before, we cannot any longer. A growing percentage of people in America have no background, heritage, or understanding of the Bible and the Christian faith. Even those who have spent time participating in various denominational and non-denominational churches often have poor understanding of what God has accomplished in Jesus and what it means. We cannot take it for granted that people already are on board with the basics of Christian faith and practice; in such an environment, to focus on the “distinctives” will lead to blank stares and visible confusion.

Emphasis on the “distinctives” can cause its own problems even among the Lord’s people. It proves too easy to take for granted that people understand the fundamental message of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return, and the basics of Christian faith and practice; this leads many to understand the “distinctives” better than they do the core principles of the Christian faith itself. Far too often the “distinctives” are preached and taught without regard to their connection and association with the core concepts of Christian faith and practice. It can become all too easy to view every interaction and even every Biblical text in light of the “distinctives,” conflating the Biblical context with the presumed challenge of the present moment. Furthermore, the association between the “distinctives” and “strong” or “hard” preaching proves toxic: it becomes too easy for Christians to believe themselves justified because they uphold these distinctive doctrines, and base their view of their salvation upon their participation in churches of Christ and their manifestation of the “distinctives.” Preaching that reinforces the sanctimony of the audience is the opposite of “hard” or “strong”; such terms are reserved for preaching the things which prick the consciences of the audience and offends their sensibilities (cf. 2 Timothy 4:1-5).

The “distinctives” are not the Gospel; the “distinctives” flow as consequences of the Gospel, not because they are distinctive, but because they represent what God intends to accomplish through Jesus in His Kingdom. We do well to note how Peter and Paul would continually anchor all they preached and taught in what God accomplished in Jesus, and we should follow in their footsteps. Not one of the distinctive doctrines is true because they are distinctive of churches of Christ; they are true because they are what the Gospel of Christ demands in terms of various aspects of Christian faith and practice. Any doctrine which cannot be thus rooted in what God has made known in Jesus ought to be discarded.

We do well to consider the “distinctives” in terms of salt. Salt, after all, is a flavoring that provides distinction in many dishes. We use salt to flavor food that would otherwise be bland and unpalatable. Nevertheless, if we use too much salt, food becomes intolerable; we cannot stomach it. And so it goes with the distinctive doctrines of the faith: if we never speak of them and do not practice them, our faith will become generic and bland; indeed, at that point, people could participate in all sorts of “churches” and get the same effect. But if all we ever do is talk about distinctive doctrines, our preaching and teaching becomes intolerable: we might generate resistance to those “distinctives” because of the overemphasis, people begin to justify themselves on the basis of the “distinctives,” and those who would follow Jesus are not properly trained in the full message of what God has accomplished in Jesus. Just as salt is to be used judiciously in order to provide flavor without overwhelming the senses, so it ought to be with the “distinctives”: they should be continually practiced, discussed so that all may understand why we do what we do as we do it, exhorted as part of the call to follow Jesus as God has established in the New Testament, but not as overwhelming the overall message of Jesus as the Christ.

The Gospel is not centered in the distinctive doctrines of churches of Christ; the Gospel is Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return, and all the truths of Christian faith and practice flow from this Gospel message. The “distinctives” are true inasmuch as they are rooted in the greater message of what God has accomplished in Jesus; they should be practiced and preached judiciously, and understood to be part of a greater whole. Those who will be saved are converted by the Gospel of Christ in its fullness, not merely in particular distinctive doctrines. May we proclaim Jesus the Lord and Christ in word and deed and obtain eternal life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The “Distinctives” Gospel appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Pandemics and the Christian Faith

The situation was already a crisis: dangers abroad, a corrupt and weak administration within. The whole state looked ready to topple. And then a pandemic arose on top of it. It was a miracle the state endured.

Does this sound like America in 2020 with COVID-19? It is a description of the Roman Empire in the middle of the third century CE, and the pandemic then, the Plague of Cyprian, was devastating, killing untold thousands. The Plague of Cyprian is now thought to be related to the Ebola virus. Three hundred years later a pandemic of bubonic plague affected the Western world and most likely led to the death of a third to a half of the population, leading to the final end of any hope of centralized Roman authority and inaugurated the Middle Ages. Both of these pandemics can be reasonably understood as judgments of God against the Roman world, a part of the realization of what God prophesied in Revelation.

It would not end there; bubonic plague would afflict Europe for another three hundred years and then again in the famous Black Death of 1348-1349. In terms of sheer numbers, however, no pandemic compares with the H1N1 “Spanish flu” global pandemic of 1918-1920; 500 million were likely infected, and probably around 100 million died.

COVID-19 has caused great disruption for the world economy and grief for the many families who have lost loved ones or who continue to suffer complications from the infection. It is natural and expected for many Christians to wonder what is going on with the COVID-19 pandemic as it relates to their faith: how could God allow for such a thing to take place? Is this some kind of judgment from God? How do we practice the faith in the midst of a pandemic?

As we can tell, pandemics are not a new phenomenon; Christians have been called upon time and again to endure and persevere through waves of pandemic infections. All of the pandemics described above have taken place since Jesus was made Lord and Christ; they wrought profound devastation and loss on many societies and cultures, and for them it certainly felt like the end of the world. In many respects the pandemics did end their worlds.

To this end Christians should be wary about declaring any given pandemic to be a judgment of God against a particular group of people for a specific reason. It was predicted that many disasters would come and go, but it would not be the end (cf. Matthew 24:6-7), and so it has been over and over again. It is certainly possible that God renders judgment through a pandemic, but it would not be for us to understand exactly how and to what end without some kind of direct, specific revelation we have no right to expect between now and the day the Lord returns. We should not assume that COVID-19 will mean the end of the world; COVID-19 might, however, be part of the end of our particular world, the way in which we formerly used to live.

Nevertheless, pandemics, like many other kinds of traumatic experiences, can be “apocalypses,” a revelation or unveiling of the hearts and minds of many. In previous pandemics many hearkened back to God and displayed love toward their fellow man; many others turned away and the ugliness of their hearts and minds were revealed. And so it has been with COVID-19: we have seen the best of humanity and the worst of humanity, both in the world at large and closer to home with family, friends, and associates.

Christians, therefore, have often lived through and endured pandemics. Some have experienced crises of faith because of pandemics; others have come to faith or modeled the faith well in the midst of pandemics. The “Plague of Cyprian” is so named because Cyprian, an early Christian, wrote about it, and testified to how Christians risked their lives to minister and serve those who were ill when many others had long fled the cities and towns of the Roman Empire. Martin Luther lived through a bout of plague; he commended those who served in risky situations, but also recognized the value of displaying love by not rashly exposing people to illness (Whether One May Flee From a Deadly Plague).

Christians do well to look to what God has made known in Jesus for comfort and strength in the days of the COVID-19 pandemic (Romans 15:4). Christians understand the importance of spending time together encouraging one another in the faith (Hebrews 10:25); the pandemic should be ample reason for Christians to consider one another and check in with one another frequently (Romans 12:9-10, 13). If assemblies can be held in such a way as to meet civil standards and maintain appropriate social distance, well and good; if the only way to do so is to meet virtually, we do well to remember that the assembly was made for man, not man for the assembly, and to do the best we can in the sight of and reverence for God (cf. Mark 2:23-28). We ought to pray for God to strengthen, sustain, and heal many; our hope and confidence is in Jesus’ lordship and resurrection, and this is an excellent time to bear witness to the great hope we share in Jesus. Others are grasping for such hope and confidence, and they ought to find in us effective models of Christian faith and charity.

We hope and pray an effective vaccine for COVID-19 will be developed and distributed widely so to bring an end to this pandemic. We hope to be able to resume some semblance of “normal life” in the near future. Yet we should not quickly forget the lessons of COVID-19. We have seen the way people are, and we should not soon forget it. We should remember that everything we take for granted as “normal” can be entirely upset very quickly and all the technology we have developed may not be able to save us. In all things we ought to grow in our faith in God in Christ so we might obtain eternal life in the resurrection in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

Photo By NIAID, CC BY 2.0, Link

The post Pandemics and the Christian Faith appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Political Moderation

It is said that the two subjects which ought to be avoided 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 thus 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. And then there is the fourth type of posture which would presume to represent the political and philosophical center: the moderate.

Political moderation does not represent a political philosophy per se as much as presuming to referee primarily between the progressive and conservative coalitions. In this sense the political moderates wield significant amounts of political clout and power: rarely do the progressive or conservative coalitions maintain sufficient numbers to advance their agendas, and so the support of the political moderates proves crucial for either side to govern and implement policy. If the status quo is tolerable, the moderates generally align with the political conservatives; if the status quo becomes intolerable, the moderates then generally shift toward the political progressives. Thus we generally see political policy and preferences orient around the political center.

There is much to commend political moderation. Neither the political progressives nor the political conservatives maintain a monopoly on truth or healthy public policy; the republic suffers if either group obtains significant political power over a long period of time. Society does need to make a lot of changes as desired by the political progressives and yet also ought to maintain its culture and traditions in many respects as desired by the political conservatives; it thus falls to the political moderates in the middle to adjudicate what ought to be changed and what ought to be retained by empowering each coalition in turn. The lack of a coherent political philosophy beyond a broad commitment to philosophical liberty is thus recognized as a feature, not a bug: the political moderate can believe he or she is not beholden to a particular philosophy or school of thought and thus can reflect greater independence in thought. A true political moderate will be less tempted toward partisanship and should be more clear-eyed about the limitations and difficulties inherent in the ideologies of political progressivism and conservatism.

Political moderation therefore can certainly be a virtue, able and willing to support what is good and commendable about political progressivism and conservatism while avoiding their faults. But political moderation is not inherently virtuous. It is tempting to believe the best way forward on any given policy matter is a centrist, middle way, but the truth and morality of a matter is not always found in the center. Far too often the standard for the political moderate is a status quo which preserves the economic and societal advantages of political moderates, and this is often accepted uncritically and believed to be what would be best for the greatest number of people.

Considering these things can prove challenging because of current standards of critique. Both political progressives and conservatives frequently come under criticism from political moderates and from each other; one can even find some self-criticism within political progressivism and conservatism. Political moderation, however, is not subjected to as much critique and manifests even less self-critique. The virtue of political moderation is taken as self-evident; political moderates often see themselves as those empowered to critique those to their “left” and to their “right” and rarely imagine that they themselves should come under critique.

To this end political moderates should all the more consider Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail. In it King lamented the lukewarm acceptance black people received from the political moderates of his day. They expressed some concern about the plight of black people but wanted to disrupt the status quo as little as possible. They found the protests, marches, and civil disobedience of civil rights agitators to go beyond what made good sense. And yet, as King related, those with privilege do not relinquish their privilege easily; justice and the removal of oppression must be demanded. The work of calling out and eliminating injustice and oppression has always required uncomfortable agitation and disruption of the status quo and thus will easily cause discomfort among political moderates: this was seen in the work of political progressives with the rights of laborers, children, women, and people of color, and in the work of political conservatives with abortion. Thus, time and time again in American history the politically moderate position did not lead the country in matters of justice and righteousness; instead, political moderates proved more willing to justify and rationalize evil, injustice, and oppression because of the unpalatable political consequences of upholding what was right and just. What passes for political moderation does not always align with God’s concerns for righteousness and the cause of justice.

Christians can glorify God while maintaining a politically moderate stance in American politics. Yet Christians must never assume that whatever passes for the politically moderate stance is that which glorifies God. Political moderates provide important balance among the political progressives and conservatives; they help define what kind of changes, or lack thereof, will be manifest in society. Such provides all the more reason for Christians who maintain politically moderate positions to prove just as critical of their own posture as they would those to their “left” and to their “right” and seek to perceive how they help to reinforce and support the powers that be which work actively to oppress and harm some to reinforce the advantage of others. Political moderates do well to remember how the kind of life which glorifies God in His Kingdom will always be seen as radical and threatening to many across the political spectrum; to participate in creative nonviolent resistance against the powers and principalities will require fortitude, conviction, and confidence in God and will subvert the status quo (cf. Matthew 5:38-42). May we all seek to glorify God, centering our political philosophy and posture in Christ, and maintain life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Political Moderation appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Works of the Flesh: Carousing

The Apostle Paul reminded the Galatian Christians regarding the conflict between the desires of the flesh and the ways of God in the Spirit, and exhorted the Galatian Christians to manifest the fruit of the Spirit and resist the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-24). These “works of the flesh” are delineated in Galatians 5:19-21:

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Many of the first “works of the flesh” centered on challenges and temptations which would prove especially acute for Christians who had recently come out of the Greco-Roman pagan milieu: sexual temptations like sexually deviant behavior, uncleanness, and lasciviousness; idolatry; and sorcery. Paul then established the “works of the flesh” which prove especially pernicious in relationships: enmities, strife, jealousy, wrath, rivalries, divisions, sects, and envy. Paul concluded the “works of the flesh” with sins of excess: drunkenness and carousing.

The Greek word translated as revellings, orgies, or carousing is the Greek word komos, defined by Thayer as:

a revel, carousal; a nocturnal and riotous procession of half drunken and frolicsome fellows who after supper parade through the streets with torches and music in honour of Bacchus or some other deity, and sing and play before houses of male and female friends; hence used generally of feasts and drinking parties that are protracted till late at night and indulge in revelry.

The komos was a particular and specific kind of Greek “observance” of which we know only a little based on what is attested in paintings on vases and in glimpses in Greek literature. The most famous komos is only known from its aftereffects: Alcibiades crashes the Symposium narrated by Plato after he participated in a komos. The komos certainly involved drunkenness; those participating in it, the komoi, would also engage in a kind of procession in the town in an immodest and indecent way. Weddings seemed to feature a komos, as would certain city festivals. Masks seem to be worn for at least some observances of the komos; there might well have been competitive speeches or songs involved. The Greek term for comedy, komoidia, quite likely derives from the word komos and ode, song: it is not hard to imagine the mirth and vulgarity of drunken song leading to what would become the tropes of what is now deemed comedy.

We thus can understand why both Paul and Peter will condemn the komos as a behavior of the Gentiles (using the term with its pejorative connotation), the rites of the darkness which are not suitable for Christians who live and walk as if it is daytime (Romans 13:13, 1 Peter 4:3-4).

Many cultures have a komos-type ritual, or at least provide some opportunity for its members to participate in a similar form of revelry and carousing. What Paul and Peter condemn in the Greek komos is easily found in eerily similar modern contexts: the drunken wedding party, the drunken feasts celebrating an important day for a given nation or people, the orgy of revelry and even violent destruction of property when a city’s sports team wins a championship (or, in some instances, loses one). The spirit of revelry can often be found in a bar or tavern. Not a few songs have been composed in a drunken haze among friends; what passes for comedy continues to rely on the vulgar tropes of what was likely discussed among the komoi in the ancient Greek world.

Perhaps the fullest modern embodiment of the komos is the stereotypical college frat party. Excessive amounts of alcohol are drunk; hazing rituals often feature stupid behaviors harming the one being hazed, innocent people, and property; young women are invited, plied with plenty of alcohol, and sexual behaviors with varying levels of consent and awareness naturally follow. This is all seen as “good fun,” and many who participate in it yearn to do so again soon. The prevalence of this trope in the modern psyche betrays the strong desire among many who should have outgrown such things to be able to return to them.

Let none be deceived: nothing good can come from revelry and carousing. It is one thing to celebrate important rituals in a person’s life and in the collective life of a nation or a culture in modest and sober ways. It is quite another to commemorate such things with revelry and carousing; such behavior is haunted by the drunkenness, sexual immorality, and violence that define the experience. How many high quality decisions have been made while drunk? How many unwise sexual liaisons have begun while drunk in a context of revelry which have led to pain and frustration long afterward? And that presumes such sexual liaisons are consensual, however one can define “consensual” in a drunken revelrous context; how many cases of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and/or rape have taken place during such parties? How many awake the day after such revelry with a splitting headache and deep regret? Why would people yearn to participate in such things again, and consider such behaviors as part of the “joys” of youth?

A hedonistically minded culture which normalizes and encourages such bouts of revelry is demonic in inspiration, casting a strong delusion over its people. As Christians we must set aside such delusions and turn away from the “party lifestyle.” Christians ought to be sober-minded, not enraptured by alcohol and sexual desire. Christians understand why revelry takes place at night: it is a work of darkness exposed as shameful in the light of day. Christians do well to be of the daytime, cognizant of the dangers of revelry, avoiding the works of the flesh, glorifying God in Christ in all they think, feel, say, and do. The shared love of Christians in Christ provides far greater connection and camaraderie than any drinking party can offer; the relational unity Christians ought to experience in God and with one another makes a mockery of the pretenses of a bacchanal. May we find joy and celebration in God in Christ, and obtain eternal life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Works of the Flesh: Carousing appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The American Gospel

In a world darkened by superstition a bright light began to shine across the seas: men motivated by faith and freedom sought to build a republic based on human rights and Christian faith. This republic would be sanctified by the blood of many brave patriots who freely gave up their lives for the cause of faith and freedom. To this end the United States of America is an exceptional Christian nation, blessed and favored by God. God helps those who help themselves: Americans who accomplish the American Dream manifest the favor of God and maintain their confidence in that favor for salvation. Those who do not obtain those benefits clearly have not sufficiently trusted in (white) Jesus and the American way; they are prone to turn to godless socialism and seek to destroy America because they did not work hard enough to obtain its blessings.

The above is the American Gospel. It sounds just enough like the Gospel of Jesus to be taken seriously; and yet it is another gospel, compromises the witness of the true Kingdom of God, and cannot save.

The Puritans crossed the Atlantic in the seventeenth century in order to set up a theocratic community so as to embody the purity of what they imagined the Christian faith to be: the “city set on a hill” of which John Winthrop spoke. Enlightenment thinking would pervade secular and religious thinking in late eighteenth century America; many a religious authority proved willing to use Christian themes and language in the cause of the rebellion and to find ways to justify their position in the Scriptures. By the middle of the nineteenth century various forms of Christianity pervaded the United States of America, and its adherents celebrated and exalted in their nation and its ideology. Not a few believed in American postmillennialism: through the American project God was establishing the Kingdom of Jesus on earth. To this end many proved willing to justify and commend whatever America did as the will of God: the subjugation of the land and the dispossession of Native Americans; white supremacy and the oppression of people of color; participation within the government as service; sanctification of America’s military endeavors as service and the sacrifice of some to secure the freedom of many.

And yet much of what is put forth as the “American Gospel” is a product of the twentieth century. The federal government enforced draconian measures to stifle dissent during World War I, casting aspersions on the loyalty and integrity of anyone who would profess Christ and not take up arms to defend the United States (e.g. Sergeant York). During the Great Depression representatives of American business interests and some in conservative Christendom worked together to promote the “gospel” of America’s Judeo-Christian heritage, free speech, and free enterprise; during the early days of the Cold War this coalition would prove ascendant, promoting attendance at the church of your choice as part of the obligation of being a good American resisting the godless communist cause, and of course exalting the virtues of capitalist free enterprise. As American culture has grown more secular, many within conservative Christendom sought to emphasize the “Judeo-Christian” heritage of America and have sought to baptize America’s founding and government as a profoundly Christian polity.

Let none be deceived: the American Gospel is not a harmless celebration of both faith and country. In New Testament times and immediately after the powers and principalities strongly persecuted the people of God through the coercive power of the nation-states. Yet for the past 1700 years the powers and principalities have proven just as willing to try to co-opt the faith: as opposed to resisting the faith, they have tried to embrace it, but only inasmuch as it will advance the purposes of the powers and principalities over the nation-state. If a Christianish form of civic religion will create patriotic, nationalistic, obedient, and compliant citizens to advance the purposes of the nation-state, well and good; but if any practice the true faith in Christ, and seek to advance the purposes of the Kingdom of Jesus even when those purposes deviate from the goal of the nation-state, such are reckoned as unpatriotic, with suspect loyalty, and a “fifth column” who can be excoriated as an enemy or supporting the enemy.

This challenge is manifest whenever American Christianish civic religion is questioned. For the purposes of the state, religious participation is good without regard to many religious specifics; notice how effectively “attend the church of your choice” has been promoted and advanced in our society, and how challenging it can be to reorient people toward the unity of the faith in Christ and the importance of proclaiming the Gospel in its purity (1 Corinthians 1:10ff, Galatians 1:6-9). What happens if a Christian would dare to question the purity and holiness of the heritage of the United States or challenge the presumption that its military members make sacrifices for their freedom? They are denounced as disloyal, unthankful, and might well be sympathizers with ideas deemed “un-American.” How well have conscientious objectors been treated in the military and society? How many arrests and beatings awaited, and continue to await, those who raise up their voices against the injustices and oppression prevalent in American society?

Americans can most assuredly become Christians and serve Jesus in His Kingdom; but the United States of America cannot be a “Christian nation” as commonly construed. The interests of the United States as a nation-state diverge frequently from the interests of the Kingdom of Jesus. The Kingdom of Jesus transcends worldly divisions and reckons everyone as equally valuable in the sight of God and equally worthy of hearing the word of life in Christ (Acts 10:34-35, Romans 2:11, Galatians 3:28); thus God loves Americans, but no more or less than He loves everyone else. The Scriptures never teach that “God helps those who help themselves”: American emphasis on self-reliance is contrary to the goal of relational unity in God and among one another as Christians (John 17:20-23, Romans 12:3-8, 1 Corinthians 12:12-28). Accomplishing the American Dream can be a good thing but it is not evidence of salvation: many faithful servants of Jesus never enjoyed material wealth or stability, and many who enjoy material comfort and stability have done so in ways which dishonor God in Christ (cf. 1 Timothy 6:3-10, 17-19). Every attempt to realize the ideals of equality in America have been resisted by many who profess Jesus as the Christ; at the same time, the pursuit of those ideals has led to intense suffering by those who have worked to call out against the injustice, and many such people were inspired by their commitment to the Kingdom of Jesus to do so.

There are ways in which God has very likely used the United States to accomplish His purposes in the world. Yet the United States is not a pure angelic state in the world. Christians must be wary of the American Gospel and the baptism of patriotic nationalism to advance the purposes of the nation-state to the detriment of the Kingdom of Jesus. No soldier could die for the freedom which God has secured for us through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus His Son; Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, not the American way. It is not enough to be a good American to be saved; we must submit to the Lordship of Jesus in all things and seek to advance His Kingdom, His righteousness and justice, and all to His honor and glory, not that of the United States. One day the United States will fall like any other nation-state; the Kingdom of Jesus will endure forever. May we prioritize what God has done in Christ and seek His Kingdom and righteousness to obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The American Gospel appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Babylon

From its beginning Babylon represented human arrogance and rebellion; it would enjoy fleeting moments of glamour and glory on a global stage. Babylon the city, on the Great River Euphrates in Mesopotamia, modern-day Iraq, would fade into oblivion, fulfilling the prophecies of the prophets. Babylon as metaphor endures.

In Genesis 10:10-11 Babel is reckoned as the beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom. Its better known origin story can be found in Genesis 11:1-9: the Tower of Babel, built by all humanity on the Plain of Shinar to stay together and to make a name for themselves in direct rebellion against God’s commands. The place is named “Babel,” Hebrew for confusion, because God confused human language there. In Akkadian the city was known as Babilim, the meaning of which is highly contested; it was rendered as Babulon in Greek, from which we derive “Babylon”; in the Hebrew Bible, the city is called “Babel” throughout.

Both archaeology and written texts attest to Babylon’s relatively late beginnings in Mesopotamia, established sometime in the 2300s to 2200s BCE, allegedly by Sargon of Akkad himself. The Hebrew Bible did well at speaking of Egyptians and Assyrians but not “Babylonians,” for Babylon was at least ruled over if not also inhabited by a series of different groups of people over its two thousand years in existence. Its original inhabitants were likely Akkadians; by the 1800s BCE the Amorites of the northwestern Levant had invaded and occupied much of southern Mesopotamia and inaugurated the Amorite, or Old Babylonian, period (ca. 1800s-1500s BCE; in Israel, the days of Egyptian sojourn). Babylon remained smaller and more obscure until Hammurabi built an empire dominating southern Mesopotamia and the Euphrates region northwest to Mari (ca. 1792-1750 BCE). Hammurabi became famous for the law code established in his name; it has served as a helpful tool as both to contextualize the Law of Moses and to prove a foil for it. After Hammurabi all of southern Mesopotamia would become known as “Babylonia,” just as northern Mesopotamia had become known as “Assyria.”

Amorite Babylon was overthrown by the Hittites around 1595 BCE; soon afterward it was overrun by a group of people known as the Kassites, likely from the Zagros Mountains area of Iran, inaugurating the Kassite, or Middle Babylonian, period (ca. 1595-1155 BCE; in Israel, the time of the Exodus and the Judges). Toward the end of this period the Assyrians and Elamites dominated the city. More “native” Akkadians overthrew the Kassites in 1155 and ruled for a short time before the city was overrun by Arameans from the west.

From 911 to 609 BCE Babylon was continually under Assyrian control. In the 700s BCE the Chaldeans, people who lived in the marshes of southern Mesopotamia, began to continually harass the Assyrian authorities, taking over in Babylon when Assyria was otherwise distracted and fleeing into the safety of the marshlands when the Assyrians returned with an army. So it went with Merodach-Baladan (Marduk-apla-iddina II) who sent envoys to Hezekiah king of Judah (722-710, 703-702 BCE; 2 Kings 20:12-19, Isaiah 39:1-8). In response Sennacherib king of Assyria leveled Babylon to the ground; and yet his son Esarhaddon would dedicate many resources to rebuilding the city.

In the period of 612-605 BCE Nabopolassar (Nabû-apla-uṣur), a Chaldean Babylonian ruler, allied with the Medes, overthrew the Assyrian yoke, and destroyed the cities and empire of the Assyrians. It would fall to his son Nebuchadnezzar II (Nabû-kudurri-uṣur; ca. 634-562 BCE) to fill the void in Mesopotamia and establish what is now known as the Neo-Babylonian Empire (605-539 BCE). Nebuchadnezzar defeated Pharaoh Neko of Egypt (cf. 2 Kings 23:28-30); he would besiege Jerusalem and exile Jehoiachin and the upper class of Judah in 597 BCE, and after another rebellion in the days of Zedekiah, again besiege and then completely destroy Jerusalem, ending the Kingdom of Judah as a going concern in 586 BCE (2 Kings 24:1-25:21). Nebuchadnezzar would besiege Tyre unsuccessfully for 13 years; attack Egypt; and also exile the Philistines (Ezekiel 29:17-21). Babylon reached the peak of its prominence and power in the days of Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Daniel 4:1-37).

We make much of the Neo-Babylonian Empire because of its role in destroying Jerusalem and exiling the Judahites to Babylon; in historical terms it was short-lived, a quick transition between the days of the Assyrians and the Persians. The genius of the Babylonian Empire died with Nebuchadnezzar; a few short-lived kings reigned after him, including Evil-Merodach (Amēl-Marduk), who elevated Jehoiachin according to 2 Kings 27:27-30). The longest reigning king was Nabonidus (Nabû-naʾid), the last official king of the Chaldeans, along with his son Belshazzar, famously condemned in Daniel 5:1-31 (ca. 556-539 BCE). In their day Cyrus king of Persia conquered Babylon at the Battle of Opis and established the Achaemenid Persian Empire.

Despite a couple of insurrections the Persians maintained generally and strong consistent rule over Babylon until the defeat of Darius III by Alexander, king of Macedon, at the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BCE. Babylon flourished under Alexander; under the continual conflict of his successors Babylon began to depopulate. In 275 BCE its inhabitants and the Esagila temple were moved to Seleucia on the Tigris, which itself would later be swallowed up by Ctesiphon, which was made the metropolis of southern Mesopotamia throughout the Roman/Parthian/Sassanian period (ca. 120 BCE-700s CE). In the 700s Ctesiphon faded after the establishment of Baghdad by the Abbasid Muslims, which remains the prominent city to this day. By the time of Jesus Babylon was a small village; Christianity spread in the area, but by the second millennium CE Babylon was a ruin.

The Bible well recognizes the prominence of Babylon in Mesopotamian civilization. The city and its gates were most impressive; its wealth was immense; its temples were legendary, exemplified in the story of the Tower of Babel. The Hanging Gardens of Babylon was reckoned as one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. Their astrological and astronomical observations formed the basis of many scientific endeavors. Many of the mythological stories which were excavated in Mesopotamia are told in their Babylonian versions, especially the highly influential creation narrative known as Enuma elish.

And yet the words of the prophets were fulfilled (cf. Isaiah 13:1-14:23, 40:1-55:13, Jeremiah 50:1-51:64): Babylon, master of a mighty empire, vaunting over defeated Israel, tempting exiled Israelites to turn away from YHWH their God to Marduk and the Mesopotamian pantheon, faded into oblivion. Its location would be lost, rediscovered in modern times by western archaeologists confessing the God of Israel and looking to illuminate the narratives of the Hebrew Scriptures. The story remains poignant for all who have ears to hear.

Even as Babylon in Mesopotamia faded, what Babylon represented for Israelites, the pagan human earthly power arrogating itself against God and His people, would endure. Peter and John both spoke regarding Rome and its Empire in terms of Babylon (1 Peter 5:13, Revelation 17:1-18:24). If Babylon’s heritage could be seen in Rome, we can see similar evidence of its heritage in every major human power since. Civilization may have developed along the shores of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and magnified itself in the form of Babylon; God’s people have been called at times to seek the welfare of Babylon and to flee Babylon and its idolatry. To this day the people of God ought to live in unease in the “Babylon” of its day, seeking to embody the Christ to the lost and dying while not falling prey to the temptations “Babylon” would offer. May we faithfully serve God in Christ and obtain eternal life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Babylon appeared first on de Verbo vitae.