Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 28

Political Conservatism

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.

The core concept of political conservatism involves the goal of advocating for and protecting, and thus conserving, civilization as expressed in society and culture: tradition, authority, property rights, religious practice, and the family are thus emphasized and promoted. Conservatism as such arose in Europe as a result of the seismic changes caused by the French Revolution. In its moderate form conservatism attempts to work within a commitment to philosophical liberalism to preserve freedoms while upholding what is deemed proper authorities and traditional culture; in its more extreme reactionary form conservatism seeks to disrupt or even overthrow modernism, crying out to stop everything in the relentless pace of change. In its American form political conservatism may be understood as upholding republicanism, a “Judeo-Christian” moral framework, American exceptionalism, individual liberty, a pro-business laissez-faire philosophy of economics, a skepticism toward government and its effectiveness, and great resistance to anything perceived as Marxist/communist/socialist.

Political conservatism in America remains fractured among three emphases often held in tension: fiscal conservatism, social conservatism, and religious conservatism. Fiscal conservatives have been strongly influenced by libertarianism and the Chicago and Austrian schools of economics and thus emphasize the importance of free markets and resist many forms of government oversight of economic markets; they endorse policies which will advance the economic interests of American businesses. Social conservatives emphasize the dangers they perceive to social and cultural values of the past: they endorse policies which would preserve the integrity of social and cultural values of the past and to resist the policies endorsed by political progressives. Religious conservatives emphasize the “Judeo-Christian” religious heritage of America and endorse policies which would reinforce American Christian civic religious practices and values. Some political conservatives identify across all three emphases; many others maintain a primary loyalty to one or two emphases over the others. Many other divisions and differences in ideology among political conservatives could be added; for our purposes, we do well to note how a need to bridge the various emphases and ideologies can help explain some of the internal contradictions which often manifest themselves in political conservatism, and how commitments in political conservatism may inform the postures maintained by many in their faith.

There is much to commend political conservatism for the Christian. At their best political conservatives work to preserve the religious liberties of Christians and others so Christians can live out lives in peace and dignity (cf. 1 Timothy 2:1-2). Political conservatives wish to uphold the integrity of the family and the life of the unborn and to maintain space for the traditions of culture and society. The truly politically conservative impulse remains very necessary and an important check on the impulse toward progressivism from the other side: not everything ought to be changed or challenged. Many aspects of the society and culture we have received from our ancestors are praiseworthy and ought to be imitated and maintained. Major policy changes should be subjected to great scrutiny so as to limit the difficulties which might arise from the law of unintended consequences.

And yet political conservatism is not without its difficulties. Many challenges arise from the inherent tension among economic, social, and religious conservatism as practiced in America today. While one can certainly glorify God as a Christian and believe in the value of laissez-faire capitalism, laissez-faire capitalism is not mandated or inherently commended in the pages of Scripture. The shareholder value-driven impetus of what is deemed “late capitalism” has proven extremely harmful for the integrity of the environment, the family, and work, and thus in tension with what ought to be the goals of social conservatism. The move toward libertarianism among many political conservatives has led to greater emphasis on freedom than responsibility. Since the 1930s economic and political conservatives have worked with many faith leaders to promote an American Christianish civic religion, encouraging attending a church or a synagogue of one’s choice and a commitment to free markets and free enterprise, and this effort has proven very successful in conservative Christendom. Any Gospel-based critique of modern American practices of free markets or free enterprise have been deemed by many religious conservatives as Marxist or socialist and dismissed entirely. Not a few Christians seeking to restore the ancient order have fallen prey to the siren song of American Christian-ish civic religion: many find few, if any, points of disconnect between their faith in Christ and their patriotism and political commitments, and some prove more than willing to condemn as heretical and anathema any Christian who would not share those political commitments.

Unfortunately, Frank Wilhoit’s proposition regarding conservatism has yet to be refuted: “there must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Since political conservatives strongly value loyalty, the strong temptation remains to find reasons to commend and justify themselves and stifle critique and dissent and use the law as an instrument to benefit themselves at the expense of those with whom they politically disagree. Such offends the premise of equal standing before the law, the punishment of wrongdoing, and the commendation of the good in Isaiah 1:16-17 and Romans 13:1-7.

Even the core strength of political conservatism, the drive to commend and defend the cultural and social order, is not without difficulty. Christians can find many aspects and elements to modern American culture which are praiseworthy and ought to be maintained; yet not all aspects of American culture should be preserved. It is very tempting for political conservatives to commend and defend the indefensible if the indefensible remains part of their cultural heritage, as seen most clearly in the long term embrace of white supremacy and resistance to the dismantling of racist systems among many political conservatives. Modern political conservatism has a strong contrarian streak, and a few political conservatives back themselves into reactionary postures and white nationalism in their attempts to “own the libs.”

Politics and society work best when a healthy conservatism proves willing and able to make spirited defenses for the present polity, to work to conserve the culture and the environment, and to uphold the dignity and honor of life and work. Christians can find much to commend in political conservatism. Nevertheless, not everything in society is worth preserving; many aspects of society are oppressive and unjust, and to defend and support such things would be contrary to God’s purposes in Christ. Christians must take care lest they become too comfortable in the atmosphere of political conservatism so as to go beyond what glorifies God in Christ and compromise the faith, judge hypocritically, and justify the indefensible. May we all seek to glorify God in Christ in our political views, postures, and behaviors, and magnify the Lordship of Jesus!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Political Conservatism appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Works of the Flesh: Drunkenness

The Apostle Paul understood 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). He listed these “works of the flesh” 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, beginning with drunkenness.

The word here translated as “drunkenness” is the Greek word methe, defined by Thayer as “intoxication, drunkenness.” In theory, a person can become intoxicated or made drunk by all sorts of substances and desires; to this end John is told the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk by the “wine” of the “sexually deviant behavior” of “whore Babylon” in Revelation 17:1-2, an indictment of the idolatry of the age. Yet we notice how the drunkenness is spoken of in terms of “wine,” for the core concept of drunkenness remains “to be made intoxicated by alcoholic substances.” Thus Jesus warned His disciples to not be overcharged with drunkenness and to be found unprepared for the day of His return (Luke 21:34); Paul likewise warned the Roman Christians to walk as if in the day, not in drunkenness in Romans 13:12-13, since those who get drunk tend to do so at night (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:7).

Wine and beer were very common beverages in the Greco-Roman world. Most sources of water were polluted and infested with parasites, and the alcoholic content in wine would help reduce some of these challenges; wine and beer were also a means by which to obtain some calories for survival. Knowledge of distillation was unknown in the ancient world; “strong drink” (Hebrew shekar) in the Old Testament referred to “beer,” not the distilled spirits of much higher alcoholic content now known to man. By the time of the New Testament it was considered barbaric and uncultured to drink “unmixed” wine which maintained its full ~12% alcoholic strength (thus the indictment and the strength of judgment found in the unmixed cup of the wrath of God in Revelation 14:10); wine was cut with water, three or four parts water to one part wine, reducing alcoholic content to around 3-4%. Paul commended such wine for Timothy on account of his stomach ailments (1 Timothy 5:23). Almost everyone in the ancient world, the poor or enslaved as well as the rich, would drink some kind of this mixed wine with their meals.

And yet Paul’s warning against drunkenness remained appropriate: many would drink themselves to drunkenness, even with unmixed wine. In this way human nature has changed little over the centuries: then, as now, many consumed a lot of alcohol at parties or in other social settings as a “social lubricant,” to loosen inhibitions and revel with one’s fellow man: to “make merry,” according to the Hebrew idiom (e.g. Ruth 3:7, 1 Samuel 25:36, 2 Kings 4:20, Ecclesiastes 9:7, Isaiah 24:7, Jeremiah 15:17). Drunkenness, then as now, would often lead to unwise sexual liaisons or arguments and fights (cf. Proverbs 20:1, 23:31-35). For many drunkenness represented a coping mechanism for the distress and pain of life, a tranquilizer to numb from the misery of life (cf. Proverbs 31:6-7). Drunkenness, therefore, represents the attempt to escape from reality to pursue greater social acceptance, the loosening of inhibitions, the warmth and the “buzz,” and/or the numbness from pain. Christians are called upon to clearly recognize reality and to find hope and confidence in Jesus, giving no quarter to the passions of the flesh but in sober-mindedness fully devoted to the purposes of God in Christ until He returns (cf. Colossians 3:1-10). Thus, any who would profess Jesus yet prove to be an unrepentant drunkard must be cast out from among the people of God, for no drunkard will inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 5:11, 6:10).

The culture of alcohol in America today gravitates toward the extremes: excessive consumption of alcohol in revelry and/or addiction, or teetotaling abstinence. Christians do well to condemn the culture of excessive consumption of alcohol and to resist any form of participation in it. Few sins prove as self-defeating as drunkenness: much of it is consumed without regard to taste; all kinds of bad decisions are made while drunk; excessive consumption all too easily leads to a hangover; and despite it all people will return and do it over and over again. Such is the definition of folly, and we do well to observe the lessons of Proverbs 23:31-35. In truth no one is at their best or healthiest while drinking unto drunkenness. Nothing good comes from it.

We can see that Christians must condemn the excessive consumption of alcohol and firmly resist participation in drunkenness and revelry. Yet we must also make sure we do not go beyond what is written in our condemnations and denunciations. There are some who would suggest any kind of alcoholic consumption is sinful and condemned. Many such persons attempt to argue for a “non-alcoholic” definition of Greek oinos as used in the New Testament; some suggest the condemnation of drunkenness in Ephesians 5:18 is not just the end result but the entire process based upon the form of the verb (methuskesthe, argued to be an inchoate/inceptive form), and thus to drink one alcoholic drink is in the process of getting drunk, and thus is as drunkenness. Neither argument can be sustained in light of what is made known in the New Testament. Greek oinos, by definition, is alcoholic wine; contextual evidence would be necessary to suggest anything to the contrary. It would be odd for the Jewish people to condemn Jesus as one who drank a lot of grape juice in Matthew 11:19; Paul’s exhortation for deacons to “not be given to much wine” makes no sense if the “wine” involved was really only grape juice (1 Timothy 3:8). In terms of Ephesians 5:18, not every verb with the inchoate/inceptive form -sk- is necessarily inchoate/inceptive; by the first century, methuskesthe just meant to get drunk, not the whole process. One could argue that the sin of drunkenness includes drinking with the intent to get drunk, and thus with the very first drink; yet even then, if there were no intention to get drunk, and one did not get drunk, there is no means by which to condemn such a one as a drunkard.

What shall we say to such things? No excuse or quarter is to be given for drunkenness: all Christians must condemn excessive consumption of alcohol as dangerous and sinful, a “work of the flesh” (1 Corinthians 5:11, 6:10, Galatians 5:22). The Bible does not condemn all forms of alcoholic consumption, however: the condemnation is in excess consumption, and the Scriptures testify to the people of God drinking wine and beer in Old and New Testament times (Deuteronomy 7:3, 14:26, Proverbs 31:6, Ecclesiastes 9:7, 10:19, Matthew 11:19, 1 Timothy 5:23). The Apostle Paul declared it was good to not drink wine if it caused a fellow Christian to stumble, and that remains excellent counsel (Romans 14:21). And yet the Kingdom is not eating and drinking, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit according to Romans 14:17: there is no ground to condemn consumption of alcohol that does not lead to excess. Thus, Christians do well to avoid sin in terms of alcohol and drinking: none should get drunk. Those who elect to avoid all alcoholic beverages ought to be respected for that decision, and none should seek to cause them to stumble. Yet those who abstain have no ground or right to judge or condemn those who would consume alcohol but not to excess (Romans 14:3-22). May we glorify God in all we do, avoid drunkenness, and strive to live in peace to edify one another in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

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

The Prosperity Gospel

The Apostles bore witness regarding one of the most pernicious dangers and difficulties Christians in successive generations would face: the desire to hear a message amenable to human nature and lust, and those who would be more than eager to preach such a message (1 Timothy 4:1-3, 6:3-10, 2 Timothy 4:1-5, Jude 1:3-23). The prosperity gospel manifests these tendencies fully.

The prosperity gospel is also known as prosperity theology, the seed gospel, or the health and wealth gospel. Its fundamental premise is the expectation that those who fully trust in God are blessed with health, wealth, and overall prosperity. According to this message Jesus died in order to eliminate poverty and sickness from among His people. The means by which such prosperity can be accessed is almost invariably through providing consistent monetary donations to those who proclaim this message: it is often claimed these are seed donations, and God will provide those who give them with far more material wealth when they are given. Those who proclaim this message emphasize personal empowerment, self-help, and positivity. Those few adherents who may find healing or prosperity are celebrated and lionized as the norm; the many who do not receive healing or prosperity are made to feel as if they did not have enough faith and did not work hard enough to obtain the benefits.

The prosperity gospel relies on a pastiche of various decontextualized Bible verses to advance its thesis. Much is made of Jesus’ promise that He would give anything which His servants would ask for in His name, and emphasis is made on “anything” (cf. Matthew 7:7, 21:22, Mark 11:24, Luke 11:9, John 14:13-14, 15:7, 16, 16:23, 26). Constant appeals are made to the Apostles’ power to heal people of their illnesses (e.g. Acts 3:1-13, 5:12-16, 9:32-43). Malachi 3:10 is another promise to which many will make appeal; much also can be made of 2 Corinthians 9:6-13 in the same line of thinking: those who give much to God will receive even more from Him. Passages like John 10:10, promising abundant life, are easily warped to suggest material prosperity. The greeting of 3 John 1:2, hoping for prosperity and health along with soul prosperity, is made absolute.

We can understand the appeal of the prosperity gospel: who among us wants to be poor and sick? In modern society, as has been true in most societies throughout time, health and wealth have been seen as signs of divine blessing and favor, and people would like to emulate those who enjoy such things. Indeed, under the old covenant, the blessings of God were defined in terms of health and material wealth, and those who would lose such things or who never obtained them were deemed cursed by God (e.g. Leviticus 26:1-46, Proverbs). Those who advocate the prosperity gospel can find antecedents for many of their teachings in the Christian tradition; many of its strands are not novel. The prosperity gospel has been proclaimed so as to align well with the “American Dream” of self-sufficiency and wealth; its preachers skillfully exploit and manipulate the laws regarding religious non-profits to maximize wealth from the donations they have received, often to the point of fraud. Thus we should not be surprised to find prosperity gospel advocates proclaiming their messages on every form of common media and receiving fantastic sums of money from donations, having persuaded untold thousands of the aged, ill, poor, and marginalized in America and around the world of their message.

In truth the prosperity gospel is a false gospel, one designed to appeal to the lusts and vanities of people and away from the difficult aspects of the self-emptying and sacrificial message of Christ crucified. Even under the old covenant the conceit of the view that all suffering came from sin and a lack of faith was questioned and refuted, as can be seen in Psalm 44, Job, and Ecclesiastes; Job and Ecclesiastes, as well as the prophets, affirmed that many become wealthy based on exploitation and fraud, not faithfulness toward God. Yet the fundamental error of the prosperity gospel is made plain in the cross: the Scriptures do not attest that Jesus died on the cross to eliminate poverty and sickness from among His people. Jesus lived and died in poverty; the Apostles did the same (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:9-13, 2 Corinthians 8:9). Most of those who heard and obeyed the Gospel were among the poor, and most of them remained in that condition throughout their lives (1 Corinthians 1:26-27). For all those whom God healed to bear witness to the truth of the message of the Apostles we can find other instances in which Christians became ill and were not thus miraculously healed: Epaphroditus of Philippi, Trophimus (Philippians 2:25-27, 2 Timothy 4:20). If Jesus died to eliminate poverty and sickness among His people, the witness of history has proven Him an abject failure.

Jesus did not die to eliminate poverty and sickness; Jesus died to liberate humanity from slavery to sin, death, and the powers and principalities of this present darkness (Romans 8:1-18, Colossians 2:15, Hebrews 2:8-14). Furthermore, it was not expected that Jesus would suffer so that no one else would ever have to suffer; quite the contrary! Jesus was the Pioneer of the Way of Life (Hebrews 2:9-10): all who would follow Him would have to take up their cross, that is, the object of their humiliation, suffering, and shame, and come after Jesus (Matthew 10:38, 16:24-25). Only those who have suffered with Jesus will be glorified with Him (Romans 8:17). Paul exhorted Christians to imitate him as he imitated Christ, glorying not in material standing or wealth but in humiliation and weakness (1 Corinthians 11:1, 2 Corinthians 11:16-12:10, Philippians 3:1-15). John understood how God is love, and that love was manifest in what God accomplished in Jesus (1 John 4:7-21); thus, for Christians to love as God has loved them required them to suffer loss for one another (1 John 3:16-18). Jesus thus did not suffer with the expectation that His followers would not have to suffer; instead, His suffering proved paradigmatic for the believer, who would only enter the Kingdom through tribulation (cf. Acts 14:21-22).

Health and wealth are not inherently problematic; we can certainly hope and pray for health and wealth, just like John did for Gaius in 3 John 1:2. Yet we must recognize that health and wealth can become idols and temptations away from God’s purposes in Christ (1 Timothy 6:3-10). Those who have health and wealth must use them to glorify God in Christ, to provide for those in need, and to be rich in good works, putting no trust in that health or wealth but in everything giving the glory to God (1 Timothy 6:17-19). We indeed can ask anything of God according to His will and purpose and expect to receive it if we ask in faith; yet, as James the Lord’s brother warns us, if we ask to spend on our passions, we should not expect to receive anything (James 4:1-5). The gospel of health and wealth is a distraction, for having health and wealth does not guarantee or require good standing before God. Many who have been materially poor and sick have been rich in love, faith, patience, good works, and kindness; they will receive their reward in Christ.

The prosperity gospel works for those who preach it; less so for those exploited by it. The best the prosperity gospel can offer you is material prosperity for the moment; but what will happen to you and your wealth when you stand before the Lord Jesus without having carried the cross assigned to you (Romans 14:10-12)? The Gospel of Christ promises a far greater wealth than anything which we can presently find on earth: receiving the glory of God (Romans 8:17-18, Revelation 21:1-22:6). Compared to that glory anything we suffer on earth is reckoned as “light momentary affliction” (2 Corinthians 4:17-18)! Thus we should direct all of our efforts, and endure whatever is necessary, to receive that glory in the resurrection of life. We know the way, for Jesus is that Way and that Truth and that Life (John 14:6); we must suffer with Him if we wish to be glorified in Him. May we resist the siren song of the prosperity gospel, and take up our cross and follow after Jesus to obtain true glory and life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

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

A Reconsideration of “Recantation of Political Participation”

In 2010, on the basis of various events and their influence on the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus, I wrote “Recantation of Political Participation“, establishing a desire to no longer participate in the politics of the United States of America.

My reconsideration of that article and that posture is not rooted in events that have transpired since: if anything, the past ten years have only reinforced the primary difficulty adumbrated in the article. The witness of the Kingdom has not been enhanced by Christian participation in political matters; we have now seen the rise of the Trump phenomenon and the justification and rationalization thereof by those who would profess Jesus. In the eyes of many Christianity is conflated with the white nationalism promoted by Trump. Concern regarding the compromise of the witness of the faith has therefore only increased over the past decade.

Likewise, the demonization of the Political Other has continued apace. Appeals to Ephesians 6:12, the recognition the Political Other is not the enemy, falls on deaf ears. Far too many allow themselves to be shaped more by the partisan media they imbibe than what God has made known in Jesus. Many Christians have become alienated from fellow Christians because of these behaviors and have mightily struggled in their faith, wondering how they can remain in association with people who would demonize others in this way. Not a few Christians feel greater kinship with many in the world or in other religious organizations than with those with whom they ought to share the most precious bond of faith in Christ. Thus, many of the questions established in the previous article remain as live and relevant as ever.

My reconsideration, therefore, has nothing to do with recent events; it is based in changes and developments in my own understanding.

I have come to understand how the attempt to maintain a transcendental, disconnected posture toward the body politic reeks of Gnosticism. As Westerners we are always tempted to flee to a kind of Gnosticism, to become so despondent with the mess of reality that we want to surround ourselves in the warm glow of the ideal. Keeping one’s eyes set on a good and healthy goal is important; yet the Incarnation of Jesus the Christ ought to transform our thinking to maintain focus on what is real. Jesus entered our broken, sinful, and messy realm, and fully participated in life in the mess (Philippians 2:5-11); throughout His life He served and strengthened the poor and marginalized, and exhorted His followers to do the same (e.g. Matthew 25:31-46). Jesus did not love “humanity” in some abstract notion; He loved actual, concrete people in all of their problems and difficulties (cf. John 13:1-4). Jesus called upon His followers to love one another as He has loved us (John 13:31-35).

Loving people requires us to “get our hands dirty” and be immersed in their lives. For those who are poor and marginalized it will become apparent quickly that to be involved in their lives demands to be involved in their struggle against the oppression and injustices they face. To this end Christian charity demands advocacy and the willingness to leverage the resources one has to benefit others. And thus I have come to understand that the attempt to maintain a transcendental, disconnected posture toward the body politic embodies its own form of privilege and the unwillingness to use that privilege to benefit others. When the powers and principalities have so rendered all things to work for people like me, the political authorities in power and what they do will most likely not effect my life terribly much. Thus I can deceive myself into thinking that their behaviors will not change a lot, and can assume that would be true for others. Yet for those who do not share in that privilege, those against whom the powers and principalities have conspired to oppress, political changes may mean much more. Thus we do well to think about more than just ourselves when it comes to politics and political participation; we must think about how our advocacy might provide a benefit to others.

In my political moderation I have been especially challenged by Martin Luther King Junior’s Letter From a Birmingham Jail. As much as I would like to think I would not have been the “white moderate” to whom and about whom he wrote, I see the historical legacy of churches of Christ of that era, and must confess to the strong temptation to toe the moderate line, that even if I sympathized with the plight of black people, I would add my voice to the chorus of “not through agitation.” Almost everyone confesses that the Civil Rights Movement has led to benefits to society and recognizes the white supremacy manifest in the 1950s and before was wrong and immoral. For all the pious talk about how it is the Gospel that changes lives, the Gospel was theoretically preached throughout America at the time, and many of those who preached it were confessed white supremacists. It would not be the Gospel, but the effects of the Civil Rights Movement and the coercive force of the nation-state which led to Christians “re-discovering” the truth that God has made all humanity from one, and in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, and thus none are intrinsically superior to any other (Acts 17:26, Galatians 3:28). Let none be deceived: the Gospel did not fail; Christians failed the Gospel and was rebuked by the world. A lot of the political transcendentalist posture and political disinterest prevalent in the church and Evangelicalism writ large can be historically traced to the attempt to maintain the cognitive dissonance between upholding the Christian faith on Sunday and the practice of first slavery and then the Jim Crow segregation system the rest of the time.

In Matthew 5:38-42 Jesus gave patterns for nonviolently and creatively exposing and humiliating the powers that be as they exploit and oppress. Justice is a much more prevalent theme in the New Testament than has often been recognized; the Greek dikaiosune, most often translated “righteousness,” carries the themes of both “righteousness” and “justice,” a constant pairing in Hebrew (tzedaqa and mishpat). When we read through New Testament passages using dikaiosune and read them as “justice/righteousness,” the continued importance of being a people who uphold justice becomes evident.

Jeremiah exhorted the Jewish exiles in Babylon to seek the welfare of their community, even though they lived in the middle of the oppressor Babylon (Jeremiah 29:7). In 1 Peter the Apostle Peter sets forth a practical guide of how to live faithfully as Christians in this light: he wrote the letter speaking of the Christians of Asia Minor as Israel in Babylonian exile (cf. 1 Peter 1:1, 5:13). He exhorted them to see themselves as sojourners and exiles, reminding them they would not find comfort a true home in the midst of their own people (1 Peter 1:17, 2:11). And yet they were to do good for those around them, even if those people sought their harm, entrusting themselves to a faithful Creator who would judge justly, just as Jesus did (1 Peter 2:18-25, 4:12-19).

Thus, as Christians, we ought to subject ourselves to civil authority and honor rulers whether just or unjust (1 Peter 2:11-17). Yet we do well to use our voice to exhort that civil authority to reward good behavior and punish evil behavior wherever it is found so that civil authority can honor God who empowered them (Romans 13:1-7). We should pray for authorities and all people that we might live quiet lives in dignity and godliness and that all may come to a knowledge of the truth and be saved (1 Timothy 2:1-4). We must never fall prey to the idolatry of the nation-state, and must always privilege the Kingdom of God (John 18:36, Philippians 3:20-21); and yet we ought to pray that God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven, and bring the Lordship of Jesus to bear in our relationships, our neighborhoods, our communities, our nation-states, and in the world (Matthew 6:10, Matthew 28:18).

To this end I must return to political participation, cognizant of all the lessons learned in the past, still very much concerned about the influence of politics and the idolatry of the nation-state on the witness of the Kingdom of God, and yet determined to uphold the Gospel of Christ and its mandate to love my neighbor as myself and seek his welfare, resisting the powers and principalities over this present darkness in order to bring the Lordship of Jesus to bear on the world. This involves political discourse in light of Kingdom values and priorities; it involves voting for those who will most consistently uphold justice and correct oppression; it demands speaking up and out for those who do not have the privilege of being heard. At the very least it demands that I do not advocate for oppression and resist the correction of injustice on account of fear of personal loss or discomfort. If I enjoy my standing and my position by the grace of God, I must leverage those resources to the benefit of others if I would glorify God in Christ and love others as He has loved me. May we all pursue justice, denounce injustice, seek to correct oppression, and glorify God in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post A Reconsideration of “Recantation of Political Participation” appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Freedom in Christ Jesus

For ye, brethren, were called for freedom; only use not your freedom for an occasion to the flesh, but through love be servants one to another (Galatians 5:13).

Few principles receive greater esteem and worship in America than freedom or liberty. Many believe the emphasis and value of freedom is what makes America distinct and exceptional among the nations. Freedom is often viewed as an essential right, if not the essential right, of all Americans: the armed forces are hallowed as those who have sacrificed much in order to maintain freedom and liberty, and so all are expected to highly esteem it. One of the quickest and most effective ways of demonizing a given idea or practice is to say it would inhibit and suppress the freedom of Americans to live as they desire.

In modern America, however, freedom is generally understood in its most libertarian sense: freedom demands license, or “freedom to”: I am free to do as I wish. You do not have the right to tell me what to do or to demand anything of me, because I have freedom and liberty by right as an American citizen, and I will do what I want to do. In America far more sensitivity is shown to the prospect of what is deemed tyranny, the restriction of liberty, than towards a concern for the consequences of disobedience toward or active rebellion against authority, or even on many of the restrictions on individual conduct which work toward the common good; not a few lives have been sacrificed on the altar to preserving the “freedom” of others, and many terrible and unjust policies have been defended as having preserved “freedom” or “liberty.”

Christians indeed have freedom in Christ: the Apostle Paul insisted that Christ set Christians free for freedom (Galatians 5:1). Yet the Apostles envisioned the freedom Christians enjoy in Christ very differently from the libertarian cast of freedom imagined in modern America. In Christ freedom is primarily liberation: “freedom from.”

According to Paul all people are caught up under sin: death entered the world because of sin, and all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23, 5:12-21). The Hebrews author proposed how all people are enslaved by their fear of death to do the will of the Evil One who has the power of death (Hebrews 2:14-15); Paul spoke similarly of people living under the power of the Evil One, of “sin” in terms of a “power” to which people find themselves enslaved to do what they would not and to not do what they would desire to do, and of “powers and principalities” who maintain control over the world in its present darkness (Romans 7:7-23, Ephesians 2:1-3, 6:12). On their own humans find themselves thus lost in condemnation: their good works cannot undo their evil deeds, having been judged by law as transgressors deserving due penalty (Romans 3:20-28, James 2:8-13). Indeed, the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).

By dying to atone for sin, Jesus defeated the forces of sin and the powers and principalities over this present darkness (Romans 8:1-3, Colossians 2:15). In His resurrection from the dead, Jesus overcame the power and sting of death (Romans 6:1-11, 1 Corinthians 15:1-28). This is the freedom Christians have in Christ: liberation from enslavement to sin and death. In Christ Christians are set free from the law of sin and death (Romans 8:2). Christians are no longer in debt to live according to the ways of the world in its vanity and lusts, for they have received the Spirit of adoption into the household of God (Romans 8:12-15). The powers and principalities of the world have been soundly defeated; Christians can look to Jesus and trust in Him and do not have to give their power over to the forces which would enslave them to sin and death (cf. Colossians 2:11-15).

Freedom as liberation from the forces of sin and death is far greater and more powerful than any freedom which the United States of America might presume to bestow upon its citizens. Yet to what end are Christians expected to exercise their freedom and liberty in Christ?

So many in America and the world might look at “freedom to” as license, to do as they wish; Paul and Peter warn Christians against such a definition. According to Paul, liberation in Christ means to put to death the works of the flesh which enslaved us unto death so we can walk in newness of life in righteousness according to the way of Jesus (Romans 6:1-14, Galatians 5:13, 17-24). Peter stated the matter succinctly in 1 Peter 2:15-16:

For so is the will of God, that by well-doing ye should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using your freedom for a cloak of wickedness, but as bondservants of God.

The Apostles provide this consistent witness throughout the New Testament: Christians are set free in Christ from enslavement to sin and death in order to freely submit to the will of God in Christ Jesus. In a figure Paul spoke of Christian conversion as having been set free from enslavement to sin to become slaves of righteousness (Romans 6:14-23). The Galatian Christians were in danger of submitting themselves to the yoke of the Law of Moses; Paul insisted how Jesus had called them to freedom from that Law, not to pursue the selfish passions of the flesh, but to serve one another (Galatians 5:1, 13).

Freedom and liberty therefore mean very different things for Christians than they do for Americans. For Americans, freedom is a fundamental right for which many have died so we can maintain and obtain it; to Christians, freedom is the gift of God which comes from Jesus willingly sacrificing Himself for us and for sin. To Americans, freedom is a given, a part of what it means to be an American; Christians understand they have never deserved or merited the freedom they have obtained in Christ, for it was given freely by grace (Ephesians 2:1-10). Far too many Americans presume freedom means they can do whatever they want; Christians must use their freedom to submit themselves to the will of God in Christ, or their “freedom” is merely a cloak and a pretext for evil, and has been emptied of its power. Americans will die for liberty; in Christ, liberty is the first thing to be renounced in order to live in the unity of the Spirit (cf. Romans 14:1-23, 1 Corinthians 8:1-13). Americans constantly fret about the danger of someone infringing on their liberty; Christians maintain confidence in the inability of any external agent to separate them from the love of God in Christ Jesus their Lord yet expect to suffer harassment, loss, and/or persecution for their confession that Jesus is Lord (Romans 8:31-39, 1 Peter 4:12-19).

As Christians we can appreciate the benefits and blessings that come from being citizens of the United States of America; we can celebrate our freedom of religion and freedom of assembly, and even remain in the right to exhort and remind governing authorities regarding these values which the nation-state would presume to uphold (cf. Acts 16:35-40). For Christians, however, freedom looks like a cross. If we allow American conceptions of freedom and liberty to inform our faith in Christ, we will invariably insist on our own ways to the detriment and harm of others, cast aspersions and perhaps even prove rebellious against lawful authorities, and be condemned for having used our freedom as a cloak for wickedness. We cannot follow in humiliation, degradation, and suffering according to the way of the Christ while doggedly insisting on our freedoms and rights. We cannot demand our way or the highway and yet share in relational unity with God and with His people as God shares relational unity within Himself (John 17:20-23, Ephesians 4:1-4). Instead, as Christians, we must continually resist understanding freedom in Christ Jesus as so many understand freedom in America; we must root and ground ourselves in Jesus as Lord, confess Him in word and deed, and use the freedom we have obtained in Christ to submit to Him in all things and serve one another. May we find what is truly life in Christ and confess Jesus, not American ideals, as Lord!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Freedom in Christ Jesus appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Political Progressivism

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.

Those most often deemed as “liberals” in twenty-first century American political discourse come from the “social liberal” position and are now more likely to be deemed as “progressive.” As the name would denote, political progressives maintain great confidence in the ability of society to accomplish change to enhance the integrity and quality of life for its citizens through political means. To this end, political progressives have few qualms with using the coercive power of the government to reduce discrimination and inequality, to limit corporate power, to empower labor, and to provide for a social safety net for the disabled, elderly, and poor. Political progressives remain very skeptical of and resistant to government involvement in the realm of sexuality, desiring for the government to take a “hands off” posture in terms of regulations regarding sexual conduct and contraception (save for imperatives regarding the funding for contraception). The vast majority of political progressives maintain a pro-choice position on abortion; many who used to advocate for abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare” are beginning to exalt more in abortion, and are less morally bothered by the practice. Political progressives often prove suspicious of military endeavors and the modern police state; they are developing a more robust antiracist posture, and tend to emphasize the weaknesses, limitations, and failures of the past with a view to correcting them for the future. Dissent and critique remain potent aspects of patriotism among political progressives. Many political progressives are wary of religion in general, and of Christianity in particular, associating Christianity with the establishment and maintenance of white supremacy and patriarchy of the past few hundred years; members of less popular religions, such as Judaism, Islam, and eastern beliefs, tend to not be so strongly subjected to critique. Marxist critique of capitalism is taken as given among most progressives; a few have more confidence in Marx’s solutions than is warranted. Confidence that all such things will lead to a betterment of society holds together all of these views.

Many Christians today believe progressivism is entirely contrary to the purposes of God in Christ. Such goes beyond what is written and represents a partisan posture more than a godly one. In terms of policy many aspects of political progressivism can run afoul of what Christians must hold firmly to in Jesus: Christians cannot endorse elective abortion as good or honoring God’s purposes for life, and same-sex sexual behavior remains condemned in Christ (Psalm 139, Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). On the other hand, God does expect the government to reward good conduct and punish evil conduct, and political progressives are right to point out how oppressed and marginalized groups have often been denied justice, and some among more privileged groups have not been punished for the evil they have done (cf. Isaiah 1:10-17, Romans 13:1-7, James 5:1-6). The equality of each person before God ought to mean equality of each person before the government and the law of the land, and these are premises for which it is right to stand (Galatians 3:28). The impulse to provide for the poor and ill historically has found its origin in the imperatives of the Gospel in Matthew 25:31-46.

The recent antipathy among political progressives toward those who practice the Christian faith is a tragic irony considering the very religious origins of progressivism. The drive to reform society for the better is a continual trend in Western Christendom for the better part of the last millennium; the Progressive Era in American history came as the fruit from the efforts of those advocating the social gospel and others whose faith motivated them toward societal change; the Civil Rights Movement of the middle of the last century was explicitly rooted in the Christian witness of the equality of all in the sight of God, and sustained by Black Christians. Even though modern political progressivism is extremely secular, its energy comes from this heritage and very religious motivations and inclinations.

The main challenge of political progressivism, however, is in its fundamental conceit: the belief that society can progress or improve. As Christians we must continue to confess the presence of ancestral sin and the continued corruption of the creation, the cyclical nature of history, and human limitations and weaknesses: some things might change for the better, but other things will change for the worse (Ecclesiastes 1:9, Romans 5:12-21, 8:17-23). Not everything hailed as “progress” has made things better for humanity: as we have improved in our technology, health, and quality of life, we have also become more alienated from one another and less communal in outlook. Progressives themselves would see the changes in our climate as an unfortunate result of the technological progress we have made. Everything comes at a cost; “progress” in one area might lead to “regression” in another area, and the law of unintended consequences remains live and active. It proves all too easily to question everything and go beyond what is right, appropriate, or sensible in what one would like to change. Furthermore, it is one thing to see the problems and difficulties in society, and even to propose some possible solutions; it is quite another to invest the energy necessary to fully address the problems, and additional government bureaucracy can make things worse as much as it may provide some assistance. We cannot assume or expect that various changes will ultimately lead to “progress”: we can advocate for changes while recognizing that they will make life in the world different, perhaps better in some ways, but also possibly worse in others. In this way the aspirations of progressivism are continually frustrated, and ever will be until the Lord Jesus returns.

At the same time, how many of us have benefited greatly from the various changes made in society over the past century in the name of such reform and progress? The impulse to change is not always wrong; many things do need to be changed in society so it might be made healthier. Jesus is glorified when changes are made which allow for greater human flourishing in justice and righteousness. But not all changes are good; changes which devalue life, alienate people from one another, and deny the glory and majesty of God dishonor our Creator and malign His righteousness and justice, and His judgment will not be idle. As Christians, let us affirm what is good and advocate for it while resisting that which is evil, and honor God in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Political Progressivism appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Works of the Flesh: Envy

The Apostle Paul had spent much time warning the Galatian Christians regarding the dangers of falling away from grace in Christ through accepting a false gospel (Galatians 1:1-5:16); he now wanted to make sure they did not become disinherited from the Kingdom of God by participating in the “works of the flesh,” and instead wanted them to display the “fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:17-24). He listed these “works of the flesh” 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 has now turned to discuss “works of the flesh” which prove especially pernicious in relationships: enmities, strife, jealousy, wrath, rivalries, divisions, and sects. The last “relational” work of the flesh listed is envy (“envyings” as in ASV above).

The word here translated as “envy” is the Greek word phthonos, defined by Thayer as, “envy; for envy, i.e. prompted by envy.” But what is envy? Webster defines the English term:

1. To feel uneasiness, mortification or discontent, at the sight of superior excellence, reputation or happiness enjoyed by another; to repine at another’s prosperity; to fret or grieve one’s self at the real or supposed superiority of another, and to hate him on that account.

2. To grudge; to withhold maliciously.

n. Pain, uneasiness, mortification or discontent excited by the sight of another’s superiority or success, accompanied with some degree of hatred or malignity, and often or usually with a desire or an effort to depreciate the person, and with pleasure in seeing him depressed. Envy springs from pride, ambition or love, mortified that another has obtained what one has a strong desire to possess.

Therefore, we see that the term refers to the negative feelings produced when another has something which we desire. The term is closely related to jealousy, as we have seen in Works of the Flesh: Jealousy. We may use an example to explain the difference. Let us say that you own a precious diamond, and you fear that your friend or your co-worker desires your diamond, even if they truly do not. That is jealousy. But if your friend or your co-worker owned the diamond, and you desired it greatly, to the point of desiring malice or misfortune to the person so that you could in some way acquire that diamond, then you are envious of that person.

In the New Testament, Pilate perceived that envy was a strong motivator for why the Jewish authorities delivered Jesus to him: the people were listening to Him more than they (Matthew 27:18, Mark 15:10). Paul established that some preached Christ out of envy in Philippians 1:15: they thought it would increase Paul’s danger and distress, but he rejoiced inasmuch Christ was preached. Envy is a characteristic which marked Gentiles, false teachers, and even Christians in their former lives (Romans 1:29, 1 Timothy 6:4, Titus 3:3). James warned early Christians against worldliness in their faith, asking if the spirit God made in us longs to envy (James 4:5; cf. James 4:1-5); thus Peter would have Christians put envy away in 1 Peter 2:1.

Envy, therefore, can certainly refer to strongly desiring things which your neighbor might own, but can also refer to strongly desiring more intangible qualities of your neighbor: his standing, his reputation, his influence. Envy might be provoked when a person has gone without what the neighbor has, but as we can see with the religious authorities, envy is also provoked when one’s neighbor begins to obtain the standing, reputation, influence, or goods a person already maintains, especially if the neighbor’s success might well come at the person’s expense: we see this exemplified by the Jewish religious authorities who perceived Jesus to be a strong threat to their standing and the status quo, and thus had Him killed. Envy can be a personal, individual matter, with one person proving envious of another person; yet envy can also exist among groups of people, with one group becoming envious of what another group enjoys. Indeed, fear of loss of power, standing, or privilege powerfully motivates to ugly and unjust behaviors; it could be said that hell hath no fury like a dominant group whose power and dominance is threatened.

We can thus perceive how envy remains a major challenge for humanity even in a prosperous age. Those who may be more poor materially must always be on guard against envy, yet those who have some wealth are not exempt, as can be demonstrated from the example of King Ahab of Israel. As king of Israel he enjoyed the best of the land and influence and standing among the people. It came to pass that he yearned for the vineyard of Naboth since it was near to his own property, and would have paid him handsomely for it; but Naboth would not give up his ancestral lands (1 Kings 21:1-3). Ahab responded like a petulant child, laying in bed and refusing to eat (1 Kings 21:4). His wife Jezebel would conspire against Naboth, leading to Naboth’s unjust death (1 Kings 21:5-15). Thus Ahab was encouraged to arise and seize the land of Naboth for himself (1 Kings 21:15-16). It was for this great sin that Ahab and Jezebel were condemned and the promise of the extirpation of their lineage established (1 Kings 21:17-24).

No one, therefore, is exempt from the temptation toward envy. Any time we desire something another might have to the point of wishing that person ill fate or harm, we prove envious. What we might envy as a poor person might change if we become wealthy; what we envy while healthy may be different than when afflicted with illness; that on which we might feast our eyes at 20 may change significantly by the time we become 80.

We can thus understand how difficult it would be to maintain healthy relationships with those whom we envy. Envy corrodes relationships: it is very hard to desire the best for those who have things we greatly desire. Even if we prove strong enough to be civil and even kindly affectionate toward those who have things we desire, could we really suffer loss for their advantage and benefit without experiencing bitterness and resentment? Hardly! If we envy, we cannot love as God has loved us in Christ.

To this end, as Christians, we do well to emphasize, focus on, and prioritize the antidote to envy: contentment (1 Timothy 6:6-8). We have brought nothing into this world; we have not deserved a single moment, experience, object, or relationship we have ever enjoyed, but have gained them all through the grace and provision of God. If God has blessed others, may we prove thankful for His beneficence toward them; when we are tempted to desire more than what we have, to regain what we have lost, or to reinforce and protect what others might obtain, let us remember how utterly dependent we are on God, pray in thankfulness, and reorient ourselves toward the appreciation of what God has given us. Then we can truly love others, even if they have things we might like, for it is no longer really about us, but glorifying God in Christ. May we prove content in all circumstances, prove thankful to God, and obtain eternal life in the Lord Jesus Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

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

I Am Not Fine; Neither Are You.

How are you doing today?

You’re fine?

How am I doing? Oh, I’m fine, too.

How many times have you had such a conversation in your life? How many times have you really, fully, honestly meant it, and were really and completely fine? How many times did you walk away really thinking the other person really, fully, honestly meant it, and were really and completely fine?

Are we fine?

I am not fine; neither are you.

The “How are you? I’m fine” routine involves play-acting, a manifestation of our public personae. We tell people we are fine even though we are not because we understand the “rules of the game,” and we project an air of calmness and strength no matter what may be going on inside. We want to be seen as “having our act together.” We intuitively understand the question is generally an attempt to make the basic acknowledgement of the presence and existence of one another, and we should not press the matter any farther.

Yet I am not fine; neither are you.

So why do we persist with this charade?

We understand it is a convention we maintain. We want to appear to have concern for the welfare of others. We want to acknowledge the people in our lives. In turn we want others to have concern for our welfare and to acknowledge our presence in their lives.

And yet we also do not want to be a bother. We have been taught, in a thousand different ways, that we ought to be able to manage the trials of life on our own. We are supposed to put on our “big boy” or “big girl” pants and “deal with it.” For us to need support and strength from others would be an admission of insufficiency and weakness. We might lose face, become ashamed, and suffer humiliation.

We are also deeply concerned about awkwardness and rejection. Why don’t we tell other people how we feel? Is it not because if we started telling others how we were really feeling, we fear they would no longer want to ask, no longer want to acknowledge our presence in their lives, and thus reject us? Are we not concerned that we would be further hurt in rejection? Or perhaps we have little confidence in the person to be able to provide the support we would need. Maybe we are a bit too anxious about that; sadly, we also have many good reasons to believe it to be true. If we are honest with ourselves, we would not want to be thus burdened by everyone. We are afraid that if we empathize with everyone and bear everyone’s burdens, we will be spent and wasted and have nothing left. In this situation we all confess our love for humanity; but specific people we find difficult to truly love and support. We are comfortable in generalities; we prove anxious and fearful in specifics.

I am not fine; neither are you.

Richard Beck has summarized the situation well: “A church where everyone is ‘fine’ is a group of humans refusing to be human beings and pretending to be gods” (italics original; The Slavery of Death, 111). When a church environment has become like the American culture surrounding it, everyone feels as if they must prove invulnerable, put on the holy appearance, presume as if they have their act together. There does not seem to be a needy person among us, but only because we deeply fear humiliation, rejection, and shame if we proved to be needy. This fear need not be purely abstract: how many have experienced that patronizing “less holy” and insufficient attitude from fellow Christians when expressing a need for support, strength, or resources? How many Christians prove perfectly willing to look down upon their fellow servants of Jesus in order to justify and prop up their own projections of competence and strength? Whenever Christians put on this air of invulnerability and sufficiency they are hypocrites in the true sense of the term: they are putting on an act. They are trying, however consciously, to reflect what they imagine the impassibility of God requires: a Stoic sense of suffering without expressing any of it, the delusion that as long as we project strength and positivity, we will cultivate strength and positivity, and the persistent Greek pretense that vulnerability and the expression of feeling is weakness and thus contemptible. What is going on inside proves less important than maintaining the façade of competence and strength. Such is literally the definition of an idol.

I am not fine; neither are you.

Beck follows Arthur McGill in suggesting that the love of God in Christ cannot be manifest among the people of God until Christians reflect a “community of neediness” (ibid. 110). In the early church there were no needy among them not because none ever had need, but because Christians provided for one another’s needs (Acts 4:34-35). In Christ the projection of strength is not true strength; in embracing weakness we are made strong (2 Corinthians 12:9-10). We have come to understand much regarding the character of God through the Lord Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 1:3): Jesus took on flesh, greatly humbling Himself, developed strong relationships with His twelve disciples, expended Himself in serving others, and displayed anguish, distress, and pain regarding His own condition as well as that of others (e.g. Matthew 26:36-46, John 11:35-36, 13:1-15). The Apostle Paul spoke forthrightly of his anguish and distress (e.g. 2 Corinthians 1:3-11). We do not find in the Gospel or from the writings of the Apostles any expectation that we must come together and act as if we have everything figured out and project strength and competence. Instead, the Gospel teaches us we are weak, utterly dependent on God, insufficient in and of ourselves, and strengthened and sustained only through the power of God in Christ by the Spirit (Ephesians 2:1-3:22).

Thus, according to what God has made known in Christ, I am not fine; neither are you.

Any church environment in which the members project invulnerability and strength is a dead environment. Those outside all too often perceive the group at worst as cold and distant and at best as beyond their ability to join. If some of those with whom we have shared the Gospel have come to the conclusion they must get their lives sorted out before they get baptized, from whence have they obtained that impression? They have perceived a group of people who seem to have their lives sorted out, and think they must sort out their lives before they can join. Such a group is as Laodicea: they presume to need nothing, but prove in need of everything (Revelation 3:12-21).

It is only when we decide to drop the pretense and begin to prove honestly vulnerable and in need among one another that we can grow in love and faith toward relational unity with God and with one another (1 John 3:16-4:21). Many will find this to be a relief; they were being crushed by the expectation that everything is fine when it is not fine. Others may prove more reticent, and might well find themselves on the margins, unable or unwilling to break through the anxiety and the fear to more accurately embody Christ toward one another. There will be rejection, humiliation, shame, and pain; yet, in truth, we have signed up for such things when we committed ourselves to the Christ who bore the cross, rejection, humiliation, and shame (1 Peter 2:18-25).

But guess what happens when we grow in that relational unity with one another? When we ask how each other is doing, we do not have to pretend. We can be honest.

I am not fine; neither are you. When we learn to accept that, and learn to need one another, support one another, and depend on one another in Christ, we will be able to grow in the grace, knowledge, and strength of the Lord Jesus together!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post I Am Not Fine; Neither Are You. appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Social Gospel

Boundless optimism about the improvement of the condition of man; noble and democratic aspirations for better living for individuals and society; a can-do attitude: the “Social Gospel” is a uniquely American creation, and has powerfully and profoundly shaped aspects of American religious life and culture.

In a historical and formal sense, the Social Gospel movement took place in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century among many Protestant churches in the United States. It grew out of the reform traditions of Western Christendom and the social movements of the antebellum period. “Social Gospelers” wished to emphasize Jesus’ concerns for the poor and marginalized in society, and advocated and worked for direct assistance to the needy through various social organizations and programs and for systemic change on a local, state, and national level. “Social Gospelers” tended to be among the clergy more than the laity and of the “respectable” middle class. In eschatological outlook they tended toward postmillennialism, believing their efforts to improve society would inaugurate the Kingdom of God on earth; many maintained a highly progressive view of history and theology, enamored with the most recent theories of science, psychology, and Continental Biblical studies. Some were highly influenced by Marx; others more lightly so, endorsing co-operatives and modified versions of capitalism. Their influence peaked in the years before World War I, and they would have supported much of the legislation of the Progressive Era.

Even though the Social Gospel movement would fade after World War I, its influence would be felt in the theology and practice of the Civil Rights Movement of the middle of the twentieth century, Liberation theology in Latin American Catholicism, and many aspects of engagement with society and politics within Protestantism and its Evangelical subset, even among those who would have vociferously denounced many of the aspects of the Social Gospel movement in previous generations. Therefore, in an informal, continuing sense, the social gospel thus involves heavy participation by churches in political and social causes.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ speaks to many societal and cultural conditions. Jesus went about doing good for people (Acts 10:38); Christians are called upon to do good to all men, especially those of the household of faith, and to visit widows and orphans in their distress (Galatians 6:10, James 1:27). Jesus described the decision of the day of judgment in terms of whether people had fed, given drink, clothed, or visited “the least of these” or not: in doing (or not doing) so, they did (or did not) so to Him (Matthew 25:31-46), testifying to Jesus’ concern not merely for the spiritual but also the material condition of the impoverished, oppressed, and marginalized. To divide the sacred from the secular is a deception and a lie: Jesus is Lord of heaven and earth, and His lordship should be brought to bear in every aspect of life and society (Matthew 28:18). Christianity can never be a merely private, individual affair: Christians represent a city set on a hill, the light of the world, to embody Jesus to all those in a sin sick and dying world (Matthew 5:13-16), and God’s purpose realized in Christ is not mere individual salvation for the sake of saving individuals, but the reconciliation of individuals with God and one another in Jesus to develop perichoretic relational unity as God shares within Himself (John 14:1-3, 20-23, 17:20-23, Ephesians 2:1-3:12). Christians are to love one another as Jesus has loved them (John 13:31-35): such love cannot be expressed in only “spiritual” terms, but ought to be manifest in material care and concern for the welfare of one another (1 John 3:15-18). The church represents the manifest domain of Jesus’ Kingdom (Ephesians 1:21-23, Colossians 1:13), yet Christians must render service to Jesus their King in every aspect and domain of their lives, thus bringing Jesus’ lordship to bear in their families, their friendships, their business dealings, their employment, and in their civic and national participation (e.g. Romans 13:1-7, Ephesians 5:22-6:9, 1 Peter 2:11-3:8). Jesus is not glorified by a faith so heavenly minded that it proves no earthly good.

And yet there has always been a tendency for the social gospel to become far more “social” than “gospel.” Many “social gospelers” remain on the liberal and progressive end of the doctrinal and theological spectrum, rejecting the traditional sexual ethics of the Christian faith as well as many its principal confessions. It is appropriate for advocates of the social gospel to critique others for how their faith was so focused upward they did not do much to reflect Jesus to the rest of the world (the “vertical” over the “horizontal”); likewise, it is appropriate for us to critique advocates of the social gospel to be so focused on assisting others that they do not pursue personal growth in holiness and adherence to the core doctrines of the faith (the “horizontal” over the “vertical”). The Apostles expected the Christian who became relationally one with God and His people to become a powerful witness and light to the world in their love and good deeds, growing and developing relationally both “horizontally” and “vertically” (Matthew 5:13-16, John 13:31-35, 1 Peter 2:11-18, 1 John 3:15-4:21). Jesus did not sacrifice His relationship with God to serve people; the Christian witness to the world means little without its anchoring in the Gospel of Jesus. The Gospel is the means by which God saves and rescues (Romans 1:16); no matter how effectively Christians champion various social causes, if no one is rescued from their sins and restored in relationship with God in Christ, the work ultimately proves futile. Nations rise and fall; what is done politically can be undone politically; yet the Word of God endures forever, and eternal life in the resurrection can only be found through relational unity with God in Christ, not in shared social causes (John 14:1-23, 17:20-23, 1 Peter 1:23-25).

The process by which many churches became essentially non-governmental religious humanitarian organizations began before the Social Gospel movement, but the movement certainly accelerated the trend. These days most people not associated with much Christian faith look to churches to do all kinds of social work in their communities; not a few governments do the same. While these works may do good, assisting many people, they do not represent the work God has given for local churches to accomplish. These good works become distractions for the local church as it seeks to do the great work of representing the pillar and support of the truth of what God accomplished in Jesus, and the work of building up of the Body of Christ in its time and place (Ephesians 4:11-16, 1 Timothy 3:15). Individual Christians ought to visit widows and orphans in their distress and do good to those in the community, thus embodying Jesus to the community and welcoming those in the community to come and share in the Body of Christ (Matthew 28:18-20, Galatians 6:10, James 1:27). Local churches must dedicate their limited resources to the needs of the saints, the promotion of the Gospel, and the building up of the body of Christ; in the process it should become attractive for others to wish to join in order to share in relational unity with God in Christ and with fellow Christians to share in what is truly life, just as it was at the beginning (cf. Acts 2:41-48).

Christians do well to hear and consider the challenge and critique of the social gospel and to find some ways to embody social justice as individuals manifesting the Lord Jesus to the world. Nevertheless, all the social justice in the world will not transform the powers and principalities to be like Jesus; Jesus did not die and rise again to establish a kingdom like other kingdoms (John 18:36). We must bear witness to Jesus to the world in word and deed, but must remember how Jesus and the Apostles turned the world upside down not by social advocacy but by embodying the Kingdom of Jesus in the midst of the kingdoms of the world, rooted and anchored in Christ. May we proclaim and embody the Gospel and obtain the resurrection of life in Jesus!

Ethan R. Longhenry

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

Christian Participation in a Representative Republic

Jesus lived, died, arose, ascended, and was made Lord and Christ during the days of the Roman Empire; His Apostles proclaimed the good news of these things in various villages, towns, and cities of the Roman world. The Roman Empire pretended to still represent the Senatus populusque Romanus (SPQR), the “Senate and people of Rome,” as if it remained a republic; many cities maintained a republican or democratic style of self-government regarding local matters (cf. Acts 19:39); nevertheless, Rome had become an empire under an imperial system of rule, with the Emperor’s will as sovereign and governors eager to plunder the wealth of subject peoples. Today, however, few Christians live under an empire with an imperial system of rule. In America, Christians live in a representative republic in which the government is presumed to be by the people, of the people, and for the people. What can we gain from the Scriptures regarding how Christians ought to participate in a representative republic?

The New Testament described governing authorities as maintaining two minds. On one hand, all governing authorities exist from God and are given authority by God (Romans 13:1-2): they are God’s agents to establish justice on the earth, to honor good conduct and punish evil conduct, and thus Christians were to give honor to governing authorities, to submit to their rule and laws, and to pay their taxes (Romans 13:3-7, 1 Peter 2:11-17). On the other hand, all governing authorities fall prey to the influence of the Evil One and the powers and principalities, and thus prove likely to glorify itself above all else, to perpetuate injustice to the benefit of some at the expense of others and to persecute the people of God who cry out for justice and righteousness to be done on the earth as it is in heaven (Matthew 4:8-9, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Revelation 13:1-18); to this end Christians might well be called upon to have to obey God rather than man, to love not their lives even unto death, and suffer hostility from governing authorities (Acts 5:29, Revelation 12:11). While the specific contextual application of these refer to the Emperor and governors of the Roman Empire, they are written on a grander scale: Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:11-17 would prove true of any governing authorities, and John saw Roman power in terms of the powers of previous nations, suggesting Rome was just the most recent avatar of a worldly power arrogating itself against God and His purposes. Therefore, we should expect our representative republic, even though it is theoretically “by the people, of the people, and for the people,” to reflect this same dual dynamic.

Peter invited the Christians of Asia Minor to consider themselves as exiles and sojourners, very much like Israel during the Babylonian captivity (1 Peter 1:1-2, 17, 2:11-12, 5:13). Paul called upon the Philippian Christians, many of whom likely held Roman citizenship, to consider themselves primarily as citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, and to behave as citizens of that kingdom (Philippians 1:27, 3:20-21). Christians in a representative republic must therefore always remember they are never quite at home in that republic, even if they were born there and participate in its culture. The United States of America as a power desires full loyalty and complete commitment, just as Rome did; Christians will seek to honor its authorities, but must uphold the values of the Kingdom of Jesus above all else. To this end many have fully renounced participation in the customs and traditions of America’s representative republic. While there is no mandate to vote, or to involve oneself in the politics of the day, there does remain the command to do good to everyone (Galatians 6:10), and Jeremiah’s premise to “seek the welfare of the city” remains in alignment with that vision (cf. Jeremiah 29:7): any renunciation of participation in politics cannot extend to renunciation of participation in society or the manifestation of care and concern for one’s fellow citizens. At the same time, Christians must always be aware of the totalizing claims of the propaganda of the United States of America and the seductiveness of the idol of nationalism; much damage has been done to the Kingdom of Jesus by those who have sought to baptize America and its ideals in the blood of the Lamb and have thus strayed from the ways of the Crucified One. The United States of America is as the grass of the field: it will die and fade away one day, but the word of God endures forever (1 Peter 1:24-25).

In order to do what is honorable in the sight of all men, and to show appropriate honor to civil authority, Christians in representative republics do well to participate as called upon in ways which glorify God in Christ.

Christians should pay all appropriate taxes without grumbling (Romans 13:6-7). If Christians get a say in how and whether taxes should or should not be levied, they ought not consider the matter simply in terms of what would benefit them personally, but to also consider the needs of others and the common good (Romans 12:16-17, Philippians 2:1-4).

Christians must continually pray and make supplication for all of their fellow citizens in America, particularly those in authority, so that we might live in tranquility and peace and for all to come to a knowledge of the truth and be saved (1 Timothy 2:1-4). Paul leveraged his Roman citizenship to provide the opportunity to proclaim the Gospel to many people and those in authority (Acts 21:37-40, 24:1-21, 25:1-26:32); we should leverage the freedoms given to us to proclaim the Gospel to others, and make appeal for rulers to consider Jesus as Lord and to uphold righteousness and justice. We may exercise voting privileges to the end of living in tranquility and peace and to uphold righteousness and justice, understanding that we will be held accountable for those whom we empower by our endorsement with that vote.

The state may make request of Christians to participate in its use of coercive force, be it through the police force or through military endeavors. Christians must live according to their consciences in Christ regarding such matters and ought to give serious consideration regarding how they can glorify God and participate in such things. Christians must ask themselves if they can continue to love their fellow humans as themselves and to value each human as made in God’s image as part of those forces (Genesis 1:26-27, Luke 6:27, 32, 10:25-37), and perhaps look for ways to serve in ways that demonstrate how their primary loyalty is to Jesus, as Cornelius did before them (cf. Acts 10:1-48).

For any representative republic to function as intended requires participation by its citizens. Christians do well to find ways to participate in the public life of their place to seek its shalom, peace and wholeness: to do good to those around them, to speak up for justice and righteousness, and to provide material, mental, emotional, and spiritual support to the poor, marginalized, and downtrodden among them (Matthew 25:31-46, Luke 6:27-37, Galatians 6:10, Romans 12:9, 17-18). Some may serve as elected officials if they can do so in ways that glorify God in Christ like Erastus of Corinth before them (Romans 16:23). Most early Christians were numbered among the poor, and might well have participated in creative nonviolent resistance to expose the injustice and shame of those who oppressed them (Matthew 5:38-42); James prophetically denounced their wealthy oppressors (James 5:1-6). Christians among the poor and marginalized ought to find support and strength from their fellow people of God, and not shame and abuse (1 Corinthians 12:12-28); Christians with material wealth, power, and influence do well to leverage their resources to serve, advocate, and assist those who do not (Ephesians 4:28, 1 Timothy 6:17-19, 1 Peter 4:10-11). In this way Christians ought to be seen as lights in their community, known for their good works and their stand for justice and righteousness in Christ (Matthew 5:13-16).

Christians loyal to the Lord Jesus Christ may live and even flourish in a representative republic like the United States of America, but they must never be primarily of such a republic. They must always prioritize their loyalty to Jesus and strive in every respect to bring His lordship to bear on their engagement with their fellow citizens and their nation. May we serve and glorify the Lord Jesus in the midst of this representative republic and obtain the resurrection of life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Christian Participation in a Representative Republic appeared first on de Verbo vitae.