Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 29

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.

Works of the Flesh: Sects

The Apostle Paul proved as concerned for the general conduct of the Christians in Galatia as he did the particular challenges of the “Judaizers”; he wanted them to avoid the “works of the flesh” and to manifest the “fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:17-24). He listed the condemned “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, and rivalries.

As we explored divisions, we noted its Greek term, dichostasia, is similar in meaning to hairesis, variously translated as “sects,” “factions,” “parties,” or, when dichostasia is translated “dissensions,” “divisions.” Our English term “heresy” derives from Greek hairesis; the latter is defined by Thayer as:

1) act of taking, capture: e.g. storming a city

2) choosing, choice

3) that which is chosen

4) a body of men following their own tenets (sect or party)

5) dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims

The core idea of hairesis is a choice: thus, to choose to take a city, or to choose to follow after another path from what has been accepted. In 1 Corinthians 11:9, Paul declared how factions (hairesis) had become evident within the church in Corinth; in 1 Corinthians 3:3, Paul had chastised them for manifesting dissension (dichostasia), both relating to the party spirit described in 1 Corinthians 1:11-12: “I am of Apollos”; “I am of Cephas”; “I am of Paul”; “I am of Christ.” In the New Testament hairesis is generally used to describe various “sects,” or “factions” within a greater whole: the sect of the Sadducees (Acts 5:17), the sect of the Pharisees (Acts 26:5), and twice to refer to “the Way” of the Christians while they were considered to be a sect among Jewish people (Acts 24:14, 28:22). Thus, while hairesis can refer to factions or parties within a congregation, we will speak of it primarily in terms of the development of full-fledged sectarianism: the formation of rival groups and the doctrinal disagreements that lead to those developments (as Peter warned against in 2 Peter 2:1).

From the beginning God’s purpose has been to reconcile all people to Himself and to one another in Christ (John 14:1-3, 20-23, Ephesians 1:1-3:12). Paul strongly exhorted Christians to be diligent to maintain the unity of the Spirit (Ephesians 4:3), indicating unity in the faith was not a given or guaranteed. Just as Jesus had endured disagreement and disputations with fellow Israelites in His life, so after His death and resurrection false doctrines would proliferate alongside the truth of the Gospel. The Galatian letter itself warned its recipients to not fall prey to false teachers promoting a false gospel that would lead away from Christ and toward condemnation (Galatians 1:1-5:15). The Apostle John would have to warn Christians to reject any who denied Jesus’ incarnation and considered them as antichrist (1 John 4:1-6). John presumed many such persons had “gone out” from among Christians (1 John 2:18-23); Jude was concerned that similar false teachers would attempt to remain among faithful Christians, seeking to encourage some to go astray (Jude 1:3-16).

The Apostles maintained a consistent witness about the dangers in the future from false teachers and thus sectarianism (1 Timothy 4:1-5, 2 Timothy 4:1-6, 2 Peter 3:1-4, Jude 1:3ff). We have records from early Christians in their disputes and arguments against those who taught falsely and had developed various factions and sects: the Montanists, the Marcionites, and the various Gnostic groups, all in the second century. Early Catholicism would develop from false teachings and practices beginning at this time and following; for most of the first millennium sects developed on the basis of various teachings regarding the nature of God and the nature of Jesus (e.g. Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism).

The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church separated in 1054; in the West various movements and sects would arise throughout the medieval period, culminating in the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Beforehand Catholics maintained the conceit of representing the bulk of Christendom; within a century after the Reformation it could no longer seriously be maintained. From the 1600s to the present day we have witnessed the proliferation of denominations and denominationalism in Western Christendom: all kinds of different religious organizations professing the name of Christ, divided by all kinds of reasons which might be imagined under the sun. Many bear the names of their founders: Lutherans, Calvinists, Mennonites, Wesleyans. Many are marked and named by church organization: Congregationalists, Presbyerians, Episcopalians. Some bear the names of distinctive doctrines or practices: Baptists, Anabaptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Pietists. Many factions and parties remain underneath each umbrella: many different associations and organizations often divided by geography or culture as much as any doctrinal particularity.

Thus the world of Christendom provides a sad testimony to the power of sectarianism and the party spirit; in the eyes of many “Christianity” is a hodgepodge of different groups all arguing and fighting with one another over all kinds of details. Thus it is not surprising to see the cultivation of a spirit of ecumenism among many such denominational groups: a form of “unity-in-diversity,” the belief that the differences in doctrines and practices between various denominations are not a roadblock to unity, that different denominations can recognize the “diversity” within “various Christian tradition” and can respect these differences, and therefore that all these Christian denominations, despite the differences in doctrine and practice, are all valid portions of the Body of Christ and their members are true and faithful Christians.

It is good for Christians to strive diligently to maintain the unity of the Spirit; unfortunately, ecumenism does not strive for true unity, settling by declaring as “essential” what already finds broad agreement, and considering matters of liberty all the things which continue to divide the various denominations. This is not the relational unity for which Jesus prayed in John 17:20-23. It is declaring victory in defeat, for these groups are not really one. We will not find those for whom Jesus prayed in the sectarian thicket of modern “Christendom.”

We do well to remember that the factional and party spirit is condemned as a “work of the flesh” in Galatians 5:20; we must not give it justification or quarter. The response to the prevalence of denominationalism ought not to be the creation of a new sect for those “of Christ.” Paul provided no praise or commendation to the party in Corinth which declared, “I am of Christ”; they were found as guilty of carnal thinking and sectarianism as the others (1 Corinthians 1:10-4:21). We must recognize and confess how the party and factional spirit which led to the tangled thicket of modern “Christendom” is the problem, and to thus resist any call to maintain a party and factional spirit against “the denominations.” God is not glorified if we fall prey to the very spirit we are called upon to reject.

Instead, we must strive to be the people for whom Jesus prayed in John 17:20-23. We must listen to what the Apostles testified regarding Jesus and His Kingdom, trust in Jesus, and strive to become one with Him and with one another as God is one within Himself. We then can strive to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, to seek what is good for one another, care for and love one another, and embody Jesus toward one another and those beyond (1 Corinthians 12:12-28, Ephesians 4:1-3, 11-16). We should not yoke ourselves with those who have not accepted the Gospel in Christ but have pursued false gospels; we also should not reckon ourselves as just another sect among sects, but welcome all who will put aside all other names and parties so as to glorify God in Christ together in one voice. God in Christ is honored in relational unity; only the Evil One is glorified in sectarianism and division. May we become one with God in Christ and one another now and for eternity in the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

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

“Good” and “Bad” People?

In the world we often hear people categorized according to a binary: there are “good” people and there are “bad” people, the “good guys” and the “bad guys.” We have been told, for instance, that the only thing that will stop a “bad guy with a gun” is “a good guy with a gun”; there are “good cops” and “bad cops”; politicians and their supporters will attempt to persuade the “good people” of the nation regarding the dangers that the malevolent Other would like to impose upon the nation. It seems convenient that the “good” people are those who are with us, and those who are against “us” are made to look “bad” in various ways. It is always tempting and seductive to maintain the childhood simplicity and fantasy of the world and categorize people as either “good” or “bad.” As Christians we must be extremely wary regarding this temptation.

God has maintained a consistent witness in the New Testament regarding humanity: they have all done badly. In Luke 11:13 Jesus spoke of His disciples as being “evil,” particularly in comparison with God and the good gifts He gives. The Apostle Paul powerfully demonstrated in his argument from Romans 1:18-3:8 the conclusion found in Romans 3:9: all are under sin. In Romans 3:10-19 Paul arranged a pastiche of quotations from the Hebrew Bible testifying to humanity’s participation in evil, leading to the pithy declaration of Romans 3:23: all have sinned. Paul attested in Romans 1:18-32 the sad state of humanity lost and given over to depravity in their minds in their sinfulness without repentance. In the sinful condition all submit to the powers and principalities of this present darkness, live in the passions of their flesh as children of wrath, hate others and are hated in turn (Ephesians 2:1-3, Titus 3:3). The wages of such sin is death, and humanity experiences such pain, distress, and death in spades (Romans 6:23). To this end we can appreciate and understand the possibly apocryphal story told of G.K. Chesterton, who, having heard of an inquiry by The Times of London asking what was wrong with the world today, responded simply, “I am.”

While the Scriptures attest that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, to declare humans as totally depraved and incapable of good on their own goes well beyond what is written. When Jesus spoke of His disciples as “evil,” He did so in the context of describing how they would themselves do good for and give good things to their children (Luke 11:11-13). Jesus recognized and confessed that sinners, tax collectors, and Gentiles love those who love them and do good for those who do good to them (Matthew 5:46-47, Luke 6:31-33).

Thus the Scriptures testify to our condition: none of us is good; only God is good (Mark 10:18). Yet we are not entirely evil, either. No doubt some people are more marked by good than evil, and others by more evil than good; thus Jesus can speak of “the good and the evil, the just and the unjust” in such an accommodative way in Matthew 5:45. Christians therefore must not fall prey to the easy and simplistic binary of “good” people and “bad” people: there are only people, capable of great good and unimaginable evil. As Alexander Solzhenitsyn declared in The Gulag Archipelago, “the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either — but right through every human heart — and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained.” Men convicted of terrible crimes still love their mamas. The saintliest person you know still struggles with various forms of temptation to do what is wrong, and sometimes falls short.

Yet should not Christians, at least, be “good people”? Those who are in Christ must never forget from what they have been redeemed: they were sinful, participants in evil, and received cleansing and forgiveness from sins not because of anything they did to deserve it but through the sheer act of grace, mercy, and love displayed by God through Christ on the cross (Ephesians 2:1-10, Titus 3:3-8). Christians should grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, manifesting the fruit of the Spirit and not the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:17-24, 2 Peter 3:1-8). Yet any Christian who says that he or she no longer sins is deceived and the truth is not in them (1 John 1:8 in the present tense; 1 John 1:10 testifies to the same regarding the past). Jesus spoke of the people of God, even His own disciples, as “evil” in Luke 11:13; many of the texts quoted by Paul in Romans 3:10-19 spoke of the people of God at the time. Paul addressed the Corinthian Christians as “saints” in 1 Corinthians 1:2, yet his two letters attested to less than saintly behavior and conduct throughout. Even within mature congregations there would be Christians who generally sought the will of the Lord but would have some dispute or disagreement with fellow Christians, or some would be walking disorderly (e.g. Euodia and Syntyche, Philippians 4:2, 2 Thessalonians 3:1-15). In these letters the Apostle Paul called on all such Christians to repent and change their behavior; nevertheless, for good reason did Paul exhort Christians to faithful conduct in Jesus in every letter he wrote, for a person is not made intrinsically good by becoming a Christian.

Christians easily deceive themselves into thinking they have fully overcome challenges and temptations as they have matured and grown in the Lord Jesus. And yet consider the Apostle Peter. He was appointed by the Lord and the Holy Spirit to be the first to associate with Gentiles and proclaim the Gospel to them (Acts 10:1-48); his testimony proved decisive in recognizing God granted Gentiles access to repentance that leads to life in Christ, and even to remain as Gentiles (Acts 11:1-18, 15:7-11). Peter continued, at times, to associate with Gentile Christians (Galatians 2:12a). Yet even the Apostle Peter in a moment of weakness in fear and anxiety displayed prejudice against Gentile Christians when Jewish Christians arrived in Antioch from Jerusalem and was rebuked by Paul (Galatians 2:11-14). Likewise, the Christians of Ephesus had stood firm in the truth for years, and yet their love for the Lord had grown cold; the Lord warned them they would lose their standing before Him if they did not repent (Revelation 2:1-8). One thus does not become intrinsically good by growing and maturing in the faith. Christians will continually be beset by sin and struggle with temptations to sin. Those temptations may shift and change over time. In times of anxiety, fear, and/or stress, Christians may find themselves succumbing again to temptations to sin they had successfully suppressed for years. As long as we are in the flesh we must stand firm in our faith and be on guard against the wiles of the Evil One (Ephesians 6:10-18, 1 Peter 5:8-9); we are never too old or too mature in the faith to fully transcend the deceitfulness of sin (Hebrews 3:13).

When we were children it made sense for us to categorize people as “good” or “bad”; now that we have grown up to adulthood, we must set aside childish things. There are no truly “good” or “bad” people; there are just people. People who often want to do good but trap themselves in webs of anxiety, deceit, fear, and pleasure (Romans 7:5-25, Hebrews 2:14-15); people who may be relatively self-absorbed but who also want good things for those whom they love and know (Matthew 5:46-47, Luke 6:31-33); and people who are self-deceived into thinking they are what they are not (James 1:22-25). To follow the Lord Jesus in obedient faith will lead to cleansing and forgiveness, and ought to be manifest in righteous thinking, feeling, and acting, but in the flesh Christians remain tempted to sin, have parts of their lives that are not as reformed as others, and are just as able to remain deceived by the powers and principalities and perpetuate various kinds of sins. God is good; may we trust in God in Christ, love one another as God has loved us, and obtain life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post “Good” and “Bad” People? appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Relational Evangelism

In Christ God has worked powerfully in order to reconcile people to Himself (Ephesians 2:1-3:12); as God is One in relational unity, thus He desires to share in relational unity with mankind and for people to share in relational unity with one another (John 14:1-3, 21-23, 17:20-23).

Modern Christendom has made much of the vertical aspect of this relational unity: most forms of Gospel proclamation are to the end of encouraging a person to “make a decision for Christ,” to “get saved.” Such an emphasis makes sense in a culture which exalts the individual as him or herself, but it sits uncomfortably with the message of the Gospel itself. We can see why when we consider what happens to a good number of those people who make that decision for Christ and “get saved” in the moment of crisis: they are made to feel comfortable with their standing with the Lord, and do not participate in the life of the Lord’s Body, the church (Ephesians 1:20-23). Their individual condition and standing has been addressed, or so it would seem.

None should minimize the importance of a person making themselves right with God in Christ and coming to faith in Him; and yet the Gospel consistently calls for people to jointly participate in the life of faith with one another (Ephesians 2:1-3:12). Jesus’ prayer in John 17:20-23 is for people to be relationally unified with one another in God in Christ; not for nothing did Paul emphasize how all who are baptized are baptized in one Spirit into one body, and are to jointly participate in that body (1 Corinthians 12:12-28). Any Gospel which does not direct the hearer to relational unity with his or her fellow man in God in Christ is not sufficient or complete.

To this end relational evangelism is a powerful means by which the Gospel is communicated and embodied. Relational evangelism involves fostering and nurturing relationships in order to embody and proclaim Jesus as Lord and Christ.

Relational evangelism might well be a primary posture of evangelism for many toward those in their community. To this end Christians develop associations and connections with the people around them. They get to know these people and allow these people to get to know them. They can embody Jesus’ essential character toward their neighbors, manifesting sacrificial love among one another and toward their fellow community members (cf. John 13:31-35). In so doing they can gain the trust of those around them; if they gain trust, they will then look for the opportunity to share the good news of the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of Jesus of Nazareth with them. That moment might come because enough trust has been generated that the message can be heard. Perhaps the people themselves wanted to hear it because they noticed the distinctiveness of the life and ways of the Christian. Perhaps they would not otherwise listen but experience a crisis moment and turn to the Christian for wisdom and guidance. Regardless, the proclamation of the Gospel will come with greater power and influence in these situations because of the trust built up in the relationship: people anymore are inundated with information; they seek to figure out who to trust, and they will give a lot of credence to anything said by those in whom they have placed this trust.

Yet relational evangelism will also prove important for those who have heard the Gospel through other means. No matter how one has heard of what God has accomplished in Jesus, at some point the person must connect with the people of God in order to continue to grow in relational unity with God and with fellow Christians (John 17:20-23, Hebrews 10:19-25). A person who has come to faith through hearing the Gospel in a “cold call” situation, has been invited to hear of Jesus, or through any other means will develop some kind of spiritual relationship with the ones with whom they study or hear of Jesus. If no deliberate action is taken to incorporate such people into the lives of fellow Christians in faith, far too many will prove rocky or thorny soils, and the implanted Word will not bear fruit (cf. Matthew 13:1-8). Newer Christians must be incorporated into the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12-28); it is incumbent on more mature Christians to display the hospitality required to foster and nurture those relationships (1 Peter 4:9).

Relational evangelism proves powerful in its working; yet we must be on guard regarding the pitfalls of maintaining the pretense of relational evangelism without the substance thereof. We must be on guard lest we look at fellow human beings as “prospects” and develop transactional or utilitarian relationships in which our only purpose is to evangelize them. Our love for others must be without hypocrisy; we must show genuine love and interest in other people in our community, and prove willing to maintain that relationship even if the proclamation of the Gospel is rebuffed at first. If people have felt used as we have tried to proclaim Jesus to them, we have not represented Jesus well in our efforts. We must also keep the “evangelism” in relational evangelism: we should never assume that just embodying Jesus to people is sufficient for them to come to a saving faith in His name. We must look for the opportunity given in trust to actually tell the people with whom we have developed these relationships about Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return. Knowing how and when requires patience, discretion, faith, and wisdom from the Lord; but if we never tell the people with whom we have developed relationships about Jesus, we have not truly participated in relational evangelism.

Ultimately, all evangelism ought to be seen in relational terms: Jesus lived, died, rose, ascended, rules, and will return soon in order to reconcile us all to God and to one another (Romans 5:1-11, 1 John 4:7-21). If our efforts in evangelism do not direct people to share in relational unity with God in Christ through the Spirit and also with one another in Jesus, then our evangelism is not accomplishing its mission (Ephesians 2:1-3:12). If we are not growing in relational unity with God in Christ and with one another in Jesus, our faith is not productive, and we cannot truly and effectively embody Jesus toward others in the proclamation of the Gospel (John 15:1-11, 17:20-23, Ephesians 4:11-16). Evangelism is never an end unto itself; to proclaim the Gospel is to invite our fellow man to share in life with us in Christ. God Himself, after all, is one in relational unity, and we are made in His image (Genesis 1:26-27); the portrayal of the consummation of all things features redeemed humanity in the resurrection basking in the continual presence and glory of God (Revelation 21:1-22:6). May we proclaim the Gospel of the Lord Jesus to all, manifesting relational unity with God and one another, and inviting others to share in that relational unity now and forevermore!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Relational Evangelism appeared first on de Verbo vitae.