Toby J. Sumpter's Blog, page 61

Paul as a Nursing Mother

In these gender-bending, gender neutral, hermaphroditic dog days of sexual fog, some things do not go without saying. And one of those things is that Paul was a manly man. He was no lisping prancer, no tittering poofter. He was fearless, bold, fiery, and he was gentle. 

In fact, he said so himself: “But we were gentle among you, just as a nursing mother cherishes her own children” (1 Thess. 2:7). But Paul was gentle in a way that was fully consistent with his biblical masculinity. This was not Paul “getting in touch with his feminine side.” To put the point bluntly: Paul didn’t have breasts. And please, if you can control the urge, do not regale me with tales of male nipples lactating. Such perfidy is nothing to my point. Take your lactation red herrings to the pet store where you will you get whatever the going rate is for such things. 

My point is that someone out there, and I don’t have a name in mind, has attempted to describe Paul as a proto-feminist struggling with his patriarchal instincts and misogynist cultural blinders, and here, for a brief moment, he let down his guard, likened his ministry to nursing motherhood, thus validating all of our super-duper, up-to-date, modern, new fangled theories about sexual repression, equality, revolution, empowerment, and Bill Cosby.  

But I have a modest yet radical suggestion that we read Paul in context. I mean, I know this sounds old fashioned and a bit angular, but what does Paul mean by this nursing mother metaphor? Well, in context it turns out not to be quite as erotic as our egalitarian pimps would prefer. And yes, I called them pimps, and yes, I said erotic, as in, sexually arousing. And yes, I do believe that’s what’s driving a lot of bad exegesis. If we can get the Bible to be a difficult, mysterious, ambiguous, culturally colonized text, then people can hump whatever they want. That’s pretty much the story of liberal hermeneutics over the last hundred years or so. 

Where was I? Oh. Right, the context – the part in the text in which Paul describes what he means by likening his ministry to that of a nursing mother. What’s striking is that Paul immediately describes his love for the Thessalonians and eagerness to impart the gospel to them (1 Thess. 2:8), and the fact that Paul and his assistants labored in this gospel with them night and day, without charge (1 Thess. 2:9). And again, Paul says that the Thessalonians were witnesses of this selfless plodding for the good of the saints in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 2:10). In other words, the way the metaphor works is Paul says that like a nursing mother, he worked night and day to give gospel milk, gospel life to the newborn Thessalonians, and all without charge. 

The metaphor is not about being cuddly. The metaphor is not about being sweet and syrupy. The metaphor is not about Paul being feminine. The metaphor is about a steady work ethic, about laboring without charge, at all hours, as needed, night and day with a continual, balanced, and sturdy (i.e. gentle) resolve to keep the Thessalonians alive and growing in Christ. That’s what nursing mothers do: they keep new people alive. They nurse their newborn babies around the clock, pushing through the pain, the sleeplessness, faithful in their calling, not bothered by the fact that these new little people aren’t exactly expressing how thankful they are for this round the clock room service yet. That’s what Paul and Silvanus and Timothy did with the Thessalonians. And we could do with a lot more of that sort of thankless, selfless, hard-working, plodding pastoral care in our land. This isn’t glamourous work. But it is faithful, manly, and courageous work.

It turns out that work is an awful lot like a being a father as Paul hastens to add in the following verse, “As you know, we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father does with his children” (1 Thess. 2:11).

Photo by Zach Vessels on Unsplash

Alive Again

Eating is something people do when they come back from the dead. When Jesus raised the little girl from the dead, He instructed her parents to give her something to eat. When Jesus rose from the dead, He asked for food and ate with His disciples a number of times. And John says that when the dead are raised at the Great Resurrection there will be a Great Feast, the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. 

So one of the things this meal is telling us and teaching us is that we are alive again. This is a meal for the born again, the dead and alive again. This is a meal for every Lazarus in the history of the world. If you are in Christ, then you were dead in your sins, and you died when He died, and now you live again by His Spirit. And so naturally, you are invited to eat something. It’s what people do when they are alive again.   

This helps explain why this meal is such a small meal, not a full feast: a piece of bread and small cup of wine. Why such small portions? Part of the answer is that this meal is a symbolic meal – these are signs and seals of the body and blood of Jesus, and Paul says that if you’re really hungry, you have homes to eat in. So the point isn’t that you need to eat because you’re hungry; the point is to demonstrate that you’re really alive. Look, we’re all saying with Jesus, I’m really alive. 

That may seem like playing with words, but I don’t think it is at all. Because all week long, the world, the flesh, and the devil attack the people of God accusing you of your sin, accusing you of your failures, feeding you lies about the future, about your past, tempting you to despair, tempting you to fear. And at the root of all the Devil’s lies, the center of the Devil’s power is the fear of death. 

And so in the face of your doubts and fears, Jesus invites you here week after week and He Himself assures you that He is alive again from the dead, and therefore if you are in Him, then you also are alive again. Death has no hold on you. And since we are alive again, we should do what people do when they are alive again. We should eat. Look, we are all saying, death has no power here, I’m alive again.

So, Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ.

Photo by Mike Kenneally on Unsplash

The Justice of the Cross

“For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps… who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously, who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness” (1 Pet. 2:23). 

The words righteously and righteousness, could just as easily be translated justly and justice. Jesus endured unjust treatment not as a doormat, not in apathy, but because He was appealing to a greater court, a higher court, to a more effective justice. He entrusted Himself to Him who always judges righteously. Jesus did this in order that all of our injustice might be put to death, and we might live for true justice in Him.

But the appeal to the justice of God for sinful people can only be in Christ, otherwise, you are asking to be destroyed. How can sinful people ask for justice? The Bible’s answer is only in Christ. And this means on the one hand, refusing to revile, when we are reviled, refusing to threaten when we are abused, and on the other hand, it means refusing to back down, refusing to surrender, continuing steadfastly in obedience, entrusting ourselves to God, just like Jesus. 

So what will it be? The frail and vindictive justice of man that will ultimately be swallowed up in God’s perfect justice? Or will it be the justice of the cross? Remember, with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. The justice of the cross does not ignore sin and evil, but the justice of the cross is an appeal to the Highest Court, the Highest Judge, the Perfect Judge in the blood of Christ, and will not the Judge of the Whole World do right? Will He not hear the cries of the poor and the oppressed? Will He not have mercy even on high-handed, hard-hearted sinners who turn to Him in humility? 

This justice of the cross is being worked out here and now in history, but on the last day, on the Great and Final Triumphal Entry, there will be nothing undone that needed doing, there will be nothing done that needs undoing. Because Jesus appealed to One who judges justly, all of our cases have been perfectly appealed to the Father. And all will be well. All will be right. Praise the Lord.

Photo by Wesley Tingey on Unsplash

Woke is the New Whiteness

So there has been a flurry, perhaps even a blizzard, of “whiteness” in my feed of late. I mean literally, the word “whiteness” keeps showing up in my feed. And so far, I’ve picked up on the fact that “whiteness” is a bad thing, but let me hasten to add that I have also been told that “whiteness” is not strictly synonymous with having white or light colored skin. It’s just the systems of prejudice and oppression that many people have built, most of whom had lesser amounts of melanin in their skin, systems that have harmed and hindered people of color, folks with generally more melanin in their skin. 

Now, let me just say for the record, I’m completely fine with generalizations. The Bible is full of wonderful and helpful generalizations. Generalizations are helpful because they describe the world as it generally is. The book of Proverbs is full of generalizations about men, women, money, hard work, laziness, gossips, harlots, simpletons, liars, flatterers, and so on. Jesus generalized about the scribes and Pharisees and generally wrecked those titles from then until kingdom come, and Paul famously called the Cretans lying slow bellies (which is an insult that really should make its way back into pastoral vocabulary at some point), and Paul was surely aware there was at least one, hard working exception on that lazy island, but Paul knew that he knew what Paul was talking about. 

Now, I don’t even mind racial or ethnic generalizations – so long as we agree to equal weights and measures. This doesn’t mean we have to insist on equal judgments or outcomes. I’m not saying that we have to say one nice thing and one mean thing for every ethnicity or skin color and keep everything equal that way. I mean come on, white men can’t jump. I’m only insisting that we measure our claims with the same measuring stick. You can’t use one measuring stick with Anglo-Saxons and a different one with Africans and another one with Mexicans. That’s what we would call unjust. True justice must always be measured out. What is sin and evil with Joe is sin and evil with Barack, and what is sin and evil with Hillary is sin and evil with Oprah. Am I woke yet?

So, I’m perfectly fine with generalizing about the wicked systems of oppression white people have built. Here let me help you list some. One of the most wicked systems of whiteness white people have built is the abortion industrial complex. Abortion is about the whitest thing in the history of wicked whiteness. A white woman named Margaret Sanger championed it, and it’s routinely carried out by people in white gowns in white rooms with white walls, where everything is sterilized white. And a bunch of white men in black robes have repeatedly insisted that this violent crime be protected. And the predominant victims of this massacre are brown and black babies. Talk about a system of oppression and hatred. Talk about whiteness. 

Or here’s another one: our behemoth Nanny State, represented well now by a bunch of white buildings, where a bunch of white men and women have successfully scammed millions of Americans of all shades and hues into looking to them as providers, caregivers, masters, and saviors. If you can’t find a job, the people in the white buildings in Washington DC will help you and take care of you. If you’re old or disabled, the people in the white buildings will provide for you. In fact, the benevolent whiteness will provide daycare and educate your children and provide healthcare and regulate your use of electricity and your carbon footprint and count how many times you flush the toilet. This whiteness regulates what you do on your property, taxes you when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, when you rise up, and when you buy anything anywhere. But this white oppression did not begin in 1973, it stretches back to sinful and criminal acts of kidnapping, manstealing, and cruelty in the middle passage and on our soil. It includes vigilante acts of injustice as well as injustice motioned, seconded, and passed in legislatures, from Jim Crow to the New Deal. But we have exchanged one system of white oppression for another. One form of slavery for another. One form of cruelty for a far greater one.  

But just weights and measures also means that it’s entirely fair game to talk about the curses of “blackness.” I’m talking here about the blackness of fatherless America that has left women and children utterly abandoned by men in a culture where over half of black pregnancies are out of wedlock. Or how about the blackness of rap and hip hop culture that celebrates violence, and the nearly ubiquitous sexualization and objectification of women? Can we call out the perverse blackness of the men who make bazillions of dollars calling women “bitches and hoes” and treating them like that? Or what about the blackness that makes it more likely that a black baby in New York City will be chopped in pieces in its mother’s womb than be born? Or how about the blackness that keeps voting for politicians who keep giving more authority and power to our White Masters in DC?

But as far as I can tell, this is not the sort of justice our benighted social justice warriors are interested in. They keep using that word – justice – and I’m still not sure they know what the word actually means. Justice means there’s a standard, a measuring rod, a balance, and it applies equally to everyone. That’s what equality used to mean, equality before the law, equal standards, equal weights and measures. Best I can tell, when they say “woke,” they mean putting their fingers on the scales in the name of making up for past injustices. But that is to say that they will get justice by means of injustice, which to be perfectly honest is one of the whitest things they could do. They are basically dishing out what’s been dished to them, returning evil for evil, and that is what we call bad. And this is why Christians going in for this social justice wokeness are betraying the gospel. Yes, I know that most of them are not openly denying the gospel. I know that most of them could pass their catechism quizzes on the facts of the gospel. But they are betraying the gospel by putting their fingers on the scale. When they refuse to dish out mercy, when they refuse to dish out forgiveness, when they demand another apology, more guilt, more groveling before the shrine to racialism, they are denying the gospel.

Were you sinned against by a brother or sister? Did they disrespect you or defraud you or worse? Did you witness a brother sinning or being sinned against? Then go to your brother, confront the sin, and deal with it. We are Christians. Don’t start a wokeness tour, don’t start a reparations discussion, don’t start a whiteness awareness council. Deal with sin up the middle, and repent of your racial hustling.    

Yes, I know that the gospel has hands and feet and ministers healing grace to the hurting and oppressed. Yes, I know this nation has a horrific history of racial prejudice, racial injustice, racial animosity, and bloodshed. And this is why we need the gospel. We need the blood of Jesus. The gospel is the white hot wrath of a holy God poured out on our blackest sin in order to wash our hearts as white as snow, so that we might be as dark and lovely as the bride of Christ (Sol. 1:5). But Christians know this. They know they have been forgiven much. They know that they have been forgiven millions. Christians know that Jesus paid a debt they could never pay. And now some of them are talking about reparations. Christians know that they have been washed clean by the blood of Christ and now they are talking about this “whiteness,” this corporate guilt that you can’t just repent of and repudiate and be set free from.  

This is the insanity. The sadness of this woke gospel is that it is just more of the disease. This wokeness is just more whiteness. Welcome to the solutions of sinners, the treatment of the world; we’ll take all your money, your time, your energy and you’ll be just as sick as when you arrived. Welcome to your new master, just like the old master, just with a new name. We call your chains free-at-last, and that crushed-spirit malaise we call woke. 

Photo by Patrick Perkins on Unsplash

Authorities & Powers, Matt Walsh & Ben Shapiro

So there has been some recent hooplah apparently stemming from a Ben Shapiro interview of Matt Walsh over whether it is wise/helpful for Christians to appeal to Scripture when arguing with non-Christians. We actually interviewed Ben Shapiro back in the day on CrossPolitic and this same topic came up with him – which you can check out here.

So is it wise or helpful for Christians to appeal to Scripture when arguing with non-Christians? Is it helpful to appeal to an authority that someone does not acknowledge in trying to convince them of the legitimacy of that authority? My answer is yes absolutely, and it sort of depends. 

Scripture is a Smart Bomb
Here’s what I mean: first off, the Bible says that the Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword, able to divide between soul and spirit – it discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart, neither is any creature not manifest before God, but all things are naked and open before His eyes (Heb. 4:12-13). Appeal to Scripture is appeal to the Word of God, what Paul calls elsewhere the “sword of the Spirit” (Eph. 6:17). The Bible is what you might call a smart weapon. This does not mean that everyone who wields the Bible is a smart person or even a good or wise person. But the Bible itself is the Word of God, and it is more powerful than any other word, any other proof, any other human authority. This is because it is, well, the Word of God. If you have the choice between a heat seeking missile and rubber band gun, which one are you going to go with? God’s Word does not return empty, but most of our rubber bands end up on the floor. “So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it” (Isa. 55:11).

Let me says something really deep and profound: compared to the infinite wisdom of God, people are not smart. People are finite, prideful, foolish, and clumsy, even with the best intentions and maximum IQ, especially with Harvard Divinity degrees. But people are still insanely proud. We think we know stuff. We think we understand. We think we are brilliant. We are a race of six year old boys full of beans who think we are faster and stronger than everybody, maybe even than God! Now given this proclivity to arrogance and boasting and insolence, it may seem to some a bit irresponsible for God to have entrusted His Word to us, a badly head-swollen race, and in particular the Christian Church frequently suffering from the same malady, nevertheless, that’s precisely what He has done. He has given us His Word. This does not justify twisting Scripture to our own self-serving ends, or misleading people, or heresy, or any of the other millions of ways sinful people certainly can botch life all while quoting Bible verses – that’s our own damn fault, not God’s. But despite our sin, despite our folly, God’s word is still true and sharp and the most powerful weapon in every Christian’s arsenal. How could it not be? How could the word of any man, even our most brilliant men: scientists, historians, philosophers all – how could any analysis, data points, proofs rise to the authority or power of the One who holds every atom in the universe together by His Word (Col. 1:17)?

So there is a very important sense in which the fact that people don’t accept the authority of Scripture is utterly irrelevant. I don’t see scientists tripping over themselves trying to make their claims more plausible or more palatable because some people are still geocentric. Denying the authority of God is like denying gravity. Let me saying something else verging on profound: we shouldn’t be bothered by gravity-deniers. They are walking proofs of the existence of the law they deny. So too every unbeliever, every atheist, every agnostic – they are walking proofs of the existence of the God they blaspheme with every breath He gives them. They don’t accept His authority? Ha. That’s a good one.   

But It Also Sort Of Depends
But I also said that whether we appeal directly/explicitly to Scripture sort of depends. And what I mean is that as it turns out, this world is God’s world. He made it. He runs it. It obeys Him. The astrophysics of the universe exist in complete obedience to Jesus. Every atom in every cell on the backside of every bumble bee obeys Jesus. And Jesus is the Truth, and therefore all truth really is His truth. And therefore, it need not be capitulation to humanism or secularism to argue from truth in this world to the Truth that upholds it all, so long as we understand that all truth is compelling and persuasive because God is true. It is legitimate and frequently helpful to argue from the known to the unknown, from the concrete to the abstract, from the material world to the immaterial, spiritual world. But the reason it is helpful and compelling is because God made it all and upholds it all.

I don’t have any problem appealing to the authority of science or logic or history or sociology because I believe any legitimate authority or power of persuasion those fields of human study actually wield is derived from God. If I appeal to the authority of cops, I’m not necessarily negating the superior authority of Jesus or Scripture, so long as I am constantly remembering that a cop only has legitimate authority as he is submitted to the ultimate authority of Christ. If a cop orders me to do something contrary to Scripture, I must cheerful disobey him because Jesus is my higher power. And I can’t believe I just wrote that Jesus is my higher power. But it’s true.

A Closing Parable Of Sorts
So let’s close with a short parable of sorts. Imagine you’re with the Allies at the end of World War II doing the clean up after Nazi Germany has surrendered and Hitler is dead. Suppose you’re in an American unit that pulls into a German city that hasn’t yet gotten word that Hitler is dead and the war is over. As you pull into town, you are met by a hostile German outpost, which (work with me here) for some reason decides not to open fire immediately. You are in the delegation sent out to meet the German delegation. How do you proceed to argue for the legitimacy of your Allied mission and the necessity of their surrender? The most straightforward tact, seems to me, would be to tell the German troops that Hitler is dead, Germany has surrendered, and the war is over – they should disband and go home. Now as it turns out, the German troops do not accept your authority. Their authority is Hitler, the Third Reich, and as far they are concerned, you’re just making stuff up to get them to let you into town.

In this scenario, it’s perfectly legitimate to point out other circumstantial proofs of these facts. You might point to the evidence of other cities surrendering to the Allies. You might have a newspaper from some other German city with a story or headline reporting on the facts. But all of those “evidences” are true because the highest truth is true: The Allies won and Hitler is dead. But what you must not do is pretend that Hitler is still in power. You must not grant legitimacy to their false authority and power. They must be required to stand down, surrender, or else, if you strike some kind of deal with them, convincing them that Hitler said it was OK for the Americans to come into town, while leaving the Germans to remain in power, you have not obeyed your orders, and you have committed a form of treason. The central issue is the fact of different authorities. Surrender means they must repudiate their old authority and accept a new one. And, follow me closely here, you cannot argue for the necessity of their acceptance of a new authority while granting legitimacy to their old authority.

A Longish Conclusion
What presuppositionalists (like me) are concerned to preserve is that fact that all facts are true because Jesus is Lord. There are no facts or truths that exist in the universe independent of God. All truth is true because God made it so. And therefore there is no such thing as neutrality, or neutral ground. I don’t mind arguing from some point in this world that an atheist thinks is neutral ground, but a Christian should never agree with an atheist that it actually is neutral ground. All truth that resides in science and sociology and history and philosophy does so in complete submission to the Lord Jesus Christ. How could it not? We must not grant neutrality to any area of life because to do so is to defy the Lordship of Jesus over that area of life. The unbeliever trusts supremely in himself. It is his insolent pride that keeps him from surrendering to Jesus. It is the fortress of human authority that must fall. It is the folly of human wisdom that must be completely surrendered. The danger of arguing from logic or philosophy or science is the possibility of keeping human authority and pride in power, all while rearranging some of the patio furniture, becoming a secular conservative, say. But a secular conservative, whatever short term gains there may be (and I’m truly glad for the momentary reprieve), is still a servant of the enemy because the enemy is human pride – the insolent pretense of knowing better than God, the arrogance of thinking you can organize a good and moral society without the Triune God, the blasphemous tyranny of human “good intentions” that inevitably reduces to slavery and insanity.

But on the other hand, some zealous presuppositionalists may inadvertently weaken their own position by not admitting reference to any other evidences for the existence of God, the truth of the gospel, the holocaust of abortion, the goodness of heterosexual marriage, etc. Using the authority of science, the arguments of logic, the evidences of history in some measure is actually one of the ways we affirm the absolute and universal authority of Jesus since all true authority and power in this world only exist because Jesus is Lord. This is the true and persuasive authority of natural revelation or natural law.

It is no problem appealing to a non-Scriptural argument so long as we understand that any force or power it has is from the Lord Jesus and His Word. The danger is the temptation to begin to think that we don’t need God’s Word, that certain truths exist apart from Jesus and are authoritative whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. And that is to saw off the branch you’re sitting on. And remember that the Devil would love to have Christians ashamed of God’s Word, ashamed of the gospel proclamation, ashamed of the authority of Christ. This is why Paul insists, to the Romans no less, that He is not ashamed of the gospel since it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes (Rom. 1:16). Sure, throw every rock you’ve got at the giants of unbelief. But remember that the Word of God found in Scripture is a heat-seeking missile, a smart cluster bomb, and it can do what none of our words can do – it can get into the thoughts and intents of the heart, it can divide between soul and spirit, and ultimately, wherever true heart conversion has taken place, it is the Word of God that wrecks the fortress of human pride and takes captive every disobedient human word, every thought to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5).

Photo by Stainless Images on Unsplash

Fortress of Meekness

“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth” (Matt. 5:5).

Many Christians have come to believe that “meekness” is basically synonymous with apathy, niceness, softness, and generally spineless cowardice. But this is not biblical meekness at all. 

First of all, Jesus says that the meek shall inherit the earth. This means that meekness wants to inherit the earth. You cannot be meek unless you are ambitious. Jesus is not saying that it is foolish to want to win the whole world. Jesus is telling us how to want to win the world, and how to actually do it. 

Jesus Himself is the Meek One. He died and rose again and inherited the whole world. The ends of the earth have become His possession. All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Him. He must be our standard for what it means to be meek. He was meek when he ditched his parents as a twelve year old in order to debate with the scribes in the temple. He was meek when He later called them hypocrites and snakes. He was meek when He overturned tables and cracked a whip. He was meek in agony in the garden, and meek when He cried out on the cross. 

The Bible says that Moses was the meekest man on the earth in his days. While Moses was not perfectly meek like the Lord, he was no soft man. He was no coward. He was not generally known for his niceties and pleasantries. He stood before Pharaoh and declared the word of God boldly, and he did so again and again while reducing the Egyptian empire to ruins. He led Israel through the sea and through the wilderness, while they complained and plotted against him. He interceded for them when they deserved to die. 

So what is meekness? Meekness is the Spirit’s grace that allows believers to rule their passions, their emotions, their feelings in holiness. Meekness is the peace that passes all understanding, the fortress of God’s goodness and love surrounding your heart and mind, in the fiercest storms of life. Meekness is pursuing justice without panic, without fear, without emotional rollercoasters. Meekness is a glad, steeled resolve, a zeal for righteousness and truth that is grounded in Christ the Rock, that cannot be moved; meekness is not easily offended, forgives freely and gladly, and repays good for evil at every turn.

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

Photo by Richard Clark on Unsplash

Happy, Scrappy Warriors: Meekness, Zeal, & Christian Strategy

Introduction
The tag line of CrossPolitic is “Fight, Laugh, and Feast,” and this is admittedly sometimes a real balancing act. We live in an effeminate and sentimental goo-fest of a culture where hard words and sharp words are condemned as automatically hateful and harmful. Many of our Christian leaders go mealy-mouthed, cowering and flinching in fear of the world, bowing and scraping at whatever virtue altars have been erected by the word (racial sensitivity, #metoo, etc.), and in reaction, many Christians go sinfully ballistic, bombastic, and belligerent.

Blessed Are the Meek
But Jesus says blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. This means first of all that the meek want to inherit the earth. Jesus is not teaching here that it is foolish to want to win. Jesus is teaching here the right way to want to win. Meekness is not apathy. Meekness is not a doormat. Biblical meekness is bold, courageous, and undeterred by opposition, conflict, and enemies. But meekness is also the continual Sabbath rest of Jesus in the soul of a man. Thomas Watson says, “Meekness is a grace whereby we are enabled by the Spirit of God to moderate our passion” (Beatitudes, 106). This meekness bears with injuries, forgives easily and quickly, repays good for evil, all while remaining zealous for goodness, justice, and truth. Watson again: “There is an holy anger. That anger without sin which is against sin. Meekness and zeal may stand together. In matters of religion, a Christian must be clothed with the spirit of Elias, and be full of the fury of the Lord (Jer. 6:11). Christ was meek (Mt. 11:29), yet zealous (Jn. 2:14-15). The zeal of God’s house ate him up” (Beatitudes, 107).

To these examples, we may add the example of Moses, whom Numbers calls the “meekest man on the earth” (Num. 12:3) – by which we may no doubt surmise that this particular sentence was written by someone other than Moses – this was no humble brag on the part of the great patriarch. Despite the later intemperance of Moses striking the rock in sinful anger (Num. 20), we may still see in the life of Moses an example of deep humility, self-discipline, and meekness full of zeal. Moses faced down Pharaoh. Moses led Israel through the Red Sea. Moses withstood the complaints and rebellions of Israel in the wilderness. Therefore we conclude that meekness is steeled, happy resolve, gladness in steady progress, and a plodding, joyful courage, not given to panic, not emotionally unstable, not a roller-coaster of feelings.

Two Modern Examples
But I want to turn the corner here and make some practical observations and applications to our world today. I believe we have work to do in this area particularly where the battles are the fiercest. I’ll mention two here briefly: abortion and the LGBT crusade.

First, on the abortion front, I’ll use the example of the movie Unplanned, in theaters now, I understand. I haven’t seen the film, so I do want to reserve the right to modify my assessment after I have seen it, but based on all the reactions and reviews I’ve seen in my feed, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that I think Christians should be generally very thankful for Unplanned. And as far as the world is concerned, we should cheer its success and seek to support it. As far as the world is concerned Abby Johnson is with us. She wants to dismantle the Industrial Abortion Complex, and so do we. This does not mean that I think Christians need to think that Abby Johnson, the central character depicted in the film, is everything we should look for or want in a front person for ending abortion in America. Neither do I think that Protestants should be unthinking or uncritical of various ways in which Roman Catholics (and other sects for that matter) will allow their errant theology to inform their message and methods. But we really must understand battle strategy better than I’m seeing here and there. And this means we need to understand the usefulness of cobelligerents.

Cobelligerents are not allies. Cobelligerents do not share our values, but we do share the same enemies. The most famous case in recent history was the Soviets in World War 2. The Soviets were not allies, but they were cobelligerents in their fight against Germany. It would have made no sense at all for Great Britain and America to start bombing the Soviets while they were attacking the Nazis. Yes, the Soviets were actually enemies on a number of fronts (they were communists after all), and that battle would need to be fought eventually, but it wasn’t the immediate threat. The immediate threat was militant Nazism and fascism. So too here in our day: abortion is the common enemy, the immediate threat. And we should cheer every bomb dropped on that enemy, every godly rock we can sling at that bloodthirsty giant.

We may think some of the bombs, some of the rocks are not as effective as others. We may even have serious concerns about certain flanks in our front. Fair enough. All well and good. We may make suggestions about strategy here and there or even debate methods at certain points, but the last thing we should be doing if we want to end abortion now in the US is to attack other people who are fighting that same enemy. And meekness means being undeterred if they occasionally slander us, misrepresent us, or even attack us or do us harm. We should do everything we can to avoid a two front war. The one, single front of abortion is a big enough challenge.

But listen to me carefully: meekness does not mean that we cannot defend ourselves from attacks. Meekness is not pacifism. But meekness means being resolute about our immediate goal, and bearing with the weaknesses and messiness of the path to victory. Of course, if a so-called belligerent can be shown to actually be supporting the enemy, covering for the enemy, defending the enemy, then they are not really a belligerent and they have joined the enemy. But in this case, a movie that clearly depicts abortion as the murder of an unborn human being is a glorious, cluster bomb being dropped on our common enemy. There may be subtle (or not so subtle) Roman Catholic theology woven into the film, there may be subtle (or not so subtle) shots taken at Protestants or those who preach outside abortion clinics, but I say, let them. We are not perfectionists. We are Christians. If we are attacked for being belligerent for open air preaching, and we respond with prickliness, whining, or even belligerence, how have we not proven their point? But if we smile and cheer on the main point of their film, and keep on preaching Christ crucified the power to save and the power to end abortion, while answering objections or slanders along the way, we actually demonstrate any possible slander to be a lie. Keeping the gospel central ought to make us happy, scrappy warriors. And please be assured that I am not thinking of any particular response to Unplanned out there as I write this. This is just me giving some general observations and encouragements to my friends in arms.

The LGBT Front
Lastly, and more briefly, consider the current full-court press of the LGBT Fascists to muzzle every form of Christian dissent and to mandate lockstep approval, blessing, and support for every form of perversion they dream up. From the Obergefell Supreme Court decision to the Colorado cake baker to the current San Antonio chic-fil-a circus to the Equality Act currently being considered in Congress, we are being chased hard by our enemies. We need a whole lot more Christians actually speaking up in the public square about the harm that LGBT legislation is causing. We need Christians confident in the truth educating their city councils and representatives on the damage that SOJI legislation and things like the Equality Act are doing and will do in the years to come to Christian churches, schools, and Christian owned businesses. And Christians really do need to see the connections between the LGBT front and the Abortion front. It’s the same enemy. It’s the same culture of death. But if we aren’t careful, we will be outflanked by LGBT laws. I will try to write more about this soon. But suffice it to say: Christians need to speak up on the LGBT front, but this is my plea: when we do, we need to speak with meekness. This meekness ought to measure words carefully, and discharge those words with the requisite force, sharpness, boldness, and gladness required by God and His word, appropriate to the situation and context. And do not misunderstand me: A meek soldier does not hold back when firing on the enemy, but he fires on the enemy in obedience, with resolution, and a zealous joy. He does not panic. He does overflow with fury or malice. He carries out his mission as a servant of the Lord.

Think of the sniper in Saving Private Ryan, reciting Psalms and pulling his trigger over and over again. Meekness is biblical boldness, calm courage, and uses hard-hitting, sharp, and pointed words when and where required by God, but always seasoned with grace and gladness and Sabbath joy.

Machen on Fords & Public Schools

Speaking in 1936, J Gresham Machen said:

“We are witnessing in our day a world-wide attack upon the fundamental principles of civil and religious freedom. In some countries, such as Italy, the attack has been blatant and unashamed; Mussolini despises democracy and does not mind saying so. A similar despotism now prevails in Germany; and in Russia freedom is being crushed out by what is perhaps the most complete and systematic tyranny that the world has every seen.

But exactly the same tendency that is manifested in extreme form in those countries, is also being manifested, more slowly but none the less surely, in America. It has been given an enormous impetus first by the war and now by the economic depression; but aside form these external stimuli it has its roots in a fundamental deterioration of the American people. Gradually the people has come to value principle less and creature comfort more; increasingly it has come to prefer prosperity to freedom; and even in the field of prosperity it cannot be said that the effect is satisfactory.

The result of this decadence in the American people is seen in the rapid growth of a centralized bureaucracy which is the thing against which the Constitution of the United States was most clearly intended to guard.

…

It is true, the attack upon liberty is nothing new. Always there have been tyrants in the world; almost always tyranny has begun by being superficially beneficent, and always it has ended by being both superficially and radically cruel.

But while tyranny itself is nothing new, the technique of tyranny has been enormously improved in our day; the tyranny of the scientific expert is the most crushing tyranny of all. That tyranny is being exercised most effectively in the field of education. A monopolistic system of education controlled by the State is far more efficient in crushing our liberty than the cruder weapons of fire and sword. Against this monopoly of education by the State the Christian school brings a salutary protest; it contends for the right of parents to bring up their children in accordance with the dictates of their conscience and not in the manner prescribed by the State. 

That right has been attacked in America in recent years in the most blatant possible ways. In Oregon, a law was actually passed some years ago requiring all children to attend the public schools — thus taking the children from the control of their parents and placing them under the despotic control of whatever superintendent of education might happen to be in office in the district in which they resided. In Nebraska, a law was passed forbidding the study of languages other than English, even in private schools, until the child was too old to learn them well. That was really a law making literary education a crime. In New York, one of the abominable Lusk Laws placed even private tutors under state supervision and control.

…

Another line of attack upon liberty has appeared in the advocacy of a Federal department of education. Repeatedly this vicious proposal has been introduced in Congress. It has been consistently favored by that powerful organization, the National Education Association…

Such demands are in the interests of uniformity in the sphere of education. There should be, it is said, a powerful coordinating agency in education, to set up standards and encourage the production of something like a system. But what shall we say of such an aim? I have no hesitation, for my part, in saying that I am dead opposed to it. Uniformity in education, it seems to me, is one of the worst calamities into which any people can fall.

There are, it is true, some spheres in which uniformity is a good thing. It is a good thing, for example, in the making of Ford cars. In the making of a Ford car, uniformity is the great end of the activity. That end is, indeed, not always fully attained. Sometimes a Ford car possesses entirely too much individuality. My observation was, in the heroic days before the invention of self-starters, when a Ford was still a Ford, that sometimes a Ford car would start and sometimes it would not start; and if it would not start there was no use whatever in giving it any encouraging advice. But although uniformity was not always perfectly attained, the aim, at least, was to attain it; the purpose of the whole activity was that one Ford car should be just as much like every other Ford car as it could possibly be made.

But what is good for a Ford car is not always good for a human being, for the simple reason that a Ford car is a machine while a human being is a person. Our modern pedagogic experts seem to deny the distinction, and that is one place where our quarrel with them comes in. When you are dealing with human beings, standardization is the last thing you ought to seek. Uniformity of education under one central governmental department would be a very great calamity indeed.

We are constantly told, it is true, that there ought to be an equal opportunity for all the children in the United States; therefore, it is said, Federal aid ought to be given to backward states. But what shall we say about this business of “equal opportunity?” I will tell you what I say about it; I am entirely opposed to it. One thing is perfectly clear — if all the children in the United States have equal opportunity, no child will have an opportunity that is worth very much. If parents cannot have the great incentives of providing high and special educational advantages for their own children, then we shall in this country a drab and soul-killing uniformity, and there will be scarcely any opportunity for anyone to get out of the miserable rut.

The thing is really quite clear. Every lover of human freedom ought to oppose with all his might the giving of Federal aid to the schools of this country; for Federal aid in the long run inevitably means Federal control, and Federal control means control by a centralized and irresponsible bureaucracy, and control by such a bureaucracy means the death of everything that might make this country great.

Against this soul-killing collectivism in education, the Christian school, like the private school, stands as an emphatic protest.”

Selections from “The Necessity of the Christian School” published in Education, Christianity, and the State.

Photo by Alex Blăjan on Unsplash

Who’s Really Having Fun?

“Do not let your heart envy sinners, but be zealous for the fear of the LORD all the day; for surely there is a hereafter, and your hope will not be cut off” (Prov. 23:17-18).

It is sometimes tempting to think that sinners are having all the fun. They do whatever they want, watch whatever they want, say whatever they want, and look, they aren’t dead, they seem to doing well, succeeding in life, and having fun. And meanwhile, being a Christian means not doing a bunch of things I really want to do, and apparently not having any fun at the same time. And so we are tempted to envy sinners.

But there are two really good answers to this apparent temptation. First, they aren’t really having that much fun. Abortion, pornography, abuse, adultery, divorce, estrangement from children, bitterness, alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, suicide, rage, murder – they aren’t really having fun. Oh, sure, it’s fun for about 10 minutes, like the feeling that you’re flying in the middle of a free fall. But they’re not really flying; they’re falling, falling fast.

And this leads to the second answer, which is that it’s foolish to judge by this life only. There is a hereafter. There is a judgement because there is a God. Doing whatever you want and expecting to find joy is like rummaging around in a trash can and expecting to find dinner. 

Joy is finding goodness and taking pleasure in it. But this presupposes that goodness actually exists in the world, that some things are good and somethings are, well, bad. Otherwise, there’s no such thing as joy. But if there is such a thing as joy and therefore such a thing as goodness, then there is a Source of goodness, Standard, a Judge over all, and in the end there will be a reckoning. 

Those who pursue real joy, real goodness in this world, under the blessing of the source of all Goodness – their hope will not be cut off. But those who insist on decorating prison cells and calling that freedom and fun, they will also get exactly what they asked for.

Never forget: the Bible does not teach that God is the great Grinch in the Sky, fuming about people trying to have fun. No, that’s the devil, only he knows he has to sell his despair in bottles labeled fun. But God is the One who invented this place. He loaded it with good things and created us to enjoy it all. At His right hand are pleasures forevermore.

Photo by Pineapple Supply Co. on Unsplash

Captain Marvel & Typological Typhoid

I haven’t seen Captain Marvel, and I’m not sure I will. But an article is making the conservative Christian rounds that needs something said about it.

Eric Schumacher writes in defense of the movie heroine:

The church is a “she,” and she is a warrior. The church is the Bride of the King. To see her is to behold your queen. Who is it that Paul commands to put on armor and take up a sword to oppose the devil? The Bride of Christ. Under whose feet will the God of peace soon crush Satan? The Bride of Christ. Who shall reign forever with the King of Kings and Lord of Lords? The Bride of Christ. She is a warrior, dressed for battle, crushing the head of a dragon beneath her feet as she rules with her husband, the King. Behold your queen, indeed.

This is an example of typological typhoid. This is an example of poetry perversion. This is an example of metaphors malfunctioning. This is an example of exegesis with the brake lines cut. There’s no stopping this train.

I’m not saying that Eric Schumacher is intending to take us anywhere nefarious. I don’t know the man, and the article seems to indicate that he cares about biblical orthodoxy and fidelity. But this is trouble, people. And the point can be framed rather simply by asking where the brakes are and why.

So, a woman can be celebrated as a warrior because the Bride of Christ is a warrior? So can a woman be mustered for military combat? And if not, why not?

If it is glorious for a woman to be a warrior, then it is glorious for her to be mustered to serve her country. But if it is a wicked, shameful thing for women to don the uniform and weapons of a warrior, and wicked and shameful for women to give their lives in combat, then it is wicked and shameful for them to be mustered for war.

But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot defend the image of a woman as Xena Warrior Princess based on Scriptural metaphors and then try to pretend you didn’t just celebrate women in combat. Schumacher insists that the film fails as feminist propaganda (and maybe it does), and therefore he writes, “This film is not lobbying for drafting or conscripting our daughters to be maimed or die in war.” And maybe that’s true also.

But my question for Schumacher (or anyone who agrees with him) is not whether the film is lobbying for drafting or conscripting our daughters for war. My question is whether he is (unintentionally) lobbying for our daughters to be drafted and conscripted for war. Can he explain, based on his typological reading of Scripture, why our daughters shouldn’t be mustered for war?

Photo by Chris Zhang on Unsplash