“Rev.” Brian Lee’s “Theology” Examined … R2K Shows It’s Colors

I hope to take a few posts examining the article found here

http://www.patheos.com/Topics/Politics-in-the-Pulpit/The-Church-Should-Not-Weigh-In-On-Ballot-Issues-Brian-Lee-110314.html

I was going to deal with it in all one post but there is so much wrong with this article from Radical Two Kingdom “Pastor,” Rev. Brian Lee, I thought I would take it one bite at a time over several posts and maybe days.

POLITICS IN THE PULPIT

The Church Should Not Weigh In On Ballot Issues

The Good News of Jesus Christ is the sole focus of our Gospel ministry, because we have neither the authority nor the expertise to weigh in on civil matters.

By Brian Lee, November 03, 2014

The headline of the article and the following lead in thematic sentence give us what “Rev.” Brian Lee believes the role of the Institutional Church and Ministers is to be, in American politics. It is interesting that the point that Lee is trying to support in his article is the same point that Chancellor Adolph Hitler made to Bishop Martin Niemoller when Niemoller protested some of Hitler’s policy. Said Hitler to Niemoller,

“I will protect the German people. You take care of the church. You pastors should worry about getting people to heaven, and leave this world to me.”

It is fascinating that the italicized sentence above is exactly what “Rev.” Brian Lee is arguing in for in the affirmative. Who could have known that Lee would have learned his theology from Hitler. Who could have known that Hitler’s position was a early form of Radical Two Kingdom (R2K) theology.

Of course it is not just Hitler’s theology. In point of fact it is the theology of all Tyrants who would have the Church shut up and remain supine in their attempt to translate themselves and the State into God’s competition as God walking on the Earth.

Yet here we have, in Lee, a putatively Reformed minister in a putatively conservative denomination, (URC) agreeing with every Tyrant’s most intense lust, that the Church just needs to go all supine when presented with the State’s rebellion against God.

Sodomy is Sin Scripture (Text) References

The chief “sodomy is sin” verse references at hand, just to save folks the time in case they were wanting to look them up:

Genesis 19
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
Deuteronomy 23:17-18
Judges 19
I Kings 14:24 and 15:12
Romans 1:26
I Corinthians 6:9
I Timothy 1:8-11
Jude 1:7

Revelation 22:15 also applies, when interpreted in light of “dogs” in Deuteronomy 23:18 and their position in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Jude 1:7.

In Genesis 19, sodomy is called “wicked”, and the Lord destroys Sodom and
Gomorrah by raining down fire and brimstone upon them.

 In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, sodomy is declared an “abomination”, and the
prescribed penalty for committing this abomination is death. Contextual
associations are made with incest, adultery, bestiality, human sacrifice, and
consorting with mediums.

 In Deuteronomy 23:18, an offering from the wages of a male prostitute is declared
to be an “abomination” and sodomites are referred to as “dogs” (compare also with
Revelation 22:15).

 In Judges 19:23, sodomy is referred to as “wicked” and “folly”. In the conflict
resulting from the actions of the sodomites described therein, over 25,000
Benjaminites were slaughtered and the entire city of Gibeah put to the sword at the
express command of the Lord.

 In I Kings 14:24, sodomy is again named an “abomination”. A contextual association
is made with idolatry.

 In I Kings 15:12, King Asa, who “did what was right in the sight of the Lord”, expelled
all of the sodomite temple prostitutes from the land. Sodomy is again associated
with idolatry.

 Romans 1 contains an abundance of frank condemnations of sodomy. It’s “impure”,
“dishonorable”, “degrading”, “unnatural”, “indecent”, and “depraved”. It’s a
punishment from God when we repeatedly refuse to repent, and He plagues our
lands for our stubborn impudence by giving us over to our wicked passions for the
purpose of our own destruction. As with the I Kings references, sodomy is
contextually associated with idolatry.

 In I Corinthians 6:9, sodomites are declared “unrighteous” and it is plainly stated
that they will not inherit the kingdom of God. Contextual associations are made 7
with fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, coveters, drunkards, revilers, and
swindlers.

 In I Timothy 1:10, sodomites are listed along with those who are lawless, rebellious,
ungodly, unholy, profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers,
kidnappers, liars, and perjurers.

 In Jude 1:7, sodomites are declared guilty of indulging in “gross immorality” for
pursuing “strange flesh”. In the punishment God bestowed upon them, the
residents of Sodom and Gomorrah were “exhibited as an example in undergoing the
punishment of eternal fire”.

Hat Tip — Mickey Henry

Talking the Abiding Validity of God’s Law with a Dispensationalist

Dear Pastor,

Having been to Seminary myself and having studied Greek and Hebrew and having 10,000 hits daily on my blog I wanted to inform you that I think you’re quite wrong about the ongoing validity of God’s law. Here are a slew of NT Scriptures that prove you wrong and prove that the Law indeed as come to an end for the Christian.

Do you honestly believe we are to follow all 613 commandments given? Wouldn’t that mean that not only do we have to stone our children and homosexuals, but would also mean we’d still be doing sacrifices. Or unable to eat things like pork, when we see in Acts that this too is untrue. The OT law is no longer applicable to the modern day Christian in the way you are saying it is.

William Hess

Dear William,

Thank you for your to the point letter. I will seek to respond to your Scripture references in this post, dealing with what you offered as I go. Do keep in mind that our differences can be accounted for by the fact that you are a Dispensationalist and I am a Biblical Christian (Covenant – Reformed). Of course our differences are sharp. Indeed, they are so sharp, given your implicit and explicit antinomianism, that I would counsel you to re-examine whether or not you are serving the same Christ as the one who walks through the Scripture. Our disagreements are most serious then.

Keep in mind that the word “law” is used at least 8 different ways in the book of Romans alone. You just can’t assume that it is being the used the same way every time. You also have to read the whole of Scripture in its whole context. The whole idea that Christians are done with the law is overturned repeatedly in Scripture. For example,

Acts 24:14 (NKJV) – St. Paul speaking,

“But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the Elohim of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.”

Acts 25:8 – while he answered for himself, “Neither against the Law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all.”

For example, Paul can say in Romans 7 that “the Law is Holy, just and good.” Hardly an indictment of the Law.

In Romans 3 we hear Paul say,

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid! Yea, we establish the law.

Further, if we had no relation to the law it would not be possible to even have a definition of sin. If we were done with the law it would be not be possible to sin since there would be no standard by which sin could be measured. Are you contending William that you are no longer a sinner? In order to put off sin we must have law to define sin.

You cite Romans 6:14 “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.”

You seemingly seem to be saying that since we are under grace we have no relationship to the law. That is an unfortunate reading on your part.

When the Holy Spirit says “we are not under law but grace,” the context demands us to read that as “we are not under law as a means of Justification (i.e. — earning God’s favor) but we are under God’s grace as the means of bing freely Justified. It doesn’t mean we no longer have a relation to the law. St. Paul assumes everywhere that we have a new relation to the law because we are in Christ. It is why St. Paul can say that the Law is “Holy, Just, and Good.”

You cite Romans 7:4 — “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.”

Again, you seemingly conclude from this that the law has no standing in the Christian’s life today. Again that is unfortunate “reasoning” on your part William.

You see, we are dead to the law as a means to earns God’s favor. We do not obey the law in ordr to have life, but having life we obey the law with a evangelical obedience (as opposed to a “legal obedience.”) Indeed we could not even know what fruit is without the law as a standard to adjudicate for us what defines fruit and what doesn’t.

You cite, Romans 7:6 — “But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.”

Seemingly you think that this proves that this proves your thesis that the Law has no place in the Christians life.

The question must be asked, “in what sense are we delivered from the law,” and the answer clearly is that we are delivered from the condemnation of the law. However, as delivered from the condemnation of the law we now have a positive relation to God’s law as a guide to life. You see we are serving in newness of Spirit because the Spirit is the person who makes us delight in God’s law. Paul can even say there that “7:22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man..” The problem is NOT the law William. The problem is who we are in Adam. But who we are in Christ rejoices in God’s law.

Next you cite Galatians 5:18, “But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.”

However, what Gal. 5:18 gives us the idea that we are indeed “under the spirit” but what is being contrasted there vis a vis being “under the law” is the idea of being under the law as a means to gain Salvation. However, all because we are under the Spirit that does not mean we have no relationship with the law. If we had no relationship to the law we could never know what sin is. Indeed sin can not exist where there is no law.

You keep confusing the relationship of the Christian to the law as a Christian (2nd and 3rd uses of the law) and the relationship that someone who is dead in sin has to the law (1st use of the law).

Next you appeal to Galatians 3:24, “We are no longer under a schoolmaster.”

Again … the point here is NOT that we have no relation to the law but rather that the Law pointed and lead to Christ. The problem that Paul is dealing with there is that there are people who desire to use the law unlawfully as a pole vault to spring into heaven. Paul is saying there that that is not the work of the law. It is faith alone in Christ alone that gives us peace with God. However, in Chapter 6 St. Paul gives a list of sins and says that those who practice those sins shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of heaven. Now, how could they know what those sins are if they did not have a relation to the law? How did St. Paul know that those sins listed in Galatians 6 were sins if He were not implicitly appealing to the Law as the standard that defines those sins?

The puritans had a saying you desperately need to keep in mind William.

“The law sends us to Christ for justification and Christ sends us back to the law for sanctification.”

Now of course our relation to the law is no longer “legal” but “evangelical” which is to say we obey out of a grateful response for our full Redemption and not in order to curry an uncertain Redemption.

Your continued insistence that we have no relation to the law is pure antinomianism and not in the least Christian.

Next you quote Ii Corinthians 3:11, “For if that which is done away with was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.”

That which is done away with is old covenant .. not the law. The old covenant was a shadow of Christ. It anticpated Christ. In point of fact it even adumbrated Christ. But now that Christ has come it is done away in the sense that with the coming of all that which was in shadow form, now the shadows are no longer necessary. The Old Covenant is referred to a “ministry of condemnation” because in the Sacrifices of the Old Covenant the Believers were constantly reminded of their sin. However, in the New and Better Covenant, Christ — the fulfillment of the Old Covenant sacrifices — is once forever sacrificed, and so Believers, after the crucifixion of Christ, have been given all that was promised and so are part of a more glorious ministration.

BUT once again this not prove that the Christian has no relation to the law.

Even the Lord Christ said

17 “Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
18 For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.

The Lord Christ even told the Pharisees that they should have kept the law of tithing mint, dill, and cummin. (Their failure was in forgetting the weightier matters of the law) Mt. 23:23.

Your mishandling of Scripture here my friend is significantly flawed.

Next you quote Colossians 2 which in your mind again proves your point that we are done with the law,

Colossians 2:14 “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;”

Christ took away the handwriting of the law against us in terms of its ability to condemn. That does not mean he took the away the law as a guide to life in its 2nd or 3rd use. There is therefore now condemnation for those in Christ Jesus but the fact that there is no condemnation does not mean there is no requirement to walk in righteousness. Walking in righteousness can not be done apart from a standard. That standard is God’s law.

On to your appeal to Hebrews,

Hebrews 8:10-13 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”

Hebrews 10:8-10 ” Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

The 1st Hebrews passage you quote proves my point. God writes His law on our hearts What law? The OT Law. That means we still have a relationship to the law. If the OT law is written on our hearts then how could we not have the law as a standard for a guide to life?

In point of fact William, as Christ was the incarnation of God’s law to say we don’t have a relationship with the Law is to say we don’t have a relationship to Christ.

In terms of the 2nd Hebrews passage we must say that what is taken away is the sacrificial system or what we would call the ceremonial usage of the law. This does not mean that the moral law is done away with. How could it be since it is that moral law that is written on our hearts per the Hebrews 8 passage you cite?

Finally you appeal to Romans 10:4, — “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”

With this wrong interpretation you’re making a common mistake. The word for end there in the greek is “Teleos.” It does not mean “end” in the sense that the law is ended. It means “goal.” Christ is the goal or purpose of the Law. The Law pointed to Christ and was fulfilled in Christ in terms of its demands for perfection but that does not mean that the law no longer is a matter to delight to us both day and night. (Psalm 1).

Now as to your 2nd paragraph in your letter.

No, I do not believe that post Cross Christians follow all 613 of the OT Laws. Many of those Laws have been fulfilled (not abrogated) in Christ. Hence the Ceremonial law, as it is often referred to is a category of law that we are not answerable to because Christ has fulfilled all that in His death. As such we definitely still do not do sacrifices. Further matters like the prohibition of mixing seed, mixing cloths, and mixing plowing animals, likewise can be seen as past since the essence of those laws were to teach the necessity to remain unmixed from the pagan gentile nations around them. As Christ has come and has now broken down the spiritual dividing wall between Jew and Gentile and has now brought the Gentile nations in those laws lose their metaphor necessity of not being mixed with pagan gentiles, though the general equity of them remain as contained in the idea of being separated unto God (II Cor. 6:14-7:1). Some would argue that the OT dietary laws are also void since the Lord Christ said,

Mt. 15:11 — “it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.”

As that is combined with Acts 10 and the vision where God tells Peter to eat heretofore unclean animals as symbology for Peter to go to the Cornelius the Centurion many Christians come to the conclusion that the OT Dietary laws are void. However, many solid Christians will hold that these dietary laws still do apply.

In terms of stoning … why would we think that somehow that God in the OT was unreasonable but now in the NT he has changed so now that He is reasonable?

Some Christians will insist that these laws are still valid since they were never rescinded in the NT. Those Christians would say that the problem is not with the law that requires stoining but rather the problem is with modern day Christians sensibility that some how that is mean and cruel of God.

Other Christians will argue that the Stoning laws are still valid though they represent a “maximum” penalty that can be applied. For these thoughtful Christians the argument would be that lesser penalties could be applied since “the death penalty is the maximum, not necessarily the mandatory penalty.”

In terms of stoning a miscreant child we must keep in mind that we are not talking about toddlers throwing tantrums. The idea there is likely an adolescent or adult child who has been recklessly disobedient in a long direction. It is interesting that though we have this law, we have exactly zero instances of its application in the Scriptures.

So, you see that the OT civil-judicial law, as it serves as the case law for the 10 commandments, do still apply, sometimes directly via the general equity of those original laws, and sometimes indirectly via the general equity of those case laws.

I hope this answers your writing to me William and lays out some distinctions between Dispensationalism as a theology of discontinuity and Biblical Christianity as a theology of continuity and discontinuity.

As I said earlier, you’re completely misreading the Scripture with this Dispensational scheme and so are firing blanks.

I hope that over the years God grants you grace to rethink these matters.

Kind regards,

Priesthood of all Believers

Priesthood of All Believers

Institution vs. Organism

Abraham Kuyper’s distinction between the church as institution and the church as organism.

Church as Institution — Official structures of the Church, with its offices of Pastors, Elders, and Deacons assigned the role of maintaining the marks of the Church, that is, the Preaching of the Word, Dispensing of the Sacraments, Discipling and caring for the membership as well as the other responsibilities that attach themselves to the formal existence of the Church. In many respects (though not all) it is the work of the Church gathered. The Institution of the Church is tasked with core doctrinal, formal worship, and office-bearing responsibilities that inform and shape the life of the body. The Church as Institution bears the more Hierarchical impulse.

Church as organism — The web of relationships among the Church members that exist outside the Church both with one another and with those to whom they minister Christ. The Church as organism includes also the working out of the undoubted catholic Christian faith, that is taught in the Church as Institution, into every vocation and calling of the membership. In many respects (though not all) it is the work of the Church scattered. The Church as Organism may be said to be more directly missional but it is more directly missional as a consequence of being part of the Church as Institution. The Church as Organism bears the more Democratic impulse.

When Peter writes in I Peter 2 which aspect of the Church is he speaking of?

I think clearly he is speaking more to the Church as Organism here though we must keep in mind that we can never completely sunder the two. Peter will go on later to speak to issues surrounding the Church as Institution a few chapters later (5).

We might say it is one of the geniuses of the Reformed faith that embraces this distinction (Church as Institution vs. Church as Organism) and yet keeps these two aspects together. In some Christian Denominations the emphasis is on the top down hierarchical Structure of the Church. In other Christian Denominations the emphasis is on the Democratic impulse so that everyone is Indian so that all are, at the same time, both chiefs and Indians. In the Reformed Faith you have proper hierarchy but you also have the proper priesthood of all Believers.

This genius was one of the major consequences of the Reformation. We know well of the emphasis of on Sola Scriptura as the formal cause of the Reformation and sola fide as the material cause of the Reformation but we often overlook that the Priesthood of all believers was another extraordinary consequence of the Reformation.

Prior to the Reformation the Priesthood was relegated to the Professionals. Everyone else in the Church sat in the back of the bus so to speak. Being a Priest was a Holy Calling but all other vocations seemed to exist so that those in them could support the Holy Callings. There was a chasm between the Hierarchy and laity. During what is called the Radical Reformation there was the desire to eliminate all distinctions in the Church.

The Priests represented the people before God. They were the mediators between God and man. Their work, as Priests, alone was Holy work. The Reformation overwhelmed that position and insisted that all God’s people were Priests in the sense that all that they did before God was accepted by God as Holy.

When Luther referred to the priesthood of all believers, he was maintaining that the plowboy and the milkmaid could do priestly work. In fact, their plowing and milking was priestly work. So there was no absolute hierarchy in terms of vocation where the priesthood was a “calling” and milking the cow was not. Both were tasks that God called his followers to do, each according to their gifts.

We see Peter getting at this when he says to all the believers that they constitute together “a Holy Priesthood,” and later in vs. 9 “a Royal Priesthood.” Every person in union with Christ is a priest in the sense that they themselves have access to the Father and the privilege of serving Him personally in all He does. The official Priesthood was extinguished in Christ, our great High Priest, but as belonging to Christ we are all Prophets, Priests, and Kings under sovereign God.

The fact that the Priesthood of all believers is contingent on belonging to Christ is hinted at in the language of Peter.

First he refers to Christ as the “living Stone” (vs. 4) and then in vs. 5 he refers to the Christians themselves also as “Living stones.” This language of “living Stone,” and “Living Stones” strongly points to our union with Christ.

Second, Peter notes that all our work is acceptable to the Father only through Jesus Christ, once again emphasizing that our role’s as Priests is dependent upon our great High Priest.

So, we are Priests under sovereign God. Consequently, all of our work is Holy work. It is not that the Pastor or the Elders are the ones who uniquely do “Holy Work.” No, the doctrine of the Priesthood of all believers taught that all work as done unto God was Holy Work. The Pastor does His Holy Work in its proper place and it is the work of the cultus and is monumentally important but all believers also do Holy Work in its proper place. The Housewife in her nurturing of the children and the tending of home is Holy Work — Peter’s “Spiritual Sacrifices.” The Butcher, the Baker, and the Lawn and Grounds Caretaker are offering up Spiritual Sacrifices.

Bunny trail,

When Peter says our sacrifice is spiritual he is NOT saying that our sacrifices are non-Corporeal. Our sacrifices are called spiritual here because he is contrasting them with the sacrifices in the OT of bulls and goats which have been eclipsed since the Lord Christ has fulfilled all that type of sacrifice with His wrath turning death. Our sacrifices are not material in that way. Our sacrifices are spiritual in the sense of a grateful response of a redeemed people as that grateful response is incarnated corporeally in our living. (Rom. 12:1, Phil. 4:18, Heb. 13:5, Rev. 8:3-4).

But I have all, and abound; I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, a sweet fragrance, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God. (Phil 4:18)

Our work though is only acceptable because we belong to the Lord Christ. We belong to Christ because of His death for His people and our work is accepted for the same reason our persons are and that is because our work is imputed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

Implications of the Priesthood of all Believers

1.) The Church as Institution is no longer considered the center Institution

One of the Changes of the Reformation was to reduce the time laity spent in the Church building. In the Medieval age the Church was open for Matins, Vespers, Masses, canonical hours, confessional, etc. It was thought that the more time one spent in the Church the better Christian one was. The Reformation changed all that with the understanding that all of life could be lived unto the glory of God. The Reformation actually reduced the time one spent in Church.

Certainly Worship should be attended but the idea that members have to be present for every single function of a Church which has functions every night suggests that the Church may be seeking to replace the role of the Family. The idea of the Church as the institution uniquely and alone responsible for the rearing and raising of children in their undoubted catholic Christian faith is forgetful of the doctrine of the Priesthood of all believers.

2.) There is a bond between the believers (5)

The idea of the Priesthood of all Believers is a corporate and covenantal idea. Here in I Peter it is not the priesthood of each single believer, though there is truth in that, but it is the Priesthood of all believers. Together we constitute the “Spiritual House” and the “Holy Priesthood.” Together we are the “Chosen generation.” All this bespeaks the covenantal aspect of the Church as organism. Together we constitute these realities. In both the OT (Exodus 19:5-6) and NT texts it is the community that has a priestly function. The church together is a royal priesthood.

Practically this means that when we come together for worship we are together offering up “spiritual sacrifices.” Practically this means that our pattern of living, when taken together, is part of this body’s “spiritual sacrifices.”

3.) Agents of Reconciliation

The role of the Priest in the OT was to represent the people before God. As Priests under sovereign God we should be those who are praying for people. 1 Timothy 2:1 says that believers should offer prayers, supplications, and intercessions for all men, particularly for rulers.

We should be praying for one another, but we should also be praying for those in our orbit who understand Christ in a strange way and even those who mock and scorn the Christ of the Scripture. As a Holy Priesthood our long public Prayers when gathered here or when spoken at home should have a Priestly missional quality to them as we pray for the West, and as we pray for the World and as we pray for people name by name.

4.) The Leverage of the Church’s influence multiplies (vs. 9)

When each believer remembers their role as part of the Priesthood of all believers then all believers takes up their charge to do all that they do as before the face of God. This has the potential of setting loose a tidal wave of Christians as salt and a blitzkrieg of Christians as light. As believers take seriously their place as Priests under sovereign God then their understandings of their callings … their living our of their vocations becomes so distinct from those not in the Faith that Biblical Christianity is lived out in all the nooks, crannies, and crevices of life.

Obstacles to Priesthood of all Believers

1.) The Institutional Church refuses to teach this and instead offers up a consumer model

2.) The Laity fail to think God’s thought’s after Him and so absorb an alien way of thinking

In many respects your callings as laity is more difficult than mine. You have these holy vocations but you are so accelerated in your life that you are hard-pressed to have the time to examine how it is that you should handle these holy vocations as Priests unto God. Because this is so the idea of the Priesthood of believers has landed on difficult times.

Conclusion

In all of this we see that God is the master craftsman who is doing all the doing. In this we see the Reformation doctrine of Sola Dei Gloria.

In vs. 4 — Chosen by God
In vs. 5 — Being built up (Something is being done to us. We are passive. God is building up)
In vs. 10 — Now have obtained mercy

All of this language lays emphasis on the fact that God is sovereignly doing the doing. We do not make ourselves into a Holy Priesthood or a people of God. He takes upon Himself to build up His Church.

Let us pray ask God that He might continue to build up His Church and that we might continue to do the work of the Priesthood of believers as a grateful response for all that Christ has done for us by making us friends with God.

Ask the Pastor — What Should We Make of the Current Higher Education Scene?

Dear Pastor,

Can you elaborate on the concept that University academia is inherently flawed and anti-Christian? I have always noticed that the Christians I know that have been to University tend to be more political leaning in one way, more sympathetic to humanistic ideas, anti-death penalty, more sympathetic to homo ‘rights’ etc etc.

Obviously you can be a Christian and be extremely infected with worldly ideas…which Universities of course specialise in propagating. What would be the practical alternative in an ideal world?

Thanks in advance,

Felix

______________

Dear Felix,

Thank you for writing.

The modern University system is flawed and anti-Christian because, in the great percentages of cases, it is owned and operated by the Cultural Marxists. As such, when you attend a University you are paying top dollar to be propagandized into one form of Marxism or another. Christian parents who pay to send their children to University are shelling out 20K a year for the privilege of having their children indoctrinated against Christianity. Christian Universities and Colleges are usually the worst because they take the same doctrines and teachings and cover them with a thin patina coating of “Christianity,” thus convincing students that the Marxist faith is, in point of fact, the Christian faith. Because this is so, I wouldn’t send my dog to modern Christian Universities – Colleges, never mind God’s covenant seed.

Second, there is the whole student debt angle. Many students graduate University with house mortgage type debt and a lousy degree. This insures that they will remain controlled and ineffectual as they are beholden to what jobs they can find and as they will be so consumed with working to pay off their debt that they will likely not take the time to ever think for themselves. Once you’ve interacted with professional Academicians one easily begins to see why our church and culture is in the shape it is in.

However, Felix, this is not anti-intellectualism on my part. It is, rather, anti-humanist intellectualism on my part. It is simply the case that by in large Christian intellectualism is dead on the vine. Harry Blamires made this point over a generation ago in his book, “The Disappearance of the Christian Mind,”

“We are all caught up, entangled, in the lumbering day-to-day operations of a [social] machinery, working in many respects in the service of ends which we as Christians reject. This situation, the present [schizophrenic] situation of thousands of thinking Christians is the end product of a process that began the day Christians first decided to stop thinking Christianly in the interests of national harmony; the day when Christians first felt that the only way out of endless public discussion was to limit the operation of acute Christian awareness to the spheres of personal morality and spirituality.

From that point, the spheres of political, cultural, social, and commercial life became dominated by pragmatic and utilitarian thinking.”

The only way the Christian mind will be recovered is to not marinate our children’s minds in the paganism that is typical of Universities, Colleges, and Seminaries Christian or otherwise.

Third, there is the whole Frat house – whore house college experience which emphasizes College as a Summer camp – Animal house experience. Hardly healthy.

Yes, I fully realize Felix, that exceptions to all this exist but the exceptions are indeed exceptions. We are floating in a sea of Academic Humanism.

What are the alternatives …

1.) Autodidact
2.) Education by Extension (College Plus)

In college plus one can get the Bachelor’s degree without being indoctrinated.

3.) Forget formal education and become Entrepreneur.

One more point on this score that you did not ask about but I want to mention. Christians, in order to overcome this current situation, simply have to get over the whole idea of “accreditation.” Educational establishments like to tote that they are “accredited.” Christian needs to start asking, “Yes, but accredited by who?” You see, the point I’m making is to ask why Christians think it is important that their children attend schools accredited by the humanist enemy who wishes to destroy us. Consider Gordon College. Recently, the New England Association of Schools and Colleges’ Commission on Institutions of Higher Education considered whether Gordon College’s ban on “homosexual practice” runs contrary to its Commissions Standards for Accreditation.

Why would Gordon College care? If the Cultural Marxists don’t want to Accredit our schools that should be a reason for rejoicing. Christians, should they desire to return to Academic and Intellectual respectability, simply have to give up trying to curry the favor of Humanist Accreditation agencies.