Iron Ink

The Glories of Uncertainty

“The certainty that rests on God’s word exceeds all knowledge.”

John Calvin
Commentary on Zechariah 2:9

Every so often I dip into sermons of putatively Reformed Parsons from around the country. This clip below is from an aged Reformed Pastor who has been liberal all his life.

The word ‘pure’ here in Philippians 2:15 means ‘to be honest about one’s self.’ Able to look inside yourself and be critical. It’s a kind of humility. It’s a kind of standing besides one’s self and beside each other and saying, ‘I don’t know all the answers. I don’t even know all the questions.'”

Now, I’ve looked around and explored the meaning of the word “pure” in Philippians 2:15 and I honestly don’t know how this Preacher came to the conclusion that “pure” (translated “blameless” by many translations) means “to be honest about one’s self,” though one would expect that only one natural outcome of being pure would be self honesty about one’s self.

But lay that aside for a moment. The real reason for this quoting is yet to come.

The same day I listened to this a friend brought my attention to this article entitled,

Homosexuality and Holy Uncertainty

In that article you can find numerous quotes that are consistent with the sentiment above from the sermon where, “not knowing all the answers or not even knowing all the questions” is seen as praiseworthy example of being “pure.”

Here are some choice quotes from the article that reinforce the Pastor’s sermon.

“… uncertainty is an important spiritual discipline that both deepens us and makes us available for transformation….”

“I wonder if we in the CRC are called to be somewhere along that seven-mile stretch of uncertainty concerning homosexuality.”

“Uncertainty honors the reality that none of us ever has perfect and complete understandings.”

You see the whole program in the article is to praise uncertainty. The author even goes so far as to list it as a “important spiritual discipline.” (Richard Foster, there is another book for you here — “In Celebration of Uncertainty.”)

In yet another venue from August of 2013 another Reformed Pastor wrote in an article pregnantly titled, “Don’t Be So Sure,”

“We live with the mysteries of creation, incarnation, justification, and sanctification. While we marvel at them, we admit that we can’t possibly understand them.”

See? There it is again. In praise of uncertainty.

Note that in all cases a virtue is being made out of being uncertain. Now of course, according to these men, there is nothing wrong with be certain about being uncertain but when we are certain of aspects of the Christian faith that they don’t want read out of orthodoxy then we are not being pure because we are being certain. The purity found in Christianity is found in being uncertain.

According to the first liberal minister quoted one is most pure when one is most uncertain.

But if uncertainty is so pure, and such a spiritual discipline then why not inject it into everything? Maybe Christian leaders should be uncertain about incest? Maybe Christian leaders can show their holiness by being uncertain about the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ? Maybe the Apostle Paul should not have said, “I know whom I have believed,” instead opting for, “I don’t know who the hell I believe.”

Don’t get me wrong. I understand that there are times when saying “I don’t know,” is to be preferred. However, I do not understand orthodox Christian ministers opting for “I’m not certain” about matters the Church has been certain about for 2000 years. I also don’t care for this desire to pursue a liberal agenda being wrapped up in the artificially contrived pious cocoon of “holy uncertainty” so that if anyone dares disagrees with their holy uncertainty — thus demonstrating that they are certain that their opponents uncertainty is utter nonsense — one is then automatically less Christian because they don’t practice the spiritual discipline of uncertainty and are not pure because they actually do know some of the answers.

Here’s my opinion. Many times those pushing the uncertainty line are certain that they can’t succeed in pushing their liberal agenda without invoking uncertainty as a measure whereby they can gain time for their agenda to gain a certain certainty among the ever increasing throng of the un-anchored credulous, who are actually certain with all their hearts, that uncertainty is, in and of itself, noble. The incredulous are not bright enough to realize that the uncertainty hawkers are the most certain people who have ever walked the planet. The uncertainty hawkers are certain how to achieve their agenda and selling uncertainty to the credulous rubes who mount pulpits all across America week in and week out is the way to sell their snake oil certainty.

Of that I am certain.

Baptist Refusal to Baptize Their Children & Postmodern Refusal to Assign Gender to Their Children

Baptists are forever insisting that only those who can articulate their confession of Christ are to be Baptized. John MacArthur gives us one such example,

“The significance of Baptism is unmistakably clear. In our day, an open solemn confession of the crucified risen Lord is necessary. All who experience the reality of the power of the risen Savior should give this public testimony to His glory as an act of obedience. In biblical Baptism in the New Testament manner, believers not only give testimony to their union with Christ…listen to this…they give testimony to their thoughtful, careful, submissive obedience to the holy Scripture in which nothing could be treated as unimportant.”

Since infants can’t give what MacArthur’s requires therefore infants are not to be recipients of Baptism as a means of Grace. Indeed, the genuine Baptist doesn’t even like calling Baptism a “means of Grace” since to speak like that is putting the emphasis on what God is doing in Baptism as opposed to the Baptist emphasis that Baptism is about what we are doing by being Baptized.

This is Baptist thinking. Children of Christians are not to be Baptized until they can name for themselves their own religious identity as Christian.

This thinking of the sovereign child, who can only be Christian in the context of their own self understanding is now bleeding off into other areas that make perfect sense given the Baptist premise of, “a child cannot choose their religious identity until they are epistemoligcally self conscious about what identity they want to choose.”

Think about it.

What is the difference between Baptist parents insisting that their children have to be epistemoligcally self conscious about what religious identity they want to choose and Modern parents now who are insisting that their children have to be epistemologically self conscious about what sexual identity those children want to choose? What we are saying here is that there is a harmony found in Baptist parents refusing to baptize their children and many modern parents today refusing to “baptize” their children into a predetermined gender believing, just as the Baptists believe, that their children should be able to have a say in the matter of what gender they will have.

Modern parents insisting that children must choose their own sexual identity is just the logical extension of Baptist parents insisting that children must choose their own religious identity.

The point here isn’t that there is an exact one to one correspondence on this matter. The point here is that when you start with the sovereign individual who must be consulted before covenantal realities are determined apart from his or her approval the end result, naturally enough, is sovereign individuals who must be consulted before any number of realities are determined apart from zhis or zhers approval.

Consistent Baptist thinking lends itself to the atomized individual and once the individual is atomized then he or she is free to be self determinate in every area of life from religion to sexuality to who knows where else.

Some will protest that this isn’t a fair analogy since baptism signifies a supernatural event whereas sex is a natural given. But to protest such as this is to miss the point of the analogy. The point of the analogy is not supernatural vs. natural. The point of the analogy is the sovereign individual choosing all. When it is realized that this is the point of the analogy then all protestations of my creating a “straw man” here lose their power.

Let me also add here that both in God’s covenantal ordering and in sexuality both Baptism and gender are objective categories. When one is birthed to Christian parents one is, objectively speaking, a member of the covenant and so is Baptized just as one is, objectively speaking, either male or female. There is a givenness in both being a member of the covenant and in our gender that is objective. That givenness may be twisted but it can never be changed.

SCOTUS Gives White Kids A Lift Up With Quota Requirements

White kids everywhere were rejoicing when it was announced today that the US Supreme Court decided that University of Texas admission official may legally consider the race of student applicants in a limited way in order to build a diverse student body on the UT campus.

Knowledgeable White students realize that the implication of this ruling is that their chances of making it into historically black schools like Grambling State University and Alcorn State University were now dramatically improved thanks to the SCOTUS ruling.

Wise Latina female Supreme Court Justice Sotomayer was quoted as saying, “It’s long past time that White children have the same opportunity at these prestigious Universities that others have had.”

The decision was a surprising win for advocates of affirmative action, who say the benefits of diversity at the nation’s colleges and universities are worth completely ignoring the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection that forbids and makes no provision for the government making decisions based on racial classifications.

Some Supreme Court watchers and legal experts believe that the implications of this decisions will mean more white point guards on NCAA division one teams as well as a influx of White and perhaps even Asian defensive lineman on University football teams. Sports professionals insisted that one implication of this decision would be the diminution of quality at these positions in the future. One General Manager of an NBA team said, “I look for the output at the point guard position in the NBA to decline over the next 15 years.

The Obama Administration’s response to the SCOTUS decision was mixed. White bread White House Spokesman Josh Earnest said to reporters that, “I look forward to the day when a Kenyan can hold this position. Diversity is the strength in the Spokesperson business.”

Fanatics and Women’s Fashion

One kind of fanatic wants to compel all women to wear the burqa. Another kind of fanatic wants to make them bear their breasts.

J. Budziszewski
On the Meaning of Sex – pg. 96

With this quote, I wonder if those two seemingly opposite fanatics that Budziszewski sets before us have more in common with each other than one might initially think. Neither fanatic can control themselves. The former fanatic demonstrates his lack of self control regarding women by forcing them to wear blankets as fashion. The latter fanatic demonstrates his lack of self control regarding women by creating a bordello cultural climate.

The former fanatic handles his urges puritanically by attributing them entirely to the object of his lust. His slogan is, “Women are the problem. Let’s put horse blankets on them.” The latter handles his urges like a libertine by venting them with impunity. His slogan is, “There is no problem. The more whorish the better.”
Each make the woman his tool and both lie to the woman that each solution will provide “freedom” for the woman. Neither man considers the possibility that the problem lies within them and their lack of self control.

McAtee Contra Dr. Russell Moore… Christianity or State-olatry?

This was a question and answer exchange from the floor of the recent meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention.

How in the world can someone in the Southern Baptist Convention support the defending of the rights of Muslims to construct Mosques in the United States when these people threaten our very way of existence as Christians and Americans. They are murdering Christians, beheading Christians, imprisoning Christians all over the world. Do you actually believe that if Jesus Christ were here today that he would support this and he would stand up and say let us protect the rights of those Baal worshipers to erect temples to Baal? Do you believe that Dr. Moore?

John Wofford
Pastor – Armorel Baptist church

Dr. Russell Moore, Chairman of the Southern Baptist “Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission” responds to the question,

You know sometimes we have to deal with questions that are really complicated. We have to spend a lot of time thinking them through, and we’re not sure what exactly the final result is going to be. Sometimes we have really hard decisions to make. This isn’t one of those things (delegate applause). What it means to be a Baptist is to support soul freedom for everybody (delegate applause). And Brothers and sisters when you have a government that says “we can decide whether or not a house of worship can be constructed based upon the beliefs of that house of worship” then there are going to be Southern Baptists Churches in San Francisco and New York and throughout this country are not going to be able to build. The bigger issue though is not one of self interest. The bigger issue is that we have been called to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. A government that has the power to outlaw people assembling together and saying what they believe that does not turn people into Christians. That turns people into pretend Christians and it sends them straight to hell. The answer to Islam is not Government power. The answer is the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the new birth that comes from that (heavy delegate applause).

_______________

I wish I could say this was satire. You know, something from the Babylon Bee. Unfortunately Dr. Russell Moore was dead serious. Honestly, it is difficult to consider any “Christian” who actually sincerely believes this to be Christian. Can one be Christian and suggest that other Christians should support the ability of anti-Christian religions to flourish? If there is no God but God how can Christians support the proliferation of false gods? Before I get ahead of myself let’s take this in order.

I’m going to be exhaustive here so there will likely be overlapping in some of these observations.

1.) Note, first of all that Moore doesn’t directly answer the question asked of him. Moore’s indirect answer seems to be that if Baptist expect to build Churches in San Francisco and New York then they have to abide Muslims killing, beheading, and imprisoning Christians throughout the world.

2.) Don’t miss that Moore’s answer is “yes” to the question as to whether or not Jesus would support the erecting of Baal Temples. According to Dr. Moore, Jesus would indeed support the building of Temples to Baal in a pluralist social order.

3.) Note Moore’s mocking of Rev. Wofford’s question. Moore offers that it’s really an easy question to answer. This is contemptuous arrogance on Moore’s part. This is difficult to swallow when it is Moore who is the one offering a simpleton and disastrous answer.

4.) Notice what Moore offers here as the first part of his answer is “soul freedom.” “Soul Freedom is techno-speak for Baptists. “Soul Freedom” or “Soul Liberty,” comes to Baptists from Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island Plantation. Williams absolutized the liberty of conscience in terms of choice in matters of faith. Williams wrote on this matter that,

“It is the will and command of God, that a permission of the most paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or anti-Christian consciences and worships, be granted to all men in all nations and countries; and they are only to be fought against with that sword which is only (in soul matters) able to conquer, to wit, the sword of God’s spirit, the Word of God.”

Now this sounds enlightened until one realizes that Williams (and now Moore) are advocating the Baptist religious principle that the sword supported statute of the state be used to insure that no one religion be allowed to be the one unique religion of a people. The Baptist state, enforcing “Soul Freedom,” must use the statute supported sword of the state to make sure that all religions proliferate. Of course this has the effect of making the State the god of the competing gods making sure that each god only goes so far in the public square. Baptists “Soul Freedom” is institutionalized idolatry (State-olatry). Williams and Moore’s “Soul Freedom” coerces people to accept the Baptist version of religion for the public square. Baptist “Soul Freedom” is not Freedom at all but is bondage to idolatry. Baptist thinking on this matter is thus “anti-Christ.”

5.) When we consider “Soul Freedom” in this light we see that “Soul Freedom” is actually an absolutizing of unbiblical notions of freedom. Moore’s freedom is religious anarchy. Freedom is never absolute but always operates in the context of some ordered religious framework. Moore’s “ordered framework,” is the framework of religious pluralism, a synonym for the monotheism of State-olatry.

6.) Moore misses the fact that the State is God’s State and is responsible to the God of the Bible. As the 1958 revised Belgic Confession Article 36 teaches,

“…And being called in this manner to contribute to the advancement of a society that is pleasing to God, while completely refraining from every tendency towards exercising absolute authority, and while functioning in the sphere entrusted to them and with the means belonging to them to remove every obstacle to the preaching of the gospel and to every aspect of divine worship, in order that the Word of God may have free course, the kingdom of Jesus Christ may make progress, and every anti-Christian power may be resisted.”

Now of course a Baptist would disagree with this but even the Baptist London Confession of Faith does not support Moore speaking of the necessity of the Magistrate to be, “encouragement of them that do good, and for the punishment of evil doers.”

7.) Moore seems to think that it is possible to have a a-religious neutral State. In point of fact all states are theocracies including this one and Moore is advocating for a pagan God (the State) to remain the the god enforcing “Soul Freedom” as its humanist religion. Moore’s religion is the ancient Roman religion which allowed any religion to prosper in Rome as long as all adherents of all religions pinch incense to Rome. When Moore insists that the State should remain un-attached to any God or god concept Moore, at that very moment is pinching incense to the God State.

8.) As we have noted, in advocating for “Soul Freedom,” where the State, by sword supported statute, protects all religions as equal and so supports the presence and proliferation of all religions, makes all the social order slaves of a State that is in control of the competing gods. It turns the social order into an Egyptian Mahat system where all are slaves to the State. Because of Baptist “Soul Freedom,” we live and move and have our being in the State.

9.) Note, that Moore suggests that the Gospel of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with whether or not idolatry is allowed to flourish. In order to be faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ we must support the building of pagan temples. If that makes sense to anybody they are hopeless to reach.

10.) Is Moore really suggesting that any “house of worship” of any variety should be allowed to be built? Would Moore support a building that housed the Santeria cult? By what standard would Moore cut off supporting building worship centers that housed the vilest of cults? I know for a fact that Moore would oppose supporting any worship center which had the Confederate flag as a religious symbol, and that even if that worship center was Christian.

11.) Honestly, if this is Moore’s understanding of Christianity I would praise God with all my being if Baptists churches were not built in San Francisco, New York, Bombay, India, or anywhere on the planet.

12.) Moore gives us a false dichotomy when he offers that Government is not the answer to Islam but rather the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the answer to Islam. Can not the Gospel of Jesus Christ convert Magistrates in Government so that they desire to protect Christianity from the inroads of pagan faiths?

13.) Moore is worried about pretend Christians going to hell but he does not seem concerned about real Muslims going to hell. Indeed, Moore wants to help them go to hell by supporting their institutional infrastructures.

What Russell Moore is advocating is nothing but Cultural Marxism and anti-Christianity. While, I have no reason to doubt Moore’s good intentions it is simply the case that Moore is doing the Devil’s work by intellectually paving the highway to Hell.

For another good piece on this issue see Adi Schlebush’s work at Faith and Heritage. Adi brings out some points that I do not cover.

http://faithandheritage.com/2016/06/russell-moore-endorses-idolatry/