Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown, Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
Christian Ernst Luthard wrote in 1867: “The Gospel has absolutely nothing to do with outward existence but only with eternal life, not with external orders and institutions which could come in conflict with the secular orders but only with the heart and its relationship with God. . . . It is not the vocation of Jesus Christ or of the Gospel to change the orders of secular life and establish them anew. . . . Christianity wants to change man’s heart, not his external situation.”
Rudolf Sohm (1841–1917), speaking to a convention on the main Christian social action group, the Inner Mission, asserted: “The Gospel frees us from this world, frees us from all questions of this world, frees us inwardly, also from the questions of public life, also from the social question. Christianity has no answer to these questions.” The issues of public life, he wrote, “should remain untouched by the proclamation of the Gospel, completely untouched.”
Wilhelm Hermann declared in the 1913 edition of his book on ethics that the state was a product of nature and that it could not be love but only self‑assertion, coercion, and law. . . . Once the Christian understood the moral significance of the state, then “he will consider obedience to the government to be the highest vocation within the state. For the authority of the state on the whole, resting as it does upon authority of the government, is more important than the elimination of any shortcomings which it might have.”
Robert Benne makes the following good points on the effects of this type of thinking:
“There are two serious theological problems here. For one, the affirmation of the Sovereign God as Creator, Sustainer, and Judge of all is forgotten. The God whose will is revealed in the commandments and in his involvement in history is somehow expunged from the political world. Along with this denial of God’s involvement in history is the elevation of the gospel to such a height that it has no relevance to ordinary life. The gospel addresses only the inner man about eternal life, not the whole man who is embedded in God’s history.”
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/15001/self-neutralized-church-rise-adolf-hitler/#J0K7voCexIzAPiP4.99
When hell drops out of Christianity, justice drops out of the social order.
Justice as it exists for violation of man by man and hell as it exists for violation of God by unrepentant man are connected by the linkage of the just visiting of proper penalty for outrage against a person. In Christianity, Hell is justice for violation of God’s person. God, being seen as the most August person, consigns men to hell for the injustice of rebellion against His exalted person. It is a matter of celestial justice. As such, once Hell drops out of our reckoning, there are ripple effects for our understanding of justice as between man and man. If there is no longer justice of Hell, for the penalty of injustice against God, then there will also be diminution of justice as it pertains to man and man. If man refuses to acknowledge Hell as the proper justice for violation of God’s person, so man will refuse to acknowledge Biblical justice for social order violations. Horizontal justice between offended man by offending man is dependent upon Vertical justice between an offended God by offending man.
People believe that they are offering a nicer Christianity and a nicer God by deleting the idea of hell from the Christian faith, but in reality they are offering a crueler Christianity since a hell-less Christianity leaves a Christianity where God’s Holy and exalted character, which the reality of Hell upheld and protected, is eclipsed. Getting rid of Hell, gets rid of the Holiness of God.
Hell-less Christianity is also a crueler Christianity because in hell-less Christianity we have a Christ on the cross paying the penalty for sin so that men might be delivered from hell. But if Hell doesn’t exist then the death of Christ was and is superfluous. To void the truth of Hell from Christianity is to diminish the work of Christ because Christ died to take on the penalty of Hell for the elect.
“[2K] also teaches that the nature of genuine religion is precisely private, personal, and not something for public display or consumption. . . .Which invites the question: If it is possible to keep such essential aspects of faith as prayer and almsgiving private, even within the privacy of one’s devotional life, why wouldn’t it be possible for a serious believer to keep that faith bracketed once entering the public square or the voting booth? The very essence of faith, at least the Christian variety, might be that it is private, personal, and something to keep distinct from expression in the public arena of politics.”
D. Gnostic Hart
A Secular Faith, pp. 176-177
This little light of mine
I’m gonna hide its shine
This little light of mine
I’m gonna hide its shine
Hide its shine
Hide its shine
Hide its shine
Hide it under a Bushel?
Oh YEAH! I’m gonna hide its shine
Hide it under a Bushel?
Oh YEAH! I’m gonna hide its shine
Hide its shine
Hide its shine
Hide its shine
I’ll help Satan blow it out
I’m gonna hide its shine
I’ll help Satan blow it out
I’m gonna hides its shine
Hide its shine
Hide its shine
Hide its shine
Hide its shine til Jesus comes.
I’m gonna hide its shine.
Hide its shine til Jesus comes.
I’m gonna hide its shine,
Hide its shine til Jesus comes.
I’m gonna hide its shine.
hide its shine, hides its shine, hide its shine.
This little light of mine, I’m gonna hide its shine.
This little light of mine, I’m gonna hide its shine.
This little light of mine, I’m gonna hide its shine.
hide its shine, hide its shine, hide its it shine.
hide its shine, hide its shine, hide its it shine.
________________________
Really, that is a great quote from Hart!
I have just one qualm. How dare he publish such wonderful (but necessarily private) insights in such public square fashion? He would do better telling God about these things from the cushy privacy of his prayer closet. Let us all now strike his comments from our memory so as to protect the libertarian sanctity of his individual faith.
Normally, I might fisk this article but as it is disconnected and barely coherent in terms of how the article flows I’ve decided to just make a few relevant comments.
1.) Rev. Lee opens with noting the “confusion between the universal good of humanitarian aid and the particular concern of the church’s gospel ministry.” Lee desires for the Church to have the “Gospel” while humanitarian aide can be taken up in the common square by Muslims, Hindus, and assorted faith systems all coming together. In such a way we would cease talking about Humanitarian aide as being “Christian,” opting instead to call it “common.” The problem with this is that Lee forgets that “Humanitarian aide” can only be defined by some standard and that standard is not common good feelings but God’s Word. If non-Christians were consistent with their own worldviews they would not feed the hungry and poor. (Has Lee read his Nietzsche?) As such this is one reason why theologically solid para-Church organizations should continue to exist, if the church as the church can’t do the work herself. Only in that way can we have a hope that the standard for “Humanitarian aide as a Universal good” will have the proper standard. I would submit that the real confusion would only begin if we gave up the relationship between Christianity and it’s Gospel (broadly considered) and humanitarian aid.
2.) Keep in mind that Rev. Lee as R2K does not believe any Institution or culture can be Christian. It is not possible. So, Lee’s problem with World-Vision is the same problem that he has with the idea of Christian Education, Christian Law, Christian families or Christian culture. R2K and their sycophants do not believe it is possible for anything to be Christian except the Church and individuals as abstracted from their communal realities.
3.) The problem with World Vision is that they never should have been considered either Christian or Evangelical to begin with, but not because it is not possible for other Institutions to be Christian but because they just were not Christian in their Theology. Of course, it was not possible for them to not have a Theology, and their Theology was and is modernist as seen in their hiring practices. Dr. Albert Mohler offered at this point,
No organization can serve on behalf of churches across the vast theological and moral spectrum that would include clearly evangelical denominations, on the one hand, and liberal denominations such as the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Episcopal Church, and the United Church of Christ, on the other. That might work if World Vision were selling church furniture, but not when the mission of the organization claims a biblical mandate.
This has been a problem with World Vision for decades.
So, our R2K aficionado the honorable Rev.Lee takes the worst possible example and tries to suggest that all Institutions have the same problem. Baloney. Institutions can be Christian without being Churches. To suggest that the Church is the only Christian Institution is just utter nonsense. We can concede readily and happily that the Church is a unique Christian Institution charged with Word and Sacrament but to suggest that no other Institution can be Christian because the Church is uniquely delegated to minister Grace is just not good Theology. R2K is full of not good theology. According to R2K Law, Education, Family life, culture, etc. can not be considered “Christian” because they do not hold the Keys as the Church does. This is a fatal flaw in R2K “theology.” The flaw is to insists that “Church” and “Kingdom” are exactly co-terminus. It’s just not so.
On this score Presbyterian A. A. Hodge offered,
“It is our duty, as far as lies in our power, immediately to organize human society and all its institutions and organs upon a distinctively Christian basis. Indifference or impartiality here between the law of the kingdom and the law of the world, or of its prince, the devil, is utter treason to the King of Righteousness … The Bible, the great statute-book of the Kingdom, explicitly lays down principles which, when candidly applied, will regulate the action of every human being in all relations. There can be no compromise. The King said, with regard to all descriptions of moral agents in all spheres of activity, “He that is not with me is against me.” If the national life in general is organized upon non-Christian principles, the churches which are embraced within the universal assimilating power of that nation will not long be able to preserve their integrity.”
You see in Lee’s book, A. A. Hodge is confusing between the universal good of every human being in all their relations and the particular concern of the church’s gospel ministry. Lee practices a false dichotomy.
But allow us to add a Theologian from the Continental side of the Reformed expression,
“The thought of the kingdom of God implies the subjection of the entire range of human life in all its forms and spheres to the ends of religion. The kingdom reminds us of the absoluteness, the pervasiveness, the unrestricted dominion, which of right belong to all true religion. It proclaims that religion, and religion alone, can act as the supreme unifying, centralizing factor in the life of man, as that which binds all together and perfects all by leading it to its final goal in the service of God.” (page 194)
Geerhardus Vos
The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church
Education, and Law (as only two examples) do not handle Word and Sacrament. Does this mean that Education and Law can’t be Christian? It means that to Lee and all R2K aficionados.
4.) Lee asks in his article, “Why should humanitarian aid be an exclusivist enterprise?” The question should be instead, “Why should anybody not Christian want to do humanitarian aid except that someplace in their Worldview they have some Christian capital that informs them that helping the poor and oppressed is a good idea. Lee believes humanitarian aid should not be exclusive to Christians but apart from the residue of a Christian Worldview why should anyone provide humanitarian aid?
5.) Lee spills electronic ink assuming that all because a Institution is Christian therefore it must be the same thing as God’s Church. This is a non-sequitur. Christian Institutions don’t handle the Keys and aren’t expected to proclaim the Word or handle the Sacraments. Only in Lee’s R2K world, where no Institution can be “Christian” unless it is also “Church” does Lee’s problems arise.
6.) Interestingly enough, along with Lee, I’m not a big fan of para-Church organizations, but I’m not a big fan for different reasons. The problem with para-Church organizations is that they are not accountable to a set body of believers. The recent World Vision fiasco would have been unlikely to have happened if World Vision had been under a Reformed Church that was thoroughly Biblical and Christians. That the Church, as the Church, should be involved in World Vision type ministries is seen in St. Paul’s work in collecting relief funds for the Jerusalem church for famine relief.
Rev. Lee’s R2K vision is not consistent with historic Reformed understanding of the relationship between Church and Kingdom. His is a completely innovative approach. Let the buyer beware.
Here is another brilliant commentary on sodomite marriage by Rachel Held Evans at CNN Belief blog. I don’t know who she is. I am told she is another influential writer.
How evangelicals won a culture war and lost a generation
Opinion by Rachel Held Evans, special to CNN
(CNN) – On March 24, World Vision announced that the U.S. branch of the popular humanitarian organization would no longer discriminate against employees in same-sex marriages.
It was a decision that surprised many but one that made sense, given the organization’s ecumenical nature.
But on March 26, World Vision President Richard Stearns reversed the decision, stating, “our board acknowledged that the policy change we made was a mistake.”
Supporters helped the aid group “see that with more clarity,” Stearns added, “and we’re asking you to forgive us for that mistake.”
So what happened within those 48 hours to cause such a sudden reversal?
The Evangelical Machine kicked into gear.
Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said the decision pointed to “disaster,” and the Assemblies of God denomination encouraged its members to pull their financial support from the organization.
Evangelicals took to Twitter and Facebook to threaten to stop sending money to their sponsored children unless World Vision reversed course.
Within a day of the initial announcement, more than 2,000 children sponsored by World Vision lost their financial support. And with more and more individuals, churches and organizations threatening to do the same, the charity stood to lose millions of dollars in aid that would otherwise reach the poor, sick, hungry and displaced people World Vision serves.
So World Vision reversed course.
Stearns told The New York Times that some people, satisfied with the reversal, have called World Vision headquarters to ask, “Can I have my child back?” as though needy children are expendable bargaining chips in the culture war against gay and lesbian people.
Many of us who grew up evangelical watched with horror as these events unfolded.
As a longtime supporter of World Vision, I encouraged readers of my blog to pick up some of the dropped sponsorships after the initial decision. I then felt betrayed when World Vision backtracked, though I urged my readers not to play the same game but to keep supporting their sponsored children, who are of course at no fault in any of this.
But most of all, the situation put into stark, unsettling relief just how misaligned evangelical priorities have become.
When Christians declare that they would rather withhold aid from people who need it than serve alongside gays and lesbians helping to provide that aid, something is wrong.
There is a disproportionate focus on homosexuality that consistently dehumanizes, stigmatizes and marginalizes gay and lesbian people and, at least in this case, prioritizes the culture war against them over and against the important work of caring for the poor.
1.) Why does Evans believe that all because Evangelical dollars were taken away from World Vision because of their change of policy that therefore those dollars were no longer going to go to the poor? There are many many relief ministries out there and it is not unreasonable to think that Christians withdrawing money from World Vision would not take that same money and support some other relief agency that was not compromising on the Gospel. The poor would still be aided. True … different poor but poor all the same.
2.) Why are Evangelical principles misaligned? Why should they support with their monies a ministry that is contrary to their convictions? What would it take for Evans to conclude that people could withdraw their money, once designated for a set ministry, in order to protest the direction of the company the monies were formerly designated? What if World Vision had come out in favor of Pedophilia? Would that be a good enough reason? By what standard does Evans adjudicate that withdrawing support is commendable?
Held writes,
Evangelicals insist that they are simply fighting to preserve “biblical marriage,” but if this were actually about “biblical marriage,” then we would also be discussing the charity’s policy around divorce.
But we’re not.
Furthermore, Scripture itself teaches that when we clothe and feed those in need, we clothe and feed Christ himself, and when we withhold care from those in need, we withhold it from Christ himself (Matthew 25:31-46).
Why are the few passages about homosexuality accepted uncritically, without regard to context or culture, but the many about poverty so easily discarded?
1.) We should discuss the Charity’s policy around divorce if it needs discussed.
2.) Held misinterprets the Matthew 25 passage. The passage is referring to ministry to the Brethren of Jesus — that is those who wear the name of Christ. Secondly, Held assumes that all because monies were going to be withheld from World Vision that necessarily means that those same funds were going to be withheld from the poor. That is a very tenuous assumption. People can withhold money from the poor of World Vision and still help the poor of some other organization that they believe is more faithful to their convictions.
3.) Who says that the passages about poverty are easily discarded? Held doesn’t get what she wants and she throws a fit insisting that the passages that have to do with poverty are neglected?
4.) The “without regard to context or culture” comment of Held is suggestive that she likely dismisses the passages forbidding sodomy.
Held writes,
As I grieved with my (mostly 20- and 30-something) readers over this ugly and embarrassing situation, I heard a similar refrain over and over again: “I don’t think I’m an evangelical anymore. I want to follow Jesus, but I can’t be a part of this.”
I feel the same way.
Whether it’s over the denial of evolutionary science, continued opposition to gender equality in the church, an unhealthy alliance between religion and politics or the obsession with opposing gay marriage, evangelicalism is losing a generation to the culture wars.
A recent survey from Public Religion Research Institute revealed that nearly one-third of millennials who left their childhood faith did so because of “negative teachings” or “negative treatment” of gay and lesbian people.
1.) If the Church must lose people because it is faithful to the message of Scripture than it must bear that loss. What will it profit the Church, Rachel, to gain the whole world but lose its own soul?”
2.) Rachel’s comments above demonstrate that “Evangelical” means both nothing and everything. We are better off being done with the whole word and movement. Let the various splinters go their various ways and find another orbit to circle around.
Held holds,
Christians can disagree about what the Bible says (or doesn’t say) about same-sex marriage. This is not an issue of orthodoxy. But when we begin using child sponsorships as bargaining tools in our debates, we’ve lost the way of Jesus.
So my question for those evangelicals is this: Is it worth it?
Is a “victory” against gay marriage really worth leaving thousands of needy children without financial support?
Is a “victory” against gay marriage worth losing more young people to cynicism regarding the church?
Is a “victory” against gay marriage worth perpetuating the idea that evangelical Christians are at war with LGBT people?
And is a “victory” against gay marriage worth drowning out that quiet but persistent internal voice that asks, “what if we get this wrong?”
I, for one, am tired of arguing. I’m tired of trying to defend evangelicalism when its leaders behave indefensibly.
I’m going AWOL on evangelicalism’s culture wars so I can get back to following Jesus among its many refugees: LGBT people, women called to ministry, artists, science-lovers, misfits, sinners, doubters, thinkers and “the least of these.”
I’m ready to stop waging war and start washing feet.
1.) This is an issue about orthodoxy. See Romans 1, I Cor. 6, Jude 1, Galatians 5, etc.
2.) When other poor are being still helped because previously designated money is going to different poor people, it is not holding the poor as bargaining chips when money is no longer sent to merely one of dozens of agencies for the poor.
3.) Held seems to hold that the money that is committed to World Vision is automatically World Visions whatever it does and that somehow there is some immorality in someone deciding that they are going to support someone different than World Vision with their monies. That is a most tenuous assumption.
4.) All because people are not interested in supporting an agency that supports the LGBT movement doesn’t even get close to meaning that we have lost the way of Jesus. That is just more emotive language to try to get people all verklempt.
5.) As to Held’s questions
#1 — Does not apply. Withholding money from World Vision does not equal withholding that money from the poor.
#2 — Yes
#3 — Yes
#4 — We are not getting this wrong.
6.) As to Held’s “least of these comments” she should try being a White Male Biblical Christian Minister. Talk about the least of these.