Is The Coming Of Christ About Socio-Economic Status? A Conversation

Tim Keller’s Facebook status,

“Jesus wasn’t born among heads of state but among those who were at the bottom of the social ladder.”
_____________

And what are we supposed to make of this Keller status?

Is Tim drawing the antithesis between Rich vs. Poor as opposed to between the Seed of the Serpent vs. The seed of the woman?

Is he forgetting that the Scripture goes out of its way to show that both Joseph and Mary and so Jesus were of the line of David… the Head of State?

Is he forgetting that the Scripture places the Kings of the East in the Incarnation narrative?

Are people who are outside of Christ who are at the bottom of the social ladder more acceptable to God merely because they are at the bottom of the social ladder?

Are people who are in Christ who are at the top of the social ladder less acceptable to God merely because they are at the top of the social ladder?

For Pete’s sake … can we ever be done with happy clappy Liberation theology in the Church?

Psst… Job was rich. Abraham was Rich.

__________

From here a discussion ensued where someone  named Jack offered;

  • Luke 1:46-53 “And Mary said,
    “My soul magnifies the Lord,
    47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
    48 for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.
    For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
    49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
    and holy is his name.
    50 And his mercy is for those who fear him
    from generation to generation.
    51 He has shown strength with his arm;
    he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;
    52 he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
    and exalted those of humble estate;
    53 he has filled the hungry with good things,
    and the rich he has sent away empty.”

  • Bret L. McAtee responds,

      … The position of Mary (or Zechariah, or Simeon, or Anna, etc.) is not important because they were low on the social ladder but because they were saints of God. Poverty as poverty doesn’t score you any points if one doesn’t belong to the people of God.

    The emphasis in Mary’s Song is that God remembers His people who are being oppressed by the Wicked mighty. The point is not that God favors poor wicked people over righteous rich people.

    What “Mighty” has he brought down from their thrones? Job? Abraham? David?

    Is the New and Better covenant characterized now by God hating all rich and loving all poor regardless of their lack of faith in Christ?

    This preoccupation of the West with Marxist categories completely flummoxes me. God loves the righteous in Christ regardless of their socio-economic status and he hates the wicked outside of Christ regardless of their socio-economic status… even if they are as poor and wretched as the Artful Dodger.

    Why is it that we seem to think that God loves the impoverished more than the Wealthy simply on the basis of their impoverishment? God loves His people in Christ. The Wealthy saints have a charge to keep in terms of their brethren of low estate but those of low estate are not superior to those of wealth if they are both looking to Christ and resting in him, just as the wealthy are not superior to those of poverty in terms of status before God just because they are wealthy.

  • Jack writes

    Bret – the history of the world is filled with accounts of how the rich and powerful as a class have oppressed people. To whom much is given, much is required, and the accounting for those of low estate will be different from that of the rich and powerful.
  • Bret L. McAtee responds,

    Baloney on your response Jack. The accounting for those of low estate and of those of high estate will be “are they resting in Christ alone.”

    And notice in the parable of the talents the one with 5 talents and the one with two talents are both praised by the same standard. They invested what they had wisely.
  • Jack

    The people who had more to work with were required to have a greater return.
    Bret L. McAtee responds,

    No … they were all merely required to be faithful with what they were given … whatever it was.
    Jack

    And the more they were given, the more return was expected.

    Bret L. McAtee responds,

    Jack … that is just bogus. Are we to think that if those with 5 talents were faithful with what they had but they only had a return on their investment of 2 talents instead of 5 that God would have chastised them?

    The standard is not the return we bring back. The standard is our faithfulness in light of Christ’s first faithfulness to us.

    • Jack  

      The Bible recognizes the fact that there are classes of people who have power, authority, and wealth and there are classes of people who do not have these things. The Bible also recognizes that there are classes of people who abuse power, authority, and wealth. It also recognizes the conflict between the two classes of people.

      Bret L. McAtee responds,

      The Bible clearly teaches that God’s only standard of acceptance of people, rich or poor, is the blood of Christ, and the only conflict the Bible recognizes as universal is the conflict between the seed of the woman vs. the seed of the serpent. Rich people in Christ are loved by Christ and if walking consistently with their Christian faith don’t oppress the poor. Further poor people outside of Christ who are oppressed by rich people outside of Christ do not find Christ championing their cause.

Peter Hitchens on the Disaster that Immigration Poses

“We will not save refugees by destroying our own country. Actually, we cannot do what we like with this country. We inherited it from our parents and grandparents and we have a duty to hand it on to our children and grandchildren, preferably improved and certainly undamaged. We cannot just give it away to complete strangers on an impulse because it makes us feel good about ourselves… Thanks to 1000 years of uninvaded peace, we have developed astonishing levels of trust, safety, and freedom… I am amazed at how relaxed we are about giving this away… Mass immigration means we adapt to them when they should be adapting to us… So now, on the basis of an emotional spasm, dressed up as generosity, are we going to abandon this legacy and decline our obligation to pass it on, like the enfeebled, wastrel heirs of an ancient inheritance letting the great house and estate go to ruin? I can see neither sense nor justice in allowing these things to become a pretext for an unstoppable demographic revolution in which Europe merges its culture and economy with North Africa and the Middle East. If we let this happen, Europe would lose almost all the things which make others want to live here.”

Peter Hitchens
British Author

The Christian’s Relation to the Law

Dealing with a Christian who insists that we no longer have any relation to God’s Law.

_______________

Look … Christ did not redeem us so that we might walk contrary to His Law-Word. The Law’s intent is not so that by the keeping of it we can be saved. We can’t keep it as it is needed to be kept. That is why Christ came as our covenant head. Our Lord Christ fulfilled the law in our stead and because of the righteousness accounted to us we are counted Law keepers. Similarly, our covenant head, the Lord Christ, bore our penalty in our place on the Cross that our indebtedness to the Law is fulfilled as we are united to Christ.

BUT now that the law has been fulfilled for us in Christ’s law-keeping and penalty bearing we now walk in terms of God’s law. We delight in God’s law now, not as means of gaining something we do not have. We delight in God’s law now, as a consequence of being given something we could not earn or merit.

Law and grace do doth sweetly comply (agree). We can not posit Grace against law. God’s law for the Christian is gracious and God’s grace unto the Christian was due to Christ-honoring all that the law required.

So, now we study God’s law in order to more fully delight in God’s grace.

Some will contend that we have been delivered from the law and so interpret that to mean that we have nothing to do with the law. This is an unfortunate error in interpreting and thinking. The aspect of the law that we have been delivered from is the condemning aspect of the law. Because we are in Christ we are delivered from the law’s condemnation. There is, after all, therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. However, deliverance from the law’s condemnation is not equal to the idea of no longer having anything to do with the law. This is why the inspired Apostle can say that; “The law is Holy, Righteous, and Good.”

Also, consider, how could we possibly define sin that we desperately want to avoid without the law? How could we possibly know what behavior, thinking, attitudes please our great Liege-Lord apart from His Law-Word?

Praise God for His kindness to usward as expressed by giving us His Law-Word. Praise God that the Lord Christ was and remains the embodiment and incarnation of God’s Law. To properly love God’s law is to love Christ. Correspondingly a lack of love for God’s Law-Word is a lack of love for Christ.

Twin Spin From Theologian James Orr

“He who with his whole heart believes in Jesus as the Son of God is thereby committed to much else besides. He is committed to a view of God, to a view of man, to a view of sin, to a view of redemption, to a view of the purpose of God in creation and history, or to a view of human destiny found only in Christianity.”

James Orr
Christian View of God and the World — p. 4

Orr tells us here that believing in Jesus without having a biblical theology proper, biblical anthropology, biblical hamartiology, biblical soteriology, biblical teleology, (and we might add) biblical epistemology, biblical axiology, biblical ontology, don’t really believe in the Jesus of the Bible.
And herein is found the trouble with the modern Church in the West. Most of the clergy in our Reformed churches today are absolutely deaf and dumb clueless about these matters. They are not self-conscious in the least about these matters and so they end up teaching a Jesus that is a stranger to the Jesus who rules the Cosmos at the Father’s behest.

“If I were asked in what I think the distinctive peculiarity of twentieth-century Christianity will lie, I should answer that it is not in any new or overwhelmingly brilliant discovery in theology that I look for it. The lines of essential doctrine [except for eschatology as he had just admitted –BLM] are by this time well and surely established. But the Church has another and yet more difficult task before it if it is to retain its ascendancy over the minds of men. That task is to bring Christianity to bear as an applied power on the life and conditions of society; to set itself as it has never yet done to master the meaning of “the mind of Christ,” and to achieve the translation of that mind into the whole practical life of the age — into laws, institutions, commerce, literature, art; into domestic, civic, social, and political relations; into national and international doings — in this sense to bring in the Kingdom of God among men. I look to the twentieth century to be an era of Christian Ethic even more than of Christian Theology. With God on our side, history behind us, and the unchanging needs of the human heart to appeal to, we need tremble for the future of neither.”

James Orr
The Progress of Dogma — pp 353-354 (1897)

Here Orr anticipates the rise of Van Tillian presuppositionalism, Rushdoonian Reconstructionism, and Bahsenian Theonomy all sharing Orr’s insistence that all of life must be brought under the Lordship of Jesus Christ in very concrete ways. Interestingly enough, this plea by Orr was echoed over 100 years later by French Reformed theologian Pierre Courthial in his book, “The Day of Small Beginnings.” In that book Courthial argues that the Church must have a return to a consensus on the application of God’s law to all of life.

I hope that Courthial was more correct in his anticipation for the immediate future than Orr was.

Long Lost Stanzas From “O Little Town Of Bethlehem” Recovered

O corrupt town of Washington
How always thou art sly
Within thy halls move feckless creeps
Whose lips know naught but lies
And in thy dark room’s counsels
The re-occurring blight
The chains and tears combined with fears
Are put in law tonight
 
 
How stealthily, how stealthily
The freedom gift we were given
Now departs from our hearts
That legacy from heaven
No ear may hear it leaving
But in this world of sin
Where men will fight against the night
The Dear Christ is with them