Militant Christianity?
The great question in our democracy today is whether we can educate a generation that will cherish liberty enough to fight for it. It will not be enough to have the best trained, best equipped, best clothed soldiers in the field against Communism. Somehow we must match the will to fight, the morale of a high ideal with that of our enemy before democracy will be safe. In much the same manner the Church today will not serve Christ’s cause effectively even though she has the best equipment, the finest training, and the most beautiful liturgy, unless she hates evil and is willing to go out to destroy the works of the devil.
We are not mere spectators to be entertained while sitting in the bleachers, but we are antagonists, combatants, contestants we are all involved.
One of the discouraging signs of our times is the prevailing tendency on the part of many diplomats toward appeasement. In a world which is actually at war the peoples of democratic mind hesitate to face the reality that they are up against a subtle, resourceful, and utterly heartless foe. That cessation of hostilities is merely an armed truce to be used for gaining certain advantages is not yet fully recognized. ThaI modern war against Communist ideology is a total war, a war which must be waged on the economic, social, political, and industrial as well as the military front is hard for us to accept. This is, indeed, not altogether strange since we arc accustomed to think that peace is the normal condition in this world. We are ever loathe to accept the realism of biblical prophecy which clearly tells us that at the end-time there shall be wars and rumors of wars instead of world peace.
However, when such a benumbing attitude of appeasement seems well nigh universal in the Church of Christ, which by very definition is at war with the world, then, I say, the situation calls for serious thought and drastic action! It is to this lack of militancy in the Church that this article is directed. We need to be reminded of the fact that God calls us to a holy warfare in which we must be engaged actively and totally.
The most prevalent and provocative picture of the Christian given in Scripture is that of the warrior involved. in a life and death struggle against the forces of God’s enemies. For this conflict we have been recruited by Christ, our Captain. He calls us to fight the good fight of faith, to overcome the world, the flesh and the devil—with the promise that we are more than conquerors through him who loved us and gave himself for us. It will not do for us to be satisfied merely because we might have had better equipment and superior training, such as some of us are getting in the Christian schools, the doctrine classes, and the weekly preaching of the Word in our houses of worship. Without the will to resist the world, to oppose the evil one, without the militant mind we shall not maintain the cause of Christ or bring luster to his banner.
The Old Testament Expression of this Militancy
But how can we be convinced of the need for such a militant mind? How can we escape from the pacifistic, inclusivistic spirit of the modern, liberal church? “To the Word and to the testimony!” That is the only solution, Like the Bereans of old we ought to study the Scriptures to see whether these things are as represented.
Soon, then, we discover that the great Covenant Jehovah himself initiated the militant mind at the very gates of Paradise. You are aware of the setting, Satan was the first fifth columnist. He had infiltrated behind our lines. Adam, who was to “keep the garden,” was not on the job. The devil deceived Eve and gained an initial victory. Man fell away from God. He went over to the enemy. But God in his grace restored errant mankind to himself, to his fellowship, service and allegiance. Moreover, by that act God declared war upon the devil, calling all his allies to militant opposition: “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:15). Here in the “mother promise” is the first preaching of the gospel, to be sure, but also in this key text is an announcement that war is an actuality of universal scope involving all of Eve’s children!
Be sure to notice that the issue is not left in doubt, nor is the fact of our personal participation dubious. It is evident that God himself instilled the enmity against the devil and his cohorts. He is the creator of the militant mind! It is clear that if we lack this militancy we must be lacking in fervor and allegiance for the cause of our God.
Furthermore, we ought to observe that this enmity was maintained by Jehovah as in succeeding generations he called men to his colors. Noah condemned the world by building an ark to the saving of his house. Abraham did the same in his day by leaving his homeland and wandering as a pilgrim and a stranger “as in a strange country.” Jeremiah was called by God “to root up, and to pull down, and to destroy.” In establishing this enmity the covenant-keeping God not only separated his people, but also guided, protected, and trained them to holy warfare. In the Old Testament that separation and warfare was physical as well as spiritual. Israel was instrumental in destroying the might of Pharaoh, as well as the annihilation of the Amalekites. God also commanded them to root out the iniquitous Canaanites for the cup of their guilt was running over. Samuel killed Agag, David carried on the battles of the Lord, and Elijah had the priests of Baal slain at the brook Kidron.
Let us beware that we do not fall into the error of the modernists, who sit in judgment upon God by condemning this Old Testament warfare as contrary to the Spirit of Christ.
-
Begg Digs a Deeper Hole
Written by Robert A. J. Gagnon |
Monday, February 5, 2024
Begg ignores the scriptural counsel regarding stumbling others, in addition to ignoring scriptural counsel against being present at an event at which God forbids attendance. The Christian attending the “gay” or “trans” so-called wedding would need to notify publicly all present at the gathering, not just the family member getting married, that he or she regards the wedding as an unholy alliance abhorrent to God. This fits Paul’s description at the end of 1 Cor 10 of what to do when a believer is at the home of an unbeliever and the host announces that the meat being served is “sacred sacrificial meat” coming from the temple. One must stop eating, for the sake both of Gentile unbelievers who might construe from your eating that you honor the god, and for the sake of any “weak” Christians or non-Christian Jews at the table whose conscience indicates that the eating of idol meat constitutes idol worship.Rev. Alistair Begg has doubled down on his recommendation to a grandmother that she attend her grandchild’s “gay” or “trans” wedding (so long as the grandchild getting “married” knows of her disagreement).* “They want me to repent? … I’m not ready to repent of this. I don’t have to.”
*Note that in the Sept. broadcast he referred to a grandmother’s “grandson”; here he refers to a grandmother’s “granddaughter.” Which is it?
1. Begg’s Ad Hominem Attack of Critics
While completely (and I mean completely) ignoring the array of scriptural arguments against his position, Begg compares all his critics to Pharisaic “separatists” who refuse to eat with sinners or have any association with them at all. He likens them to the self-righteous older brother who doesn’t understand grace in the parable of the prodigal (lost) son, and to the priest and Levite who pass by the man lying half-dead by the side of the road in the parable of the good Samaritan.
Yet none of his chief critics from the academy are advocating complete separation from those engaged in serial, unrepentant egregious sin. In my chapter on Jesus in *The Bible and Homosexual Practice* I talk at length about Jesus’ positive example of an aggressive outreach to the lost. But there is no line (straight or crooked) from that example provided by Jesus to what Begg is recommending.
He attacks all those who criticize him as the “product of American fundamentalism,” which he distinguishes proudly from his own pedigree as a “product of British evangelicalism.” Unlike them, “I come from a world in which it is possible for people to grasp the fact that there are actually nuances in things.” He does all this in a fatherly voice, but the ad hominem content is quite offensive, and it is designed to distract from the fact that it is ironically Begg himself who cannot see the nuances of Jesus’ ministry.
2. Begg’s Ironic Lack of Nuance in Describing Jesus’ Outreach to Sinners
What kind of nuance am I talking about? The failure to recognize that there is a world of difference between Jesus fraternizing with sexual sinners and exploitative tax collectors who expressed interest in his message, on the one hand, and Jesus attending a ritual celebration either of a tax collectors’ economic exploitation or of a sexual sinner’s grossly immoral and unnatural sexual union, who express no interest in his message, on the other hand.
There is no way that Jesus would have attended such ritualized celebrations of abominations to God, or encouraged his followers to do so, irrespective of whether his disciples alerted those to whom the ritual was directed of their disapproval. That Begg is incapable of such a nuanced scriptural understanding is certainly concerning.
3. Begg’s Misapplication of the Parable of the Prodigal Son
Begg’s proof text in his radio talk for justifying his advice to go to a “gay” or “trans” wedding was Luke 15, with a focus on the parable of the prodigal (lost) son. Begg appears confused in his application of this text. The older son refused to attend a celebration of the younger brother’s penitent return from a dissolute and immoral life. That was the problem with the older brother, not that refused to a attend a ritual celebration of a permanent commitment to a dissolute and immoral life. There is a huge difference between the two types of celebration (here again, nuance).
Moreover, while the father ran out to greet his returning penitent son (return in Jewish and Christian thought is a metaphor for repentance), he certainly wouldn’t have attended a ritual celebration memorializing his son’s commitment to continue to live lifelong in wastefulness and immorality.
A better text that Begg might have chosen than the lost son parable is the Aqedah (“Binding”) of Isaac in Genesis 22, where God taught Abraham not to make an idol even of his “only son,” the son of the promise. We can’t make holding on to a family member who is memorializing what the writers of Scripture (and Jesus) deem to be egregious immorality the most important thing, even if we couch it in terms of staying in evangelistic contact.
4. Begg’s Narrow, Myopic Perspective
Begg says about the advice that he gave the grandmother: “All I was thinking about was, How can I help this grandmother not lose her granddaughter?”
He should have been thinking other things, like:
How can I help this grandmother not to offend God by being present at such a ritual celebration of an evil that God finds particularly detestable? How can I prevent her from violating the united witness and counsel of Scripture?
How can I persuade her, by her actions, not to speak affirmation to behavior that can get her grandchild excluded from God’s kingdom? Am I recommending that she do something that will stumble others by her actions, leading them to affirm such immorality?
Read More
Related Posts: -
The PCA Standing Judicial Commission Rules in Favor in A Second Missouri Case
This matter is remanded to MOP Presbytery with instructions that it “hold a new hearing” (BCO 43-10) which need focus only on the following matters: “What steps must MOP take to make clear to the broader Church the errors that were identified in Presbytery’s various investigations with regard to some of the teachings at Revoice 18, particularly with regard to Theological Judgments 2, 3, and 5, and what steps must MOP take to fulfill its responsibilities to protect the peace and purity of the broader Church under BCO 11-3, 11-4 and 13-9(f) in light of those errors?”
Summary of the Case
In July 2018, Memorial Presbyterian Church (PCA) (“Memorial”) in St. Louis hosted the first Revoice Conference (“Revoice 18”). Thereafter, several individuals, sessions, and presbyteries communicated concerns to Memorial and to Missouri Presbytery (“MOP” or “Presbytery”) regarding Revoice 18. In light of these concerns, in October 2018 the pastor of Memorial, TE Greg Johnson, and its Session requested that MOP accept, as a BCO 41 Reference, the Session’s request to investigate it with regard to the allegations pertaining to the hosting of Revoice 2018. MOP voted to approve a lengthy report issued by its investigative committee in May 2019. The report contained, among other things, nine theological judgments. Complainant complained against MOP’s adoption of the nine theological judgments in July 2019. MOP partially sustained his complaint in October 2019 and voted to reconsider its affirmation of the nine theological judgments at a future called meeting. Complainant unsuccessfully tried to add a question about adoption by gay couples and individuals to the matters to be considered at the future meeting.
In December 2019, at a meeting called to reconsider the nine theological judgments, Complainant raised a point of order concerning the procedures used by MOP’s Administrative Committee in preparation for the meeting, but Presbytery’s Moderator ruled the point of order not well taken, a ruling that was sustained after challenge. MOP reconsidered the nine theological judgments and adopted amended statements to eight of them, referring the ninth judgment to an ad hoc committee for reconsideration. In January 2020, Complainant complained against MOP’s actions at the December 2019 meeting, a Complaint which Presbytery denied in July 2020. Complainant then carried his complaint to the SJC. The Panel conducted the hearing on September 14, 2021 and recommended that the Complaint be denied. The full SJC reviewed the case on March 3, 2022 and approved the following decision to sustain the Complaint in part and to deny it in part.
The SJC considered three issues, the first of which was:
At its December 7, 2019, Called Meeting, did Missouri Presbytery (MOP) err in approving six theological judgments (specifically, Judgments # 1-5 and #9) recommended by CIM (Committee to Investigate Memorial)? Complainant’s 34 specifications of errors concern:
MOP Theological Judgment 1 (“Origins of Homoerotic Desire”)MOP Theological Judgment 2 (“Terminology”)MOP Theological Judgment 3 (“The Gay Beneath the Gay”)MOP Theological Judgment 4 (“Gay Identity”)MOP Theological Judgment 5 (“Spiritual Friendship”)MOP Theological Judgment 9 (“Roman Catholic Speakers”)
The SJC judgment on this statement of the issue was: Yes, particularly with regard to MOP Theological Judgments 2, 3, and 5.
The Decision concludes with Amends directed to Missouri Presbytery with instructions from the SJC.
This matter is remanded to MOP Presbytery with instructions that it “hold a new hearing” (BCO 43-10) which need focus only on the following matters: “What steps must MOP take to make clear to the broader Church the errors that were identified in Presbytery’s various investigations with regard to some of the teachings at Revoice 18, particularly with regard to Theological Judgments 2, 3, and 5, and what steps must MOP take to fulfill its responsibilities to protect the peace and purity of the broader Church under BCO 11-3, 11-4 and 13-9(f) in light of those errors?”
In its new review, we encourage Presbytery to consider interacting with the May 2020 Report of the General Assembly’s Ad Interim Committee on Human Sexuality and how specific statements of some speakers at Revoice 18 may have differed from the propositions in that Report. We understand the AIC Report had only been published for two months when Presbytery declined to sustain this Complaint, and we recognize the Report does not have Constitutional status.
Read the entire Decision. -
The Freedom of Death
We are made perfect in holiness at death. It is a freeing mercy without compare. All the pleasures of this life are nothing to that moment when the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit is complete. It is not a selfish thing to desire that beautiful blessing which we have in Christ. We all experience the corruption brought about by Adam’s sin, both in our spirit in regards to the fight we have with the old man in sin, and in our body as we watch it break down and deal with disparate disease and the realities of old age and overuse. Death frees us from this, and because of who we are in Christ our comfort is that all the physical/spiritual trials we face are temporary.
Today’s catechism lesson gets us into the nitty gritty of life. What happens when we die? More importantly what happens to our faith when we die? Well the good news is that nothing happens to our faith in fact it actually improves and becomes perfect. But what about our bodies? Even better news there. According to this morning’s Shorter Catechism answer to question 37 our physical bodies, the stuff you can pinch right now, remains united to Christ just as it is while you are alive. Without getting into the mechanics of that (philosophers love to waste time on how the spiritual works when adoration and thanksgiving are the more proper responses) the reality is we will all die, unless the Lord returns first, but even in the case of the eschaton’s arrival (which I don’t think will be for a while) the same truth is our peace and comfort. We belong body and soul to our Redeemer and there is nothing that can take that away from us, even death itself. It may be the separation of the soul from the body, but nothing can ever separate us from the love of God in Jesus Christ. So let’s get into the questions:
Q. 37. What Benefits Do Believers Receive From Christ at His Death?
A. The souls of believers are at their death made perfect in holiness, and do immediately pass into glory; and their bodies, being still united to Christ, do rest in their gravest till the resurrection.
Q. 38. What Benefits Do Believers Receive from Christ at the Resurrection?
A. At the resurrection, believers being raised up in glory, shall be openly acknowledged and acquitted in the day of judgment, and made.
This section of the catechism is continuing to work through what it calls the “benefits” that believers receive from Christ. We’ve read about effectual calling, justification, sanctification, adoption, and now are hearing a bit on the eternal blessings which come from faith. As noted above there is a sense in which when we get down to the brass tacks of why we do what we do in the Christian life it’s less because of the right now and more about the not yet. Our Lord Jesus came to die so that we would live. It makes sense then that the culmination of the Westminster Divines writing on salvation would focus on what takes place when we leave this mortal coil.
The era in which our catechism was written was full of death. While not a member of the Assembly, a Puritan contemporary John Owen lost eleven children before the age of maturity, most as infants. He had one daughter survive to adulthood.
Read More
