Does he believe sexual immorality is shameful (Eph. 5:12) and corrosive (1 Cor. 6:18) and ought not to be discussed, or does he believe that being a ‘[insert sin here] Christian’ is just another form of Christian experience? Does he believe that it is blasphemy to associate Christ’s holy name with enduring sin and to make that sin central to one’s identity, experience, personhood, or ‘authentic self,’ or does he think it is needless alarmism and decidedly unwinsome to object strenuously to such obviously worldly notions?

It is one of the ironies of life that the writings of dead men often contain a better understanding of contemporary affairs, albeit unwittingly, than do many contemporary observers. They have the advantage of being immune to the distorted thought patterns, banal conventional wisdom, and often imbalanced priorities and mistaken values that frequently cause contemporary pundits to see only a part of any given matter, and to see even that askew. To understand the present one must read from the past. One must get away from our debates even to understand them, just as one must sometimes leave his workplace – say, by taking a walk around the building – to understand what is going on in that workplace. One must leave the atmosphere of urgency, raw emotion, conflicting perspectives, unhelpful advice, differing personalities, and other thought-corrupting elements in order to see them rightly and to think with one’s reasonable faculties rather than by spontaneous habit or emotion.
So it is that one of the best critiques of that contemporary social movement that is called, with doubtful accuracy, ‘social justice,’ appears in the lectures of a Dutch historian from the mid-19th century.[1] So it is that one of the best criticisms of what is now called postmodernism appeared in Chapter III (“The Suicide of Thought”) of the English journalist G.K. Chesterton’s 1908 partly autobiographical book Orthodoxy. So it is that many a Presbyterian professor of yesteryear has left us thoughts which bear an abiding vitality even now. To our purposes here is an excerpt from Chesterton’s 1905 book of social criticism, Heretics, but before quoting it I must note that he is a not wholly reliable thinker who failed to understand the Reformed tradition and who entered the Roman communion in later life. In that work he wrote:
Blasphemy depends upon belief and is fading with it. If any one doubts this, let him sit down seriously and try to think blasphemous thoughts about Thor. I think his family will find him at the end of the day in a state of some exhaustion.
We live in an age of wide unbelief, with the result that we live in an age of obliviousness to the evil nature of many words and deeds. To be clear, Chesterton was not speaking of the objective reality and severity of blasphemy, but rather about how it is perceived by those that have committed or witnessed it. The evil of blasphemy in no way depends upon the conscience or faith (or rather, lack thereof) of its human subjects in order to be blasphemous. It is a terrible offense against God, whose eternal majesty and omniscience never change, even where the sinner is ignorant of the real nature of what he has said. In order for one to realize that someone has committed blasphemy it is necessary for him to have a measure of faith; and where there is a lack of awareness of blasphemy, there is occasion to fear that true faith is lacking as well.
It is with sadness then that I say that there is blasphemy present in the evangelical world, and that it does not receive the censure it deserves or which we would expect if it were recognized in its true nature. The other day I passed a car with a bumper sticker that read, in total: BINGE JESUS. Undoubtedly this was an attempt to commend him to the public, a praiseworthy goal. And yet it seems to be lost on the vehicle owner that putting our Lord in the same category as junk food and cheap thrills is quite irreverent, and that there is something terribly amiss in suggesting that people should relate to him in the same way as many people relate to Netflix. I doubt the car owner would concur that his sticker could be paraphrased as ‘approach Jesus like you approach your weekend drinking habit,’ and yet given the actual meaning of ‘binging’ in our culture it is more likely to be interpreted in that way (if subconsciously) than met with the thought that Jesus is God Incarnate and worthy of total submission.
Binging anything is an intentional loss of self-restraint, the deliberate consumption of something in excess for pleasure. It is a contemporary form of revelry and a species of that seldom condemned sin of gluttony to which Scripture ascribes such woeful consequences (Prov. 23:21). That is emphatically the opposite of what is involved in following Christ, who expects steadfastness at all times (Mk. 13:13) and who presents following him as an act of self-denial fraught with hardship rather than an easy thrill whose appeal soon fades (Rev. 2:10; Heb. 3:14; 10:39).
To associate binging with Christ is then a sort of casual blasphemy which, however well intended, actually portrays Christ in a very misleading way. Elsewhere we see ministers, including some in the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA), use certain four-letter words to express themselves. The case can be made that all cursing is blasphemy, because the one who does it arrogates to himself something which is the prerogative of God alone, and directs it toward circumstances which God has sovereignly ordained for the good of the sufferer (Rom. 8:28), or toward people who are made in his likeness (Jas. 3:9). It is a bitter truth to remember that our sufferings are ordained by God, and it is a truth which must be used with immense tact and prudence; but still, to curse our hard circumstances is to curse God’s providence, which is a grievous evil indeed. And yet some of the men who represent God and serve him actually do such things themselves! They who should be calling men out of such sins of the tongue are giving an example of them to the wayward. “These things ought not to be” (Jas. 3:10).
This which we are discussing is a large part of the ongoing fitness for office controversy in the PCA. There are many who have criticized certain forms of self-description for denying progress in sanctification or for other errors, which are serious faults. But there has been too little denunciation of such terms on the ground that they are simply blasphemous. Well might a man stop his ears and tear his clothes to hear some of the phrases which people have used to describe themselves even in prominent forums and in our General Assembly. Words which have a well understood meaning in contemporary English as referring to people whose lives revolve around transgressing (or wanting to transgress) Leviticus 18:22 are applied to our new life in Christ, and those who object are accused of petty, inconsiderate Pharisaism for wanting to ‘police language’ and ‘argue over terms.’ God says to not even name such things (Eph. 5:3), and yet many among us assert that they have an indisputable right to refer to themselves with such terms, and do so brazenly without shame or fear (comp. Jude 12). And many others have not the spiritual understanding to see that this is brazen blasphemy, and do not join in efforts to forbid it.
“Blasphemy depends upon belief” — and if one does not see the blasphemy he ought to examine his heart to see what are his actual beliefs. What are his beliefs about holiness and sin, judgment and redemption, the nature of the flesh and the nature of our new lives in Christ? Does he believe that “to live is Christ” (Phil. 1:21) and that following him involves a life of suffering and sacrifice (Matt. 10:16-24), and of denying oneself (Matt. 16:24-26) and following him in a way that involves endless war upon one’s remaining sin nature (Gal. 5:17; Jas. 3:2)? Or does he believe that it is acceptable to name oneself by his indwelling sin, sin which is abominable in God’s sight and for which he subjects the nations that approve it to his wrathful judgment? Does he believe sexual immorality is shameful (Eph. 5:12) and corrosive (1 Cor. 6:18) and ought not to be discussed, or does he believe that being a ‘[insert sin here] Christian’ is just another form of Christian experience? Does he believe that it is blasphemy to associate Christ’s holy name with enduring sin and to make that sin central to one’s identity, experience, personhood, or ‘authentic self,’ or does he think it is needless alarmism and decidedly unwinsome to object strenuously to such obviously worldly notions? “Blasphemy depends upon belief” – and where there is no objection to blasphemy, well might we suspect the beliefs of the silent and suggest they test themselves to see whether they are Christ’s (2 Cor. 13:5). For it is written of him: “Zeal for your house has consumed me” (Ps. 69:9). The church is his house (1 Cor. 3:16-17) and we his people are to imitate him (11:1; Eph. 5:1-2). Where then is our zeal to silence blasphemy in our own house?
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Five Forks (Simpsonville), SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name.
[1]     Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer’s Unbelief and Revolution
Related Posts:

There is good reason that the Right—along with increasing numbers of Americans—is distrustful of our public institutions, some of which need to be razed and some of which need to be rejuvenated. For many Americans, bromides against the “tyrannical government” and talk of “creeping Marxism” is not simply a product of their own populist delusions but is an understandable reaction to the insanity they see every day on the news. Though the comprehensive solution to our current dilemma ventures beyond the political, a political response that is both far-reaching and prudential is absolutely essential.

Major financial institutions de-banking organizations or individuals for religious reasons probably strikes the average American as a conspiracy theory fit for a raving, right-wing lunatic. Last week, however, it was reported that there is good reason to think this has been happening for some time. 
Financial officials from 13 states wrote a letter to Bank of America, the second largest bank in the United States, calling them to task for a pattern of de-banking Christian ministries and individuals. They cited a handful of cases where this occurred without good cause. Bank accounts that were closed for vague and shifting reasons included those of Indigenous Advance Ministries, a Christian organization that cares for orphaned children in Uganda; a Memphis, Tennessee, church that donates to IAM; Indigenous Advance Customer Center, a separate business that also serves in Uganda; the Timothy Two Project International, which trains pastors in over 65 countries; and Christian author and podcaster Lance Wallnau. 
The bank closure letters claimed that BoA could no longer serve that “business type” and also that the organizations exceeded the “bank’s risk tolerance”; months later, BoA also maintained they don’t work with for-profit businesses that do debt collection. “Neither Indigenous Advance Ministries nor the church collect debts,” the letter notes, “nor was the bank able to point to any policy prohibiting account holders from engaging in such activities. In other words that rationale was a ruse, and even if legitimate, would only apply to one of the closed accounts.”
A similar letter sent in 2022, signed by 60 financial professionals, alleged that JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Capital One, and Morgan Stanley have engaged in similar patterns of behavior against other Christian ministries and individuals.
Right-wing dissidents began using the term “regime” to describe this exact problem: private corporations targeting the political and cultural enemies of those who always seem to occupy the seats of power, and whose interests are never fundamentally threatened during the brief times they’re out of power. Using regime in this way is imprecise—why not simply describe present-day America as an oligarchy?—and it has been overused, just as any political term of art will be. But it became popular nonetheless because it describes how power at scale actually functions in America today.
The baleful effects of our current governing authorities go far beyond simply adding reams of regulatory red tape to public works projects or stifling the entrepreneurial spirit of the individual. Instead, public and private institutions and actors are regularly engaged in coordinated efforts to unperson those who fall out of line with the approved moral consensus. 
Probably the most famous of these cancellation attempts is Brendan Eich, who was forced to resign as CEO of Mozilla for donating money to a campaign that opposed the imposition of same-sex marriage in California. As Andrew Beck noted in a recent profile of Eich at First Things, “A visionary technologist whose work had made the web a more accessible, free, and enjoyable experience for everyone was condemned as a hateful bigot and treated as a pariah by his company, the press, and on the internet that he was so instrumental in building.” 
Though Eich went on to found Brave, a search engine that’s been having recent success, not all have been so lucky. Remember Jack Phillips, the cake baker from Colorado who won his Supreme Court case against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission? He’s now caught up in yet another lawsuit for declining to make a cake for a gender transition—a lawsuit filed on the same day in 2017 when the Supreme Court announced it would hear the Masterpiece case.  
Defining the Regime
In the Politics, Aristotle described the regime as having four constituent elements—the ruling body, the ruling institutions, the way of life, and the ends at which the regime aims. But of these features, he reasoned that “the governing body is the regime,” because it “has authority in the city.” Continuing on, Aristotle noted that “whatever the authoritative element conceives to be honorable will necessarily be followed by the opinion of the other citizens.” 
In a two-part series on this topic, American Reformer’s Josh Abbotoy defined the modern use of regime thusly: “A set of public, quasi-public and private actors exercising coordinated power for the purposes of advancing a shared agenda for social and political control.” What Abbotoy summarizes is the governing body in modern America, which goes beyond merely political offices. As he notes, it is composed of a dense web of elected officials, the intelligence community, boards of Fortune 100 companies, hedge fund managers, non-profits, and NGOs. And what these institutions and individuals think is honorable (or what they need to say to do business), from LGBTQ and Black Lives Matter pieties to abortion and feminism, is what is in fact honored in every major public and private institution today.
Abbotoy discusses how through the imposition of regulations, the administrative state “commandeers quasi-public actors in order to further policy goals through expansive uses of existing statutory authority (e.g., higher education and Title IX, or DEI requirements amongst government contractors).” Even worse is the coordination between the national security sector and social media giants. The Twitter Files uncovered a vast operation between pre-Elon Twitter and the intelligence community, which worked in concert to deplatform unruly individuals and prevent stories from being shared that would have damaged Joe Biden’s electoral prospects in 2020.
With that being said, there are critics of using regime as a pejorative, catch-all term to describe who rules in America currently.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by David S. Steele |
Sunday, May 22, 2022
As followers of Jesus Christ, may we cling to the truth, proclaim the truth, and defend the truth. May we stand with the men and women throughout redemptive history who were willing to lay their lives down for the great cause of truth. May the cry of our hearts be, “nothing but the truth!”

Scripture warns, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8, ESV). As followers of Christ, we need to be vigilant, constantly on guard, and discerning good from evil. One of the ways that the worldly system “takes us captive” is by marginalizing truth or eliminating it altogether. It is important to understand that the worldly system militates against the Christian view of truth. Is it any wonder, then, that the importance of truth is highlighted so much in Scripture?
David Understood the Importance of Truth
King David acknowledged that since God is truth, he expects his people to live truthful lives. He writes, “Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being, and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart” (Ps. 51:6, ESV).
The implications of David’s words are massive as we consider our inward motivations, conversations, and the way we conduct our lives. Ask yourself, “Am I a person that is committed to the truth?” “Does the love for truth undergird my life and worldview?”
Paul Spoke Often About the Truth
The apostle begins the book of Titus with these revealing words: “Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness” (Titus 1:1, ESV) . Notice the relationship between truth and godliness. Indeed, they are intimately connected. “The truth of the Gospel,” writes Warren Wiersbe, “changes a life from ungodliness.”1 As Christians, we unapologetically adhere to the truth. We must not only adhere to the truth; it must stand at the very center of our lives.
Additionally, Paul referred to the church as ” … a pillar and buttress of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15, ESV). The church, then, is God’s appointed means of declaring the word of God to the nations.
Read More
Related Posts: