If Only We Were Sinners

It happens every election cycle. The candidates ascend to prominence while the public lays out  their personal volume of Codes and Ethics alongside a microscope. With a disciplined, competent, well-honed and unbiased eye, we scrutinize each decision, past or present, and with the deepest humanitarian sentiment we cast our vote for that man or woman who will surely exude every moral quality necessary for the well-being and advancement of our society. After all, are these candidates indeed our Public Servants? Ought we hold them as well as ourselves accountable to the highest of standards ?

Wait a minute…what did I just write? Accountable to standards? Both myself and the candidates who run for office; accountable to standards? Well, that begs the question, “What are those standards?”

At one time that question would have evoked contemplation  unless the person answering was sufficiently prudent.  I’m afraid that time has long passed. The answer today from most is off-the-cuff, ill advised and (dare I say) naïve. Now naïveté may have its charm in certain areas but does not serve well in regards to how we govern ourselves.

Wait a minute…I did it again. Govern ourselves? Are we not free to think and act as we please? We will grant that actions have consequences and so we maintain civility in general. But if someone dares to suggest that we think differently, well, that private vault is a tough one to crack.  To say “govern ourselves” implies that we ourselves are the standard. Our Constitution prefers self-government above the dictates of tyrants and assumes an objective standard, but prejudice and selfish subjectivity rule our day. So, many readily assimilate the mantras of self esteem and human autonomous potential (Found even in our Christian pulpits!) which is detrimental, not beneficial. How so? We are prone to an inveterate disdain for an objective transcendence which limits our autonomy.  Thus, even if one should call this limiting agency “God” the disdain remains.

Now that I have so boldly written, may I reintroduce my title? If only we were sinners. Why should I desire such a  thing? I find one thing profoundly absent in general daily conversation; a theological basis for our reason. R.J. Rushdoony has termed it “Doctrine For All Of Life”. Now I’m not calling for “Doony-ism” but he makes the point clear: we are subservient beings in the most positive sense and have an obligation to maintain this doctrine for the benefit of ourselves and each other. It is my personal observation of an ever-increasing vengeful scorn for sound theology. We speak of God and the bible but a god of our own making makes us idolators. Rushdoony defines this:  “The mainstream of Western civilization is thus apparent, the desire to control and change others as the essence of true power. This lust for power, the pathology of all fallen men, is common to cultures all over the world. It is an expression of man’s original sin, his desire to be as God, knowing or determining for himself what constitutes good and evil.” The Death of Meaning pg. 92

This is our sin expressed in innumerable ways and thoughts. So, returning to our election theme, “Lets return America to greatness!” is the cry of the Politician and supposed desire of our general public yet, without a sound theological foundation, what could this possibly mean? As proficient syncretists, we absorb every influence around us and form them into an ever-changing philosophy. So how can we elect one who is above reproach and how can they rightly govern when there are vague and changing standards? Clever quips and cliché cannot replace a theological framework which delimits  one’s political status and curbs a progressive apathy in the general population.

If only we were sinners. I recall the character Fletcher Reede in the Jim Carey movie Liar, Liar.  In court, the judge threatens to hold Reede (Carey) in contempt. Reede’s  classic response was “I hold myself in contempt! Why should you be any different?” Being forced to tell the truth, Reede had no other option than to see himself for what he was. Todays Self-Esteem emphasis will not allow for such. True, Reede was a scoundrel who needed to be taught a lesson. Not us, though. Just read Facebook and you’ll see what we think of ourselves. And so I once again ponder that haunting question: Since I am so amazing and full of potential for greatness, for what do I need a crucified and risen Savior? If only we were sinners.

From My Own Little Corner…

“In my own little corner in my own little chair...” Though shortly before my time, I recall the Rogers & Hammerstein production of Cinderella with Julie Andrews and the song In My Own Little Corner. To a passerby peeping through her window, Cinderella expressed fanciful pipedreams. She had no earthly reason to think she would ever become any of the things of which she sang. Likewise, from My Own Little Corner, the world will more than likely scoff rather than open its arms to me should I ever dream of becoming a Norwegian Princess or an Opinion Shaper.

Opinion Shaper. That's the designated title I supposedly bear. I'll state right up front my scepticism regarding my own opinion let alone surmise I may sway someone else's, but with the task before me, I proceed.

My premise shall be that all opinion is derived and contingent.

Opinion is derived. The polluted rains of our forebears fill our own tainted thought-pool and we expect the product to be pristine springs. Opinion is contingent. By Providence or Preference, seeming random events and influence planted in our preconditioned soil produces that which sways us in unfathomable and incalculable ways. However, everyone believes themselves to be right.

I'm sure we've all heard the adage “Opinions are like armpits; everyone has them.” Yet, this truism fails regarding a person's competent, sure-founded erudition while their own armpits may indeed stink. It is proper, sensible and beneficial for us to trace that person's development and established credentials, leading us to perhaps not visit the auto mechanic when our body exhibits signs of needing neurosurgery. Thus qualified opinion is derived from and contingent upon quality of training, either formal or informal, the person's mental capacity and other influences to be defined later.

A truth, though, remains inherent in man to which we all agree: No one is perfect. Both mechanic and neurosurgeon make mistakes. Why do humans possess and exhibit flaws and what is to be done, if anything? Speculation on this question has proved volatile while creating lucrative professions in Psychiatry, Psychology, Psychotherapy etc. To merely consign the question as incontrovertible shortsightedly diminishes its relevancy when it ought to hold prominence. As a Christian, my answer to “Why” is decidedly derived and contingent, but this opinion is also viewed as a Cinderella flight of fancy.

Once popular in the 19^th century, Freethought Societies are re-emerging in America. FreeThought boasts that it is “unrestrained by deference to authority, tradition, or established belief, especially in matters of religion.” [Dictionary.com]

“Unrestrained” as though free from previously derived and contingent notions?

This is wonderfully elusive to them as well. It is also observed that truth is not based on popularity or pragmatism so their self-proclaimed “unrestraint” leads only to more erroneous opinion.

To whom shall I turn for help on things of such magnitude? Shall I give ear to modern entertainers who philosophize and pontificate from their platform of public popularity (as though this were qualification to speak) while leading base, degenerate lives? Shall I join in revering the Greeks as the greatest of thinkers and applaud what they have passed on, even when it has been shown to be divergent from Christian thought? History has exposed what has been valid or invalid reasoning proving that opinion is not set in a vacuum.

Shall I, from My Own Little Corner, presume myself capable of tracing Philosophy from contemporary to ancient? One may never be able to extricate himself when once entering the labyrinth of Topic and Opinion. I contend there are basic few major tenets we hold that drive, shape and color the basic realms of life: Home, Vocation, Government, Religion and History, for example, yet even these are ever-subject to sceptical, capricious amendment producing societal instability. My, how we applaud such scepticism. May I say, a degenerated philosophy born from degenerated theology produces all manner of horrific opinion and act.

There's a reason why Jelly Belly makes 1000 different flavors of their scrumptious candy yet black licorice remains a “controversial” flavor, being either loved or despised. We have come to so adore human volition that the significance of the “choice” to hate licorice or love and endorse corrupt political candidates bears equal weight, thus it seems reasonable to say that licorice-loving politicians are the cause for our multi-trillion dollar deficit.

Everyone believes themselves to be right...from their Own Little Corner.

Whatever your view...

If you like green, not blue, like green.
If your hobby is making clay figurines rather than paper mache, make clay figurines.
If you love Italian food, not Mexican, eat Italian food.
If you dig archaeology, not gardening, dig archaeology.
If you enjoy sunrises, not sunsets, enjoy sunrises.
If you think as a Liberal, not as a Conservative, think as a Liberal.
If, in your world, the sun rises in the West and sets in the East...

Whatever your view; whatever your little hobby, enjoy it to your hearts content. Thinking it matters is a whole nother subject.

The Damage From Within

Have you ever heard the argument “With all the horrible things going on in this world, why must you be so concerned about all these religious discussions?”, the idea being that I am wasting my time and energies in this endeavor when I could help alleviate suffering and “evil”, as though one had nothing to do with another. And then there's the constant cry that “religion” is the very cause for much of the world's woes.

My interest will always be to do the work of a Berean, to test all things, to examine myself and gain a sound, working understanding of scripture that bears fruit in keeping with repentance.

This will probably prove to be the most damaging video to myself, and I may just now be venting several years of pent-up frustration at what I see occurring in the church; what is acceptable and still labeled “Christian”, but it's now old hat to endure the certain rage of those who will accuse me of heresy hunting, not loving the brethren, causing strife within the body etc...but may I ask:

IF, in our confessed belief in the sovereignty and providence of the Triune God, He brought forth both the Dark Ages and the subsequent Glorious Reformation, will His Word not hold true in declaring unto us that by similar means that produced the first, we are in danger of producing yet another Dark Age of biblical understanding?

The first was due to miserly enshrouding the Word in a dead language. (Latin and the Roman Catholic Church). Ours would be due to the unchaste, wanton lewdness disguised as intimacy purveyed by malevolent “men of God”. And we wonder at the decay surrounding us.

The church has always faced attacks from without from an unbelieving world, yet her greater challenge comes as she must identify, confront and drive from her midst those who would infiltrate and infect from within, those wolves in sheep's clothing who do “not spare the flock. Also from among yourselves men (and today, women) will rise up, speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after themselves.” Acts 20:29, 30


Who are these men? Are they amongst us today? YES! To name the more well known:
Most of The Emergents: McLaren, Bell, Pagitt, Jones, Bakker
The Seeker-Sensitives/PurposeDriven: Let's just say anyone whose preaching is heavily influenced by Peter Drucker. E.Young Jr., Noble, Shook, Furtick
The WordFaith-ers: Hinn, Copeland, Dollar, Price etc and all their progeny...and the Osteen-cult.
The Ecumenists: “Let's not let Doctrine Divide. Let's just all get along.” I hear haunting echoes of “Come to Mother Rome!”
The...Others, to put it kindly: Bentley, King, Mills, Jordan, Hagee, Roth


Though the purity of the church in both doctrine and worship is frequently spoken of in scripture, and heresy is defined and exposed by what can be proven contrary to these doctrines, the vast majority of today's Evangelical church must be unwilling and incapable of either defining or exposing these blasphemers.

I find that I am not saddened when dealing with the atheistic arguments, but when having to recognize the blatant and shameless blasphemy that passes for preaching, my heart sinks in despair and yet burns with anger. These so-called preachers are no longer declaring the truths of the historic faith. Their “gospel” is wholly unrecognizable when compared to the content of the preaching of the early and late Reformation yet they claim they are having the same effects in the saving of souls and the equipping of men!

I say, when we find them producing the type of profound and exhaustive exegetical work of the Reformation era and we find them engaging in the necessary debates of our own day, I'll relent...and repent of my very low view of their “ministries”. They've had time to assess and re-assess their false doctrines. They flatly reject correction and claim persecution “for righteousness sake”.

Again, I say when they prove capable of standing in the manner of a John Knox, a William Tyndale or the host of true martyrs for the glory of the true Gospel, I shall praise God for them. As it is, they are a blight upon the church, compounding the ridicule brought upon her in their shallow, ear-tickling theology that makes no sense to even the worst of the false-religionists of our day.

Yet we have thousands upon thousands imbibing and affirming their venomous message, but because they say “Jesus” and speak of the Holy Spirit and read an out-of-context passage of the bible that suits their blasphemy, the gullible open wide and swallow.

So while my main content of the World Conquered addresses the hostile and vocal sceptic, there is another element addressed in scripture that is just as hostile, yet even more damaging because it is done with such subtlety.

Atheistic “Righteousness”?

 

It would seem that to the atheist there is no such thing as righteousness. Oh, sure, there is a “rightness” and those things on which we agree men ought or ought not do and they claim that there is a universal understanding of this rightness within societies but this cannot be inherent in the individual. After all, we're born as a blank slate; atheistic by default, remember?

Where and when rightness is absent, there is need for education...on their terms, of course. “Give us your children and we'll drive out any religious notion of “righteousness” as defined by your mythological “god” in your book of fables.”

I suppose this would be like the “reset” button on a counter, or better yet, formatting a computer hard drive. So it is naturalism as the fulcrum by which they seek to leverage the weight of religious indoctrination off the individual with their so called “light of reason”. But their reason is purely anthropocentric being confident that we as men have every capacity necessary to understand and define for ourselves right and wrong in any given situation. Thus the creation of “values clarification” where a particular scenario may call for two contradictory acts, each being declared “right” dependent upon the circumstance.

Righteousness, however, belongs to God alone; is inherent in HIS nature, and is not the possession of man.

The meaning of God's righteousness cannot be inferred from the concept of justice that applies to this world. (Concise Reformed Dogmatics [CRD]J van Genderen and W.H. Velema pg 133) We are inclined to follow our own concept of what is just. We must ask ourselves what Scripture says about God's righteousness. (CRD 13.9 pg.185)

We can never separate righteousness from God's holiness, so it is here that the atheistic notion of rightness collapses in upon itself, for when rightness is applied to men, it means that one has right on his/her side, is righteous and good and in step with the law. But man's law varies and is frequently opposed to righteousness.

The biblical examples of the Prophets, the psalmists and the writers of proverbs incessantly complain about the dreadful reality that there was no justice for the poor, widow, orphans, aliens and the needy even though the right was completely on their side. (Bavinck Reformed Dogmatics BRDVol 2 pg223)

We need not look far today to see the encroachment of wavering secular rightness as they invade our private lives and tell us what we are and are not “allowed” to do.

But the righteousness of God consists in the fact that through and by the Messiah it proceeds to bring righteousness to his people; in Christ it offers a means of atonement, which proves God to be righteous; is able to justify the believer; and also grants forgiveness to 1Jn 1:9 and bestows salvation on his own.(Jn 17:25, 2Tim 4:8 (BRD Vol 2, pg 225)

God made the “Covenant of nature” with Noah and a “covenant of grace” with Abraham, acts by which he again, out of sheer grace grants to his creatures an array of rights and binds himself with an oath to maintain these rights. (BRD Vol.2, pg227)

(Now here, lest the atheist think God is bound by an external standard, recall Heb 6:13)

In scripture, these ordinances and laws are not derived from God's justice, but from his holiness and grace. God was not “morally bound” to grant these rights to his creatures. “

All laws and rights have their ultimate ground, not in a social contract, nor in self-existent natural law or in histroy but in the will of God, viewed not as absolute dominion but as a will of goodness and grace – the fountainhead of all laws and rights.”(BRD Vol 2. pg228)