An Example of Mishandling Scripture to Preach Critical Theory and Social Justice

What happens when we preach on social justice without using the Scripture as the definition of what is just? We find ourselves tempted to take from Scripture, twist truth, and then draw applications that make our point look strong.

In this video, Dr. Moore declares that Israel’s temptation to worship Baal was similar to southern American Christians’ support of Jim Crow laws. How in the world does he do this? Dr. Moore suggest that the worship of Baal was an acceptance of the status quo, an embrace of the current system of power. Even worse, the Israelites called their service to Baal service to the Lord. And, similarly, American Christians who fought for Jim Crow laws accepted the present system, and even renamed it as faithfulness to the Lord.

Let’s be clear. Dr. Moore is not saying this, I do not believe, out of any evil intent to do harm to the church or to Scripture. He wants to help Christians see the evils and the lasting impact of racism. That is good. Dr., Moore understands that racism is an evil to be repented of. That is good and biblical. Dr. Moore understands that people are often willing to baptize the current form of immorality as biblical if they think it will profit their platform. He is right—more right than I think he would admit. (we’ll come back to that).

But, in order to make his point, Dr. Moore is mangling the truth. Baal worship was not simply an embrace of a present system of power politics. It was the bowing to a false god. It was The participation in perverse sexual rituals in order to bring the harvest. It was the indulging of human depravity as the people bowed to a demon rather than to the Lord who made the earth. It was pure evil, not merely a systemic failure. It was the rejection of the clear word of God.

The problem here is that Dr. Moore is so passionate about presenting critical theory, so passionate about making us see that we must oppose what he understands as systemic racism, that he is willing to read systemic racism and critical theory back three millennia into the Old Testament. There is simply not a hint from the Lord that Baal worship is a failure to recognize the insights of critical theory and oppose the presenting power structure. Baal worship was about, get this, Baal worship. The sin to repent of was Baal worship. The sin to repent of was not a power structure sin.

The ironic thing here is that critical theory is becoming so popular that to preach it is no longer to oppose the current power structure. To preach critical theory, to stand opposed to systemic racism—however you define it—is to virtue signal that you are on the side of the loudest voices of the day. Earlier I suggested that Dr. Moore understands that people are often willing to baptize the current form of immorality as biblical if they think it will profit their platform. Is it not then fascinating to watch believers baptize intersectionality and critical race theory, allying themselves with many who have no grasp of the gospel or respect for the word, and then read back into Scripture notions from said theory with no biblical warrant?

Sadly, in order to speak to the charges that are raised against anyone who speaks about this issue, I must say, with clarity, that racism is evil. To hate or hurt any person because of their color of skin is a violation of the word of God. To build a society in such a way that you intentionally disadvantage people because of their skin color is wrong. To side with anyone toward injustice—siding with the rich against the poor or the poor against the rich, siding with the seemingly advantaged against the seemingly disadvantaged or the seemingly disadvantaged against the seemingly advantaged—is a violation of the principle of biblical justice. Oh, and to pluck an some folks’ pet peeves, I do not see skin color. Seriously, get to know me—I can prove it.

The bottom line, Christians, is that we must not read into Scripture what God did not put there. When we attempt to help the Lord by adding to his word principles he did not prescribe, we behave as did the Scribes and Pharisees who hated and opposed Jesus. God’s word is sufficient. God’s word tells us that we must not do anybody injustice. And God’s word tells us what justice looks like. God’s word shows us that pre-judging any person, of any color, or of any social status, outside of their actions and the attitudes of the heart is wrong. God shows us that punishing children for the sins of their parents is wrong. And God’s word tells us that, when we come to faith in Christ, we become new creations in a new family where there is no distinction in our identities based on nation of origin, language, or color of skin.

God’s word, if we would follow it, is clear enough. WE need not baptize secular critical theory to make a biblical point. And we surely need not somehow pretend that Baal worship and Jim Crow are twin brothers. Yes, both are evil, but they are not the same thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwfrzlAYUiw

Advertisements

What I Did not Steal Must I Now Restore?

Watch the words of David here, and see if you do not find something sadly familiar with modern hot-button talking points.

Psalm 69:4-6

4 More in number than the hairs of my head
are those who hate me without cause;
mighty are those who would destroy me,
those who attack me with lies.
What I did not steal
must I now restore?
5 O God, you know my folly;
the wrongs I have done are not hidden from you.
6 Let not those who hope in you be put to shame through me,
O Lord God of hosts;
let not those who seek you be brought to dishonor through me,
O God of Israel.

David is being attacked by harsh and evil men. Yet David has not wronged these men. David is no fool. He knows that he is not personally perfect. We see that in verse 5. David pleads with the Lord that his own failure not cause others to dishonor the Lord. Yet, even with his own admission of his own imperfection, David grasps that there is an injustice being done in his direction.

In verse 4, we see the question, “What I did not steal must I now restore?” That is the question that grabbed my attention today. David is clearly asking if he must pay back a thing that he, himself, did not steal. This is David clearly indicating that such a thing would be David being wronged. Biblically David should be forced to repay anything he stole, with interest. But David should not be forced to repay anything he did not steal.

Can you see the application for the modern day? Right now, as social justice is such a prominent issue among believers, there are those who would claim that many should be forced to pay for the sins of others in the past. There are many who would claim that those who have not acted wrongly should be shamed for the sins of their forefathers. There are those that believe that financial payments should be made, or that those in positions of leadership should be forced to vacate those offices to make room for others based on things that were done years ago and how those sins of the past shaped society in the present.

But the Bible does not promote such a supposed justice. David knew that he should not be forced to repay what he did not steal. Even when David knew that he was not perfect in all areas, even though David knew of failures in his life, he knew that it would not be just for men who opposed him to force him to pay for things he did not do. There would be no justice in making David a victim of injustice.

As we attempt to navigate the difficult waters of a society brimming full with social justice advocacy, formal shamings, intersectionality, and critical theory, let us not lose sight of the fact that it is not just to force one to repay what she has not stolen. It is not just to punish a child for the sins of his father. Like David, let us all be honest enough to admit our own sins and failures (verse 5). Let us ask the Lord to help us never shine a negative light on his glory (verse 6). Let us do all we can to be a just people, never repaying evil for good, never condemning people for crimes they did not commit, never judging any person based on ethnicity. Let us be careful to see to it that voices speaking truth are not silenced, regardless of the look of the faces behind those voices.

A Quick Response to an Accusation of Contradiction in the Gospels

In my preparation for a message on Matthew 26:17-30, the text that includes the Lord’s Supper, I was reminded that there are those who would suggest that there is a discrepancy between John’s gospel and the synoptics—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—regarding exactly when Jesus ate the Last Supper and on what day Jesus died. The synoptics are clear that Jesus celebrated the Passover on Thursday and then died on Friday. John seems to indicate that the death of Jesus took place on the Passover, perhaps even at the very moment when the Passover lambs were being killed. And some would use this seeming discrepancy to suggest that the Bible contains an error, a contradiction. How, after all, could Jesus both eat the Passover meal one day and then die on the next day when the Passover lambs are being slaughtered?

All we need, however, to deal with this is a single, plausible, explanation for what we see in Matthew and John. I have read a few that would work. John tells us that the chief priests did not go into Pilate’s house because they wanted to be ceremonially clean so they could eat the Passover. Perhaps they were delayed in eating that meal on Thursday evening, but still planned to do so before sunset of Friday. Or, more likely in my opinion, they were not referencing the formal Passover meal only but the entirety of the sacred events of the combined Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread. They wanted to be ceremonially clean for the week to follow with all its celebrations. Thus, when John calls the day of the crucifixion “the day of preparation of the Passover,” he could be telling us that, while Thursday evening was the Passover meal, Friday was the day of preparation for the special Sabbath observance that fell in the week that included Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Another explanation is that there was a bit of variation in how different Jews understood their yearly calendar. We are aware that the sect at Qumran used a calendar that was a day off from that used by the priests. So, if Matthew and John were speaking from different calendars, there would be no discrepancy.

A third explanation comes not from the calendar but from the reckoning of when a day began and ended. John MacArthur explains it this way:

***

The answer lies in a difference among the Jews in the way they reckoned the beginning and ending of days. From Josephus, the Mishna, and other ancient Jewish sources we learn that the Jews in northern Palestine calculated days from sunrise to sunrise. That area included the region of Galilee, where Jesus and all the disciples except Judas had grown up. Apparently most, if not all, of the Pharisees used that system of reckoning. But Jews in the southern part, which centered in Jerusalem, calculated days from sunset to sunset. Because all the priests necessarily lived in or near Jerusalem, as did most of the Sadducees, those groups followed the southern scheme.

That variation doubtlessly caused confusion at times, but it also had some practical benefits. During Passover time, for instance, it allowed for the feast to be celebrated legitimately on two adjoining days, thereby permitting the Temple sacrifices to be made over a total period of four hours rather than two. That separation of days may also have had the effect of reducing both regional and religious clashes between the two groups.

On that basis the seeming contradictions in the gospel accounts are easily explained. Being Galileans, Jesus and the disciples considered Passover day to have started at sunrise on Thursday and to end at sunrise on Friday. The Jewish leaders who arrested and tried Jesus, being mostly priests and Sadducees, considered Passover day to begin at sunset on Thursday and end at sunset on Friday. By that variation, predetermined by God’s sovereign provision, Jesus could thereby legitimately celebrate the last Passover meal with His disciples and yet still be sacrificed on Passover day (MacArthur, Matthew 26:17-19).

***

There are, of course, other potential explanations out there for how Matthew and John could both be speaking the truth and not actually contradicting each other. And a thorough argument regarding those points is well beyond the purpose of this post. I simply want to make you aware that, if you hear someone suggest that this is a contradiction in the Bible, you know that people have done the work and the thinking to show us how it is not. And I would guess that the right answer is either the first or last ones mentioned above.

A Nice Bible Reading Plan

One of the disciplines that has helped me most in my Christian growth has been that of structured daily Bible reading. It is good for my soul for me to be regularly in the word, and in different parts of the word.

What I have learned about myself is that I need a plan if I am going to read well. Whenever I think to myself that I will just take time in a book and read it as long as I want, I somehow get distracted, go off track, or lose momentum. But I do a much better job when I have a structured plan in front of me.

So, for me, a Bible-in-a-year plan is a very helpful tool. In 2018, I read through the Discipleship Journal Book-at-a-Time plan. This plan was available for me on my iPhone’s YouVersion Bible app.

There were two things about this plan I particularly liked. One is that this plan has six days of reading per week, thus giving a day for catching up every week. While I tend to stay on track, It is nice to have a day to catch up if something happens that puts me behind. And it is nice to have the freedom, during any week, to do a different reading than the one assigned if something is on my mind.

The second thing that I liked in this reading is in the title. This plan focuses on one book at a time. Now, that actually means, for these folks, that you will do two different readings. Typically, there will be a reading from one book of the Bible, Old or New Testament, and a reading from something poetic like Psalms or Proverbs. What I like about this is that I was not reading from three or four different sections as in some other plans. At the same time, I was not simply plowing through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, but instead read from an Old Testament book or two and then read a New Testament book for a few days.

Of course no reading plan is perfect. I was not super fond of the way, toward the end of the year, that the book of Isaiah became the poetic book. Reading Isaiah alongside Jeremiah and Ezekiel was not always easy to keep perfectly straight as far as timing goes.

But, with that one problem aside, I would happily recommend the Book-at-a-Time plan from Discipleship Journal. So, if you are looking for a new reading plan in 2019, you might check that plan out on line or in the YouVersion app.

What about you? What did you do for Bible reading in 2018? What is your 2019 plan?

Some Thoughts on Justice and Accusations

When significant accusations are made against a person, especially when issues of loss are involved, how do we deal with them? Do we take the modern legal motto of innocent until proven guilty? Do we use the criminal justice standard that says that guilt must be proven beyond doubt? Do we take the civil standard that guilt must be proved simply by preponderance of the evidence? Do we take the line of the #MeToo movement in which we believe all accusers regardless of evidence?

The problem here is that none of the above standards is the best standard. Why? None of those is the standard of the word of God. It may surprise you to realize that the Lord actually spoke quite clearly to his people about what must be the standard met in a case of accusation. And the Lord made it clear that there are also consequences for malicious false accusations.

Deuteronomy 19:15-21 – 15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16 If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. 20 And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

First, note that a charge will not be established without a witness (cf. Num 35:30; Due 17:6-7). The idea of a he said she said or a she said he said claim is simply not admissible. I’m not going to deny that, in our era of modern technology, video surveillance, DNA evidence, and all the rest perhaps this model could shift a bit. There are methods of proof that were not available to the men of the second millennium BC. But it should be a normal standard that we do not attempt to adjudicate claims of one person against another person without a witness and without any sort of physical evidence. Something other than the claim of the accuser has to point toward the guilt of the accused.

Note, in the issue of witnesses, the Scripture is also very clear that any person with evidence regarding a crime is obligated to come forward. It is a crime to conceal a crime in the biblical standard (cf. Lev 5:1).

But, if a person makes an accusation, particularly one that includes consequences for the one accused, the accuser also is to be held accountable for their actions. There is no such thing as a free pass at making a charge against someone if that charge is intended to do the accused harm. Deuteronomy 19:19-21 above shows us that one found to be bringing a false accusation was actually subject to the penalty they attempted to have imposed on the one they accused if they are found to be a malicious witness (cf. Due 5:20). Deuteronomy 17:6-7 adds the provision that one who accuses another of murder must also be the first one to begin the execution of the murderer. Thus, God intended to dissuade people from making false accusations by making it impossible for a person to simply accuse and then walk away.

You might wonder how it could be that God would speak so strongly seemingly on the side of the accused. Obviously the Lord does not want victims to not see justice. Obviously God does not want people to be afraid to speak out and tell the truth. So why would God make this seem so hard?

The answer is one of ultimate justice. When dealing with fallen humanity, we must understand that mistakes are going to be made in our criminal and civil courts. And we must make a decision as to where we err. Will we err on the side of punishing the innocent or acquitting the guilty? Obviously we want to do neither, as both are injustices. But the Lord has shown us in his word that it is better to err on the side of not punishing someone than to err on the side of wrongly punishing someone.

Why would that be? The answer lies in the truth of the absolute justice of God. Even as we are prone to error in our judgments, the Lord our God never makes a mistake. God will perfectly do justice. No one who appears to get away with a crime in their lifetime will find that their sin goes unpunished. God is just. He will always see to it that justice is done.

If we punish someone wrongfully, we can do nothing to give back to them what they have lost. But if we fail to punish a person who turns out to be guilty, the Lord will perfectly do justice. Thus, a belief in the Lord and in his word is what helps us to see exactly where to risk erring.

Let’s also remember that biblical justice, as a friend pointed out to me recently, is more than punishing the guilty. Biblical justice is about the glory of God. Justice is about restoring as much as possibly can be restored when wrong is done or crimes are committed. Justice is also about sanctifying people, preventing future crimes, bringing about purity in a land, and teaching all people to treat all people as image-bearers of God.

The hardest part of this concept given our social and political environment is that I would never want a man or woman, a boy or girl, to be afraid to tell the truth. If a person has been abused or attacked, they need to know that it is safe for them to speak out. At the same time, we must not develop a culture in which every accusation is so completely believed as to destroy a person’s career and reputation without any form of evidence.

What then must we do? IN general, we love those who accuse and love those who are accused, protecting the dignity of all humanity—people created in the image of God. We do not pretend that any person’s accusation is not a big deal. We do not make anyone think we will not take them seriously. And we counsel, and we apply the healing grace of the gospel to all our wounds. But that cannot mean that we automatically pre-judge all who are accused. As we see in Leviticus 19:15, “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” We do not defer to the strong or the weak, the rich or the poor, the accuser or the accused.

We love the accused by seeking genuine, biblical justice. Are they guilty? Is there real evidence? Are there witnesses? If there are , we love the guilty best by doing justice so as to punish crimes and to call for repentance. WE preach the gospel to the guilty and point them to the Savior. That may not get a woman her job back or keep a man out of prison, but eternal life is worth far more than any loss in this present world.

But what if the accusation is proven false? Then we must consider biblical justice there too. False accusers are attempting, for some reason, to damage other people with their words. Can we discern intent? Can we find out that a person was malicious in their motivation? IF so, then we should enact just penalties for that crime.

What if we cannot discern intent? What if there may be a genuine false belief based on a problem with memory or simple misunderstanding? Or what if the one accused might be guilty but we just cannot prove it? Is justice thwarted? Of course not. In such a situation we entrust the situation to the eternal justice of God, we strive to biblically comfort the hurting and the oppressed, and we move forward knowing that, at the final day of judgment, the Lord of Heaven and Earth will do rightly.

Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon as a Hermeneutic

Did you ever play Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon? Someone names a celebrity. You have to name a celebrity who appeared with that celebrity in a film. Then you take the second celebrity, name a celebrity who appeared with that celebrity in another film, and continue the chain. The goal is to arrive at actor, Kevin Bacon, as quickly as possible, within six degrees of separation.

For example, start with Charlton Heston:

  • Charlton Heston appeared with Val Kilmer in Tombstone (perhaps my favorite movie).
  • Val Kilmer starred with Tom Cruise in Top Gun.
  • Tom Cruise appeared with Kevin Bacon in A Few Good men.

In my study of 1 Peter 3:18-22, I discovered that Peter was using a method of topical connection somewhat similar to Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon to bring encouragement to Christians. Of course, it is my civic duty to share this with you.

1 Peter 3:18-22 – For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

Peter is here offering encouragement to suffering Christians. In the process, he walks us through some really obscure topics to make his point. And, like Six Degrees to Kevin Bacon, the end of one thought connects us to the beginning of a seemingly unrelated thought. And somehow, when it is all said and done, Peter starts with Jesus and returns to Jesus.

How does that work?

  • Jesus suffered in the flesh, but was made alive in the spirit.
  • Speaking of the spirit, in the spirit, Jesus preached to spirits who were in prison for their disobedience during the days of Noah.
  • Speaking of Noah, Noah built the ark and was one of only 8 people saved from the waters of the flood.
  • Speaking of water, that reminds me of baptism which saves us through an appeal to God based on the resurrection of Jesus.

Here we see a set of leaps that take us through the mystical, from Jesus to Jesus, and leave us with hope. How this all gives us hope, well, that is the topic for Sundays’ sermon. But for now, know that the hermeneutical principle of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon has played a role.

Why Are You Happy about the Rescue of the Soccer Team in Thailand?

How sweet it is to have good new celebrated all over the Internet? From every angle, left, right, center, whatever, people are showing gratitude for the rescue of those kids and their coach trapped in the cave. And I totally agree.

But, just to be that guy, let me ask you a question: why? Why are you celebrating that these 13 people have been rescued? Don’t write me off here. Stop and really address it. Why?

I’m happy because… What do you say? I’m happy because they are alive. Great, why? It’s good that they did not die in the cave. I agree; why? Does your worldview actually have an answer to why this good thing, this thing that everybody who is not a moral degenerate agrees is good, is in fact good?

If your worldview is one of naturalism, I think you will be harder pressed than you think to tell me why the rescue of these people is good. Maybe you can argue that one of those 13 could possibly go on to do something for humanity. Maybe you will argue that giving the globe a psychological boost is positive. Maybe you will argue that this pattern of giving, if imitated, will improve human flourishing. But in truth, are any of those reasons satisfactory? Do any of those get down to the heart of why this is an actual moral good?

In truth, only a worldview that sees human life as valuable, valuable for a valid reason, has a real reason to celebrate. If all that human beings are is a collection of fluids, cells, random atoms bouncing around the universe, then there is no real, moral reason why it is good for this team to be alive. Their random atoms could have stayed in the cave and it would have been all the same to the universe.

But, and here is the truth, if indeed those 13 lives matter for the simple reason that human lives matter, then this is a great cause for celebration. And I argue that those lives matter, regardless of whether or not any of the 13 ever does one single thing to benefit society. Their lives matter because of the existence and revelation of God.

In Genesis 1:27, God declares that he created humanity in his image. That, my dear friends, is the reason that the rescue of those 13 from a flooded cave in Thailand is good news. Thirteen people who bear upon their very souls a reminder of the existence and glory of God are preserved. Thirteen people who are told by the word of God that their value is in the imprint of God on them have been spared. Thirteen reflections of the truth that God is the glorious Ruler over the universe are still living and breathing. This is ultimately good.

Good is good because good is what God declares is good. Saving these lives is good because it matches the purpose for the existence of the universe—to glorify God.

If you are a God-doubter, if you are an atheist, if you are a naturalist, why not stop and ask yourself what reason you have, what real reason you have, to celebrate the rescue of the team in Thailand. We all agree it is a good thing. But I say it is good because it matches the revelation of God and it preserves people made in his image. Why do you say it is good?

Ultimately, what makes human life matter? See, o please see, that life matters because of our Creator. Random chance, cellular mutations, and survival of the fittest just cannot make life matter for the sake of life.