A Braggadocious Culture

Today our culture prides itself that it is pluralistic, relativistic and tolerant - that it has cast off the ancient ways of exclusivity, absolutism and intolerance. But is this approach to life really all that it is chalked up to be? Is it truly beneficial? Is it something we should be proud of? The answer to these questions must be a resounding "no".

Pluralism is "the concept that two or more religions with mutually exclusive truth claims are equally valid. This posture often emphasizes religion's common aspects." (Wikipedia) To say that two or more religions with mutually exclusive truth claims are equally vaild, is the same thing as saying that truth isn't real or that truth doesn't matter. In reality, if two claims are mutally exclusive, then it means that to hold to one is ipso facto also to reject the other. For example, if I say that there is only one God, it also means that I am saying that the belief in many gods is false. If I say that Jesus died upon a cross, I am also saying that the belief that Jesus did not die is false. This is the basics of the nature of truth, and any attempt to deny this is self-refuting. If someone objects by saying, "I don't believe that", we might as well just shake their hand and congratulate them for believing it. By saying that they don't believe it, they are using the very principles of truth which they are claiming to deny.

The second part of the definition of pluralism is significant. Pluralism, by ignoring and setting aside truth as non-important, then seeks to emphasize religion's common aspects. Forget about the fact that the claims of Judaism, Hinduism, Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive - rather, what do they have in common? There are two major things these religions have in common. One, they each acknowledge the beauty and power of the divine in creation, and two, they each believe that kindness is a virtue. Voila! A new synthesized religion is born: theistic moralism. "All religions are just worshipping the same unknown God and the point of them all is to be a good person! This will be our religion." Thus, pluralism is just a new religion inconspicuously forcing itself upon the others until it alone remains. This pluralistic ideology has infiltrated our culture to the degree that it is hardly ever questioned; but the truth is, it is unreal, unJewish, unHindu, unIslamic and unChristian. It is actually saying, "All these religions are wrong, and mine is right." So while it claims to be inclusive, it is actually exclusive, hypocritical and self-refuting; but of course it must be, for any attempt to deny the basic principles of truth always turns out to be self-defeating. You cannot do away with truth, but truth will do away with you.

The second thing that our culture prides itself in is relativism. Relativism is "the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration." (Wikipedia) Once again, we seem to love the prospect of becoming incoherent. It would seem that truth is an uncomfortable obstacle in our pursuit of happiness. While pluralism denies absolute truth by simply ignoring it, relativism seeks to deny it by appealing to the fact that certain claims may be true or false depending on the perception of the viewer. This is actually a true fact. If we say, "Gerald is very good at playing the piano", it is only a true statement depending on what you are comparing Gerald to. Compared to the five year old who is just starting to plunk around on the black and white keys, Gerald is indeed very good at playing the piano (we would much rather hear him play than the five year old). However, compared to the professional concert pianist who makes his living by playing the piano day and night, Gerald is not really that good at playing the piano (we would much rather hear him play than Gerald). So the claim is relative depending on your point of view.

The problem here is not that relativism is untrue, but that our culture takes relativism too far. It is being conveniently ignored that the principle of relativism is only applicable to the nature of certain kind of claims, but not to others. If we observe Gerald playing the piano and exclaim, "Gerald is a very good trumpet player", we have made an incorrect statement and relativism has nothing to do with it. Gerald doesn't play the trumpet, he plays the piano, and we have made an error.

The idea of total relativism is an attempt by our culture to eliminate the reality of absolute truth. It is not uncommon to hear a person say these days, "There is no absolute truth!" The obvious question to ask them is, "Is that absolutely true?" Why is it that we don't want absolute truth to exist? Is it because if truth exists, then we are obligated to conform to it? We are accountable to it. We cannot be the gods of our own reality. The Christian would add to these another reason: because of what the truth is - there is a just God in heaven who makes Himself known. This makes sinners uncomfortable. Thus they seek to ignore or deny the reality of truth. Yet as we have already seen, any attempt to deny the reality of truth always turns out to be self-defeating. You cannot hide from reality. "It is hard for you to kick against the goads." (Acts 9:5)

The third supposed virtue of our culture is what is commonly called "tolerance". The word tolerance comes from the Latin word tolero, which means "to bear". Tolerance is "the capacity to endure." (Webster) We speak of the capacity to endure pain as tolerance, the capacity for your body to endure poison as tolerance, and the capacity of your patience to endure poppycock as tolerance. A truly tolerant man is able to endure all three of these at the same time if necessary!

However, it is not these that our culture is referring to when it boasts about its tolerance. What our culture refers to is its inability to believe that someone else is wrong in what they believe. It is a tolerance which allows for ideas that are mutually exclusive to dwell together in unmolested harmony. In short, the intelligence of our culture is to be tolerant of unintelligibility. This is not only disastrous to reality, but has other very serious consequences.

The consequence of being intellectually tolerant is that you become behaviorly intolerant. The most behaviorly intolerant people in society are those who are committed to intellectual non-commitment. As long as you agree with them that there is nothing to be agreed upon, there is peace; but disagree with them, and take a different stand for what you believe, and you will discover just how tolerant tolerance is. Our culture has a startling incapacity to endure with those who disagree with them about absolute truth. It doesn't bother them if you believe differently than they do on this or that, but you must agree with them on this: that your way is not the only way. This is the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche who said, "You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it doesn’t exist." Of course, Nietzsche's way of approaching the ways is the only right way. Anyone who takes another way than this is wrong.

The irony of the situation is that while Christians possess an intellectual intolerance (that is, in the mental sphere they hold to exclusive absolute truth and are not intellectually tolerant of untruth), their beliefs cause them to be behaviorly tolerant. A Christian may have the audacity to tell a non-Christian that he is wrong, but he will do so with graciousness, and will not ridicule nor persecute him for believing otherwise. Evangelism is an enterprise of compassion: a battle for the well-being of souls fought vigorously in the intellectual sphere, but fought to save and not to condemn. For the Christian, to tell someone that they are wrong and to point them in the direction of Jesus Christ, the way, the truth and the life, is a courageous act of love, not of bigotry. On the contrary, the culture that demands that men keep their mouths shut because it says they have nothing to say, and ridicules and persecutes anyone who dares to challenge its philosophy, is in fact the true culprit of bigotry.

"But", it is objected, "doesn't absolute truth divide and separate people?" The answer is, that it is pluralism, relativism and intellectual tolerance that actually divides and separates people, and it is only absolute truth that brings people together. It is Nietzsche's existential approach to life, which says that there is no ultimate reality, and that each person merely creates their own reality, and must not impinge upon the reality of others, that isolates and fragments us from one another, pushing us apart to live in our own individualistic little universes. It is no wonder that our society today is so relationally detached and disfunctional. It is because we have no common reference point to interact with one another and are not permitted to have one. We are told that we don't live in the same universe.

In Genesis chapter one, when God created the universe and everything that is in it, the very first thing that He did was to divide the light from the darkness. "And God divided the light from the darkness, and God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night." (Gen. 1:4-5) Thus we see that right from the beginning, in the will and act of God, division is a good thing. Exclusivity is a good thing. Intellectual intolerance is a good thing. Light is light and darkness is darkness, and it is only by distinguishing what is and what isn't, between what is true and what is false, that are we able to live in the universe that God has created. The basic principles of truth give us the God-given reference point to interact with one another in a real way, so that as a Christian, I know who I am, and I know who you are even if you disagree with me, - we live in the same universe, and because there is such a thing as absolute truth, I can interact with you and love you as a creation of God. So interestingly enough, it actually requires a division (the ability to distinguish between this and that) in order to bring us together.

No, pluralism, relativism and intellectual tolerance are not virtues that our culture should be bragging about. They have caused us to become self-defeated, incoherent and behaviorly intolerant. They have driven us apart rather than brought us together. The sooner we recognize what a lie we have been fed by the devil himself, and return to the basic nature of truth, coherence and God, the better - for then we shall be wiser, happier, and closer to reality than we currently are as a society.

Antinomianism

I believe the whole debate about antinomianism is confused, and has been for a long time. The trouble is that there is a fundamental problem in the way we understand the word itself. The typical way of thinking about antinomianism is that it is the opposite of legalism. Antinomianism is commonly called "license". The problem is stated thus by theologians: on the one hand you have legalism, which says you have to obey the law in order to be saved, and on the other hand you have antinomianism (or license), which says you don't have to obey the law and are free to do whatever you want. Both of these are seen as bad, and so theologians try and come up with a middle ground -  a middle ground that does not exist in Scripture. Either we do have to keep the law or we don't. Such is the very nature of things and I do not see how we can escape it. As Christians, our gospel message is precisely that we do not have to keep the law in order to be saved. If that is true (and it is), then we must fall into the so-called "antinomian" camp. In that case, being accused of antinomianism is rather a great honor, since it places us with men such as Stephen, Paul, and even Jesus Himself, who were all accused of being antinomians. Of course, being accused of antinomianism is not the same as actually being an antinomian. Nothing could be further from the truth, than that these men were antinomians.

There's a problem in the way we are understanding antinomianism, and as long as this persists, people will not see clearly and therefore will not be transformed. We have set antinomianism as the opposite of legalism, when in reality legalism is antinomianism. Antinomianism means "against the law" (anti = against, nomos = law). The question of who is an antinomian is the question of who is against the law. Stephen was accused of being against the law:

"And they set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceases not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law." (Acts 6:13)

Paul was accused of being against the law:

"Men of Israel, help! This is the man that teaches all men everywhere against the people, and against the law, and this place..." (Acts 21:28)

This is the Biblical perspective on antinomianism. The Christians were accused of antinomianism by the religious people of their day, and Christianity must suffer the same charge against it by religious people throughout all ages. The day Christianity stops hearing the charge of antinomianism, that is the day Christianity ceases to be. It is not that Christians are in fact against the law, but that this is the perception. It is precisely because we teach that a person is justified freely by grace through faith in the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, and that this way of righteousness is "without law" (Rom. 3:21) that we are accused of it. Thus, it is the gospel that makes us antinomians in the eyes of the world, a world that doesn't understand what it is saying. They do not understand Christ. The preaching of the cross is foolisness to them. They cannot see how an ungodly sinner can be be accepted on the basis of grace, while those who are trying to obey are rejected - it seems so wrong and against the law! But the Christian sees otherwise.

Paul anticipates the charge of antinomianism in Romans 3:31: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid! Yea, we establish the law." How we understand this verse is of paramount importance. Paul is not saying that through faith we are led to obey the law and that therefore through that faith-driven obedience we are justified. In the following verses he goes on to say how "the one who does not work, but believes on God who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted unto righteousness" (Rom. 4:5) and that righteousness is "without works" (Rom. 4:6). So we are not saved from the accusation of antinomianism by the above explanation. Justification is in fact without any obedience to the law, received by faith alone. Sadly, many theologians are so desperate to be freed from the charge of antinomianism that they bend and twist the gospel of grace through faith in such a way that on the other side it no longer really looks or feels like justification through faith without works anymore, though it technically is in their minds. But our gospel shouldn't be such that it can no longer be accused of antinomianism. The true gospel will always be accused of it. By the sound of many gospel presentations these days, most would never be accused of the things Paul and Stephen were accused of, because it no longer sounds like Paul and Stephen anymore.

The amazing truth is this: only by believing in the gospel of justification through faith alone without works is the law actually honored and upheld. Only a Christian is not an antinomian. It is the purpose of the law to bring us to this faith, in that it shows us the unattainable standard of righteousness that is required and drives us to despair of our attaining it by our works, making us look outside of ourselves to Christ for salvation (Gal. 3:21-25). As long as a person is attempting to obey the law for justification, they are acting against the law, not listening to it, not seeing its righteous requirements, lowering the standard, and trusting in themselves. To such people, the law is really not all that glorious. The purpose and honor and righteousness of the law are not established until a person believes in Christ crucified for their salvation. Christ crucified, and justification by faith alone in Him, fulfills the law's purpose and prophecies, does honor to the law's righteous standard, and acknowledges the law for what it is: beautiful, holy and beyond our ability to attain by our works. Thus Paul could say, "I am not against the law by preaching Christ alone for salvation, I am for it!" In fact... it is the very ones who accuse the Christians of being antinomians, the legalists, that are themselves the true antinomians! They are against the very law that they are supposedly championing. This is seen so clearly in the conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees.

At one time Paul was persecuting the Christian Church for this very issue. He thought they were antinomians, but he was later changed and began "preaching the faith which he once destroyed." (Gal. 1:23) He learned that what he thought was valuable in achieving righteousness before God (his works) was actually useless for this purpose (dung, to be exact), and that a man under law was only under a curse. He learned through Christ crucified that righteousness could never come by the law, for otherwise Christ would never have died, (Gal. 2:21), and he learned the sublime mystery, that only a man who is dead to the law can be alive to God. In fact, the very purpose of the law is just that - to make you die to it: "For I, through the law, am dead to the law, that I might live unto God." (Gal. 2:19). Notice that through the law you die to the law. That is, it is the law's purpose and goal to make you die to it as your means of righteousness, and therefore, whoever is not dead to the law - still seeking to be righteous before God by the law - is in fact acting against the law (the true antinomian). Simply amazing.

So I reject the false notion that antinomianism is the opposite of legalism. Legalism, the belief that keeping the law is the way to be right with God, is itself the true antinomianism, and though Christians will always be accused of it because of our belief that righteousness before God is apart from the law through faith alone in Jesus Christ, we are the only ones who actually establish the law and acknowledge the law for what it is.

But what about the question of those who profess faith in Christ but have seemingly no desire for holiness (such as the many professing Christians in the Bible belt)? I truly believe the answer is, that though one may have the right doctrinal formula, that is not the same as really grasping the reality of what you profess. Certainly saying you believe something doesn't mean you believe it. But my sincere guess is that most traditional Christians who grow up in the Bible belt don't really grasp what Christianity is all about. I certainly did not, even though I grew up hearing the right things my whole life. Christianity is about realizing your sin and the holiness of God and the amazing love of God revealed in the righteous grace of Christ crucified for our sins. It is something personal, moral and relational, not merely academic. A person must see through the facts to the meaningful reality behind them. This is part of the problem.

But another major part of the problem is that in the Bible belt the gospel is hardly ever preached. Yes, what passes for gospel presentations are weak, adulterated, twisted, shallow, amoral, self-help, sentimental, lenient preaching of Jesus that fails to communicate the truth as it is in the New Testament. Also, much preaching in the Bible belt amounts to an erroneous attack against what they think is antinomianism. They pit legalism against license, attacking them both, leaving people with a non-existent middle ground, and thus the honor and majesty of the law is obscured and the beauty and power of the gospel is taken away. So much preaching has to do with doing, rather than believing in God and what He has done. If true good works come from a heart full of thanksgiving, and true zeal for God has its basis in the love of God in Christ, then where there is a lack of good works and zeal, there also is a lack of the truth of the gospel. We look at the problem and try to fix it, without considering the root. The root of our Christian lives must not be a desire to be right with God. It must be our rightness with God - the fact that we are right with God - which is God's amazing gift. Or to put it the way I like best: Assurance of salvation does not come from our works, but our works come from our assurance of salvation. Otherwise, what is the source of our works? It is nothing but an ugly source if it is not out of love for God because of the love of God. Thus the answer is not to move from the gospel, as if it were deficient and we needed to preach something additional, as many have done; the answer is to preach the gospel more clearly and strongly.

We must clear away traditional confusions and see that the good news is not deficient. The good news - the awesome revelation of God the Father through God the Son - does not merely save our souls, but it itself is the power for us to live our lives here and now; lives that are zealous for good works (Titus 2:12-15). This was Paul's secret (Rom. 8:28-39, Gal. 2:19-20). It is not the gospel, but our view of the gospel, that is deficient, and needs a makeover.

The Trouble with "Lordship Salvation"

I am convinced that the whole point of Christianity is knowing God the Father through Jesus Christ, and in that knowledge we find salvation, rest, peace and eternal life, because through Christ crucified we learn that God is a God of grace. This grace is righteous, and is seen in the cross where both God's wrath against us and His amazing love for us came to a head. The cross is the place of the revelation of the Father through Christ, and if we have we have seen Christ crucified we have seen the Father, and that is enough.

I am grieved over the so-called Lordship preaching that is so common throughout the Christian church. Many preachers fail to communicate what Christianity is to their hearers. These men have made faith and obedience to the moral law practically indistinguishable, and in so doing they are making Christianity indistinguishable from every other religion. Many would contest my point, but I am convinced that even though our religion may have its own distinctive facts like the virgin birth of Christ, Jesus walking on water, the resurrection, and the second coming of Christ the King, if we lose the message of the gospel of grace we are essentially no different than the other religions of this world, which are all based upon works-based righteousness. What makes the gospel the gospel is that it is the good news of what God has done for us sinners, and we are called to believe that news and experience rest and peace in believing. The gospel is the revelation of righteousness through faith alone (Rom. 1:16-17) which alone reveals to us the love of God for us (Rom. 5:8), in which alone we find salvation.

Before I was born again I believed in the fact that Jesus had died on the cross for my sins, but I didn't understand the meaning of that fact, and I thought that Christ did what He did so that if I obeyed His moral commandments and lived rightly, then I would partake in His merciful salvation. I believed like these many preachers, but I was lost and was full of guilt. I wasn't believing the truth, for the truth sets you free. It was not until I understood the meaning of the death of Christ that I finally experienced peace with God and received the assurance that I had eternal life. It wasn't until I understood that God sent Christ to die for me while I was a disobedient sinner, and that the work of redemption was finished on my behalf, and that God's heart was full of forgiveness for me as a sinner, that my guilt instantly left me. It was not until I understood that God's heart was full of grace for me as a sinner in my sin, that I believed in His goodness and found rest for my soul.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:8-9) Notice this verse doesn't explicitly mention either Jesus Christ or the cross. That is because the cross of Christ is found inside the word grace. We are saved by grace (that is, by the undeserved favor of God for sinners demonstrated in the redeeming death of Jesus Christ for our sins), through faith. Faith is not what saves us, but it is the means through which the grace of God saves me. Spurgeon likened faith to swallowing: my hunger is not alleviated by swallowing, but through swallowing. It is by food that I am filled, through swallowing. If I don't swallow the food I will never be filled, but I can swallow all day long without food and nothing will happen. Thus it is the object of our faith that makes all the difference, and when I have faith in the right object (the grace of God), then it is that the true object of faith delivers me. The object of our faith - what we are believing as Christians - is that Christ died for our sins and rose again, and that what this reveals is the forgiving heart that God has for sinners. It tells us that God is love, what kind of love He is, and by knowing this we believe and rest in God. Paul explicitly denies that work has anything to do with the means of salvation; and of course it doesn't if what I am saying is true. The moment you require any work to be done in order to receive salvation, you have unwittingly changed everything. It is no longer about us looking to see who God is, but it becomes about God looking to see who we are. But the lesson of the law is that when God looks to see who we are, He sees that no one is good. It is we, the unrighteous ones, that must look to God.

Christ calls us to come unto Him and rest. He calls us to believe in Him, and by so doing to believe in the Father (John 12:44). The trouble with the Lordship salvation doctrine is that it sets people upon looking to themselves and what they need to do in order to be saved, rather than upon believing in the Father and what He has done for them through Jesus Christ. As right as it is to serve God (for this is what the moral law requires), Christ showed us that the gospel is ultimately about God serving us, and not us serving God. It sounds blasphemous, but Christ said it, and He said it to a man who felt that it was blasphemous. "Lord, do you wash my feet? You shall never wash my feet!" Jesus replied, "If I do not wash your feet, you have no part with me." This man then said, "In that case, give me the full treatment!" While the gospel does inspire us to serve God, it itself is about God serving us. God came into the world, not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many. For those who see God, they cannot help but worship and adore Him. But that worship is only inspired when we see how God loved us and gave Himself for us as unworthy sinners, and not when we think otherwise. "Unto Him that loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood... to Him be glory and honor and dominion and power forever and ever!" It is the sight of the slain Lamb that prompts this praise. Why did the woman serve Christ by washing His feet with her tears? It was because "he that is forgiven much loves much." She was not serving Him in order to be forgiven. She was serving Him, spontaneously and deeply, because she could not stop thinking about how beautiful Christ was for loving and forgiving an unworthy sinner like her.

But what about those verses that speak about taking up your cross in order to be a disciple? This, I am convinced, has absolutely nothing to do with the unbiblical "die to self" language that is so often repeated in Christian circles. The commonly held notion is that Jesus is speaking spiritually, meaning that we need to say "no" to our sinful desires and "yes" to obedience to His moral standards. I believe, however, that this interpretation of Christ's words is false, and is a product of our Western culture where for the most part Christians don't experience much persecution from their families and communities. But Jesus was actually crucified, and He promised that the world would likewise hate His disciples on account of Him: "They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time will come when whoever kills you will think they are doing God a service: and this they will do, because they do not know the Father, nor me." (John 16:2-3) It is real persecution that Christ has in view when He tells us that we must take up our cross if we are going to follow Him. By believing in the grace of God - the message of truth about God - the world will despise you, ridicule you, and even kill you. To believe the gospel means we must be willing to face the animosity of an unbelieving world. How interesting that it was the religious world Christ had in view: those who will hate you are those who do not know the Father, but think that salvation is all ultimately about serving God and obeying the moral law. Challenge that idea, and watch the story of Cain and Abel unfold again. Therefore Christ forewarns: if you believe in me, be prepared to lose family members, friends, and maybe even your own life; but it is worth it. Take up your cross and follow me.

It is the gospel itself, the good news of the grace of God, the knowledge of the forgiveness of sins through faith alone, that gives us peace and provokes the hatred of the world. We must not allow ourselves to miss the point, failing to see what Christianity is all about. If we add anything to being saved besides simple faith in Jesus Christ, we not only will find ourselves with a religion no different than all the other religions in this world, but we will have lost the true knowledge of God. So everything is at stake.

John 17:1-3 - Knowing God through Christ Crucified

Letter to the Editor (Blood Atonement)

Last week I featured a quote from LDS prophet Brigham Young on our whiteboard, the doing of which drew forth criticism from a student in the Statesman. I’d like to take the opportunity and respond to his criticism.

For those who have observed us preaching on the patio the last nine semesters, we hope that you will have noticed that we have sought to only discuss Biblical and LDS theology and challenge students to think about their sin, the atonement of Christ, and the grace of God more deeply. We believe it is the gospel, not Mormon history, that is of utmost importance. I have never once written on the whiteboard anything of a non-theological nature, and last weeks quotation was no exception. In Brigham Young’s quote, I wanted to highlight the fact that he taught the doctrine of “Blood Atonement”: that is, there are certain sins which the blood of Christ cannot atone for, and that one’s own blood must be shed in order for forgiveness to take place. Young states this clearly three paragraphs down from the featured quote (JOD 3:247). This is appalling to Christian theology.

Nor can it be argued, as my critic has tried, that this teaching of Blood Atonement is “the exact same principle” as found in the episode with Phineas in the Old Testament. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the case of Phineas, Phineas was executing capital punishment, not redemption, by cutting the sinners off from the kingdom of God as prescribed by the Mosaic Law. In the case of Brigham Young, Young is advocating the slaying of sinners as a means of redemption, that they might be “received into the kingdom of God.” There is not the slightest notion in the Bible that men can atone for their own sins by death. Death is always the great punishment of God against sin, and it is Jesus Christ alone who atones for our sins by dying in our place and bearing our punishment. Under the New Covenant, Jesus teaches us, not to kill sinners, but to forgive them, just as He loved us and freely forgave us through His redemption.

I agree that we must have honesty and integrity, but this goes for the LDS Church too. To say you are Christian but then to deny the central teaching of Christianity is in truth the real offense.