1 John 2:19 Illustrated

Jon Harris and I do not see eye to eye on everything.  He’s very Baptist.  I’m very Anglican.  And he is one of the few that can make me look moderate at times.  Nonetheless I think he hit it out of the park with his analysis of “These Evangelical Women Are Abandoning Trump and the Church.”

I am not going to rehash either his video nor the article.  But several thoughts came to mind as I watched and then read:

1. If someone would leave a church over members voting for Trump, that says more about that one’s priorities and commitment to the church than about those who vote for Trump.  People voting in self-defense for Trump against the Democrats and Hillary was not wrong.  And even if you disagree, it is not grounds for leaving a church. 

And yes, I am also talking about Jemar Tisby and other whining Woke Churchers who have oh-so lamented evangelicals voting for Trump.  They need to grow up.  Better yet, they need to repent of smearing millions of Christians who voted to stop or at least slow this country’s descent into totalitarian evil.

2. Evangelical churches are not blameless for young evangelicals leaving.  And the article actually does have some valid criticisms.  I’ve railed against The Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now, skinny jeans and all.  Many evangelical pastors probably think catechesis is a disease.  There has been too much seeker sensitive pablum and not enough making disciples.  And, yes, some churches are among the many institutions that have enabled abuse.

But the women mentioned in the article need to look in the mirror more and blame their past churches less.  I will get to that.  Hey, I’ve had bad experiences in evangelical churches, too.  I let God use that to strengthen me in the faith instead of the opposite.

3. Bad generations happen even when leadership is excellent.  Joshua was one of the best leaders in the Bible, yet after he died, “there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel.  And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord.” (Judges 2: 10,11)

Parents and churches are a vitally important influence on children.  But man is evil, and evil generations can and do arise even when led well.

And, yes, I think this generation that is leaving the church and attacking America is an evil generation.  They are not to be coddled or accommodated.  The church is to call them repentance.  The church should not change to appease them.

4. Finally, and most importantly, there is 1 John 2:19:

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. (ESV)

This verse kept coming to mind again and again as I watched Harris’ video and read the article.  If someone goes to work for a pro-abortion organization or for the likes of Elizabeth Warren, she is evil.  She was not a faithful Christian in the first place.  The church is better off without her.  Yes, I said it. (* But do see below.)

Yes, the church should mourn that any, especially those once among the church, so choose to run after evil.  And the church should always look to see if it is doing anything amiss.  But at the same time a church should repel such evil.   A faith that doesn’t offend anyone is not The Faith.  Furthermore . . .

…You are to deliver [such people] to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that [their] spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

In no way should they be told that their apostasy is acceptable or justified.  They should also be told they are welcome to return if they repent.

But they left their churches and descended into such evil because they are evil.  Not because church people voted for Trump. 

----

* Please note that, like the article and video, I am talking about people who once were active in somewhat orthodox churches and once claimed to be Christians.  We should not expect those never or rarely in the church to exercise Christian discernment and should be much more gentle and patient with them.  I once was pro-abortion, but I repented of that and of much more thanks to God and to patient Christians who gently taught me the truth.

The Big Smear From The Woke Church and Christianity Today

It is almost a creed with the Woke Church crowd that the founding of America was profoundly racist and that America continues profoundly racist to this day.  The Woke Church smears the church in America as well.  

From the Woke Church, Jemar Tisby being perhaps the most prominent example today, you hear a litany of sins committed against Black people by America and the church, some concocted (particularly in that much they call “racism” is hardly that) or exaggerated, but much of which are indeed awful and to be regretted.   We certainly should not ignore the history of racism in this country nor pretend that we and our forebears are without sin. 

The problem is the following baggage is attached to said accusatory confession:

The blithe ignoring of the almost universal nature of racism in the past.  

Go back 200 years or more.  Will you find any society that was not racist or at least tribal?  Why then is America singled out as peculiarly racist?  And are we to then reject everything good from American and British past and be good totalitarian Taliban and Jacobins and topple it all?

Chronological Hubris. 

As C. S. Lewis well pointed out, we have a tendency to look down on the past and think ourselves so superior to it.  That certainly includes confessing their sins – a species of that favorite LibChurch activity of confessing other people’s sins – while overlooking or downplaying our own.  Those with unenlightened views of race in the past were in the wrong.  But they would be appalled by the prevalent sins of society today and would be right to be appalled.  Every age and society has its prevalent sins, and that includes us.  (No I do not consider white-on-black racism a prevalent sin today, but a dying one.  Anti-white racism on the other hand….)  Should we then smear and reject the good that our forebears have passed down to us because we are so arrogant as to consider their sins worse than ours?  Again, that’s what totalitarians do.

Downplaying progress. 

There has been astounding progress in the area of race in America even in my lifetime and marked by the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States in 2008. . . .   Oh, I hope I didn’t make you faint there.  Yes, I did and do see good in the election of Obama; it made clear that skin color is no longer much of a barrier in America.  At the time, I actually hoped it ushered in a post-racial America.  Sadly, Obama and now the woke crowd decided to pick and tear at old wounds of racial division and make them bleed afresh.  Yes, I think wokeness is a much bigger factor behind today’s divisions than “whiteness.”  If the woke crowd is really that concerned about racism and division in America, they need to take a good long look in the mirror.  We were making very good progress until they came along.

Trust that I could say more.

Oft times, the Woke Church is more Satanic than Christian.  Like Satan, they twist and weaponize history to accuse the brethren while practically ignoring the brethren’s repentance, forgiveness and ongoing sanctification. 

(And, no, I do not think Americans are a whole are being sanctified as American Christians hopefully are.  I certainly do not conflate being an American and being a faithful Christian. But the accusatory pattern of smearing one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen goes hand in hand with smearing the church.)

As many of you perceptive readers have already noticed, Christianity Today has joined the Woke Chorus of accusation.  Like much of the rest of The Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now, they practically jump up and down and squeak, “Me, too! Me, too!  I’m woke, too!”   An op-ed by CT’s president and CEO Thomas Dalrymple is the latest example.  It is certainly in the Woke Big Smear genre, using very selective and regrettable history (And, again, what country or church does not have regrettable history?) and a warped interpretation of it to smear country and church. I found this passage especially slanderous and vile:

The name of Phalaris is not much remembered in the 21st century, but in classical antiquity it was infamous. The tyrant of Agrigentum on the island of Sicily, Phalaris is known for a gruesome instrument of torture: a hulking bronze bull, hollowed on the inside, set over a fire. As victims were forced into the bull and roasted alive, the nostrils of the bull rendered the screams of the dying into a sonorous groaning that filled the palace with music. You might be a guest at the feast, unaware that your entertainment came through the agony of others.

Today’s generations may say we did not invent the bull of racial injustice. But we have benefited from it. The resiliency, creativity, industry, and indomitable faith of African Americans in spite of all they have suffered is nothing short of miraculous. We have all benefited not only from their labor but also from their innovations and entrepreneurialism, their art and music, their films and poetry and books, their hymns and preaching. The transformation of black suffering into economic abundance for America, as well as art and passion and brilliance, has enriched our feast in the palace. Perhaps we can honestly say we did not know what our brothers and sisters were suffering. Now we do. So there’s only one thing to do: put down our forks and get our brothers and sisters out of the belly of the bull.

It disgusts me to see a once excellent Christian publication be the accuser of the brethren like that. 

Yes, for those concerned about how wokeness has infiltrated the Anglican Church in North America, there are any number of clergy that approve of the Big Smear and at least one diocesan Canon who publicly approves of this article.  I am not mentioning her by name because I do not want to single her out when it is a much wider problem in ACNA and other church bodies.   

The Woke Big Smear must be rejected by both Christians and non-Christians before it further poisons and divides our churches and our country.

About that Christianity Today Editorial…

When I heard of the Christianity Today editorial from Mark Galli calling for President Trump to be removed from office, I almost went incandescent.  But I had just pledged to lay off politics for the end of Advent.  So I deferred on posting here, while promising a “present” after Christmas Day.

Well, it’s after Christmas Day now, but by this time there is so much commentary out there I think it best for me not to add much to it, at least not now.  Many of you have probably heard quite enough about the subject already anyway.

At the same time, I want to point to two responses that are being largely overlooked. First is an open letter response from a number of evangelical leaders.  I am linking to it because although I’ve read about it, the open letter itself is not easy to find . . . because of search engine bias perhaps?  The letter concludes:

The editorial you [i.e. Christianity Today]published, without any meaningful and immediate regard for dissenting points of view, not only supported the entirely-partisan, legally-dubious, and politically-motivated impeachment but went even further, calling for Donald Trump not to be elected again in 2020 when he certainly survives impeachment. 

As one of our signatories said to the press, “I hope Christianity Today will now tell us who they will support for president among the 2020 Democrat field?” 

Your editorial offensively questioned the spiritual integrity and Christian witness of tens-of-millions of believers who take seriously their civic and moral obligations. 

It not only targeted our President; it also targeted those of us who support him, and have supported you. 

The second response is more off the radar screen of most, but it is one of the better rebuttals I’ve seen and merits more attention.  Carol Swain packs a lot into a short op-ed.  She begins by pointing out that Galli is wrong about the facts surrounding the impeachment hearings and wrong in being an “accuser of the brethren.”  But she says so much more.  Do go read her commentary.

I will briefly add that what I find most troubling about this episode is that a number of evangelical leaders not only seem not to have much problem with the perpetual coup against Trump but now are even cheerleading it.  And a few of the cheerleaders are leaders in ACNA. But you really do not want to get me started on that, so I will leave off for now.

The Gospel and Culture II – Paul on the Offense of the Gospel

We have seen from Acts 17 that St. Paul made a winsome effort to reach the Greek culture of Athens.  At the same time he would not dilute the Gospel even when it cut against the culture to the point that his audience laughed and cut his message short. 

Early in his first epistle to the Corinthians, we see more of his approach to proclaiming the Gospel to a decidedly non-Christian culture. The Greeks valued philosophical wisdom, yet Paul made a point not to go too far in preaching “with words of eloquent wisdom….”  Why?  “…Lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” (I Corinth. 1:17)  We should be aware of the audience culture, but we should beware of distorting and diluting the Gospel in order to reach the audience culture.

And we should prepare ourselves for rejection by recognizing that the prevailing culture and most people for that matter do not like the Gospel. Paul is downright blunt in recognizing that “the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing…” (1:18)  And he does not let up in asserting that the Gospel transcends human cultures and should not be dragged down by what said cultures consider wisdom:

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (1: 20-25)

So Paul was very much aware of prevailing cultures but was all the more determined to preach the pure Gospel, undiluted by hostile cultures, in the midst of them whether they liked it or not.

Now my exegesis is not profound.  But reminders of Paul’s determination are needed today. For The Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now is dead set on repeating the mistakes of deadline denominations by catering to “woke” culture.  Never mind that trying to be hip and with it and liberal or whatever you call past versions of “woke” has been a slow motion disaster for The Episcopal Church, the mainline Presbyterian Church and so on.

We are to preach right, worship right, and live right.  And if prevailing cultures don’t like it, then they don’t like it.

But the funny thing is “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” has a way of breaking into hostile cultures and saving people in the midst of them anyway.  God does not need us to make Christ and his Gospel woke or American or modern or post-modern or whatever, thank you very much.

Why are American churches such blockheads that this lesson needs to be repeated . . . and repeated the hard way? Why do so many evangelical churches not know better?

What the Church Needs Now Is Some Lancelot Andrewes

Yes, the church, in America especially but everywhere, needs an old fashioned REVIVAL!

No, not the rolling around, running around, barking, or (gag) holy laughing kind.  I am talking really old fashioned.  We need a revival along and within the lines noted by Bishop Lancelot Andrewes:

One canon reduced to writing by God himself, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries, and the series of Fathers in that period – the centuries that is, before Constantine, and two after, determine the boundary of our faith.

Yes, we need some boundaries, these boundaries, instead of chasing after every cloying putrid “wind of doctrine.”

What prompts this brief rant will become evident in due time. Stay tuned.

Woke and Semi-Woke Churchers Rather Quiet About Omar’s Anti-Semitism

If there ever was a teachable moment about anti-semitism, last week’s  controversy and sham vote about Rep. Ilhan Omar’s anti-semitism was surely one of them. So I have been wondering if the usual social justice church crowd would take the opportunity to speak out and teach or whether they would shy away because a Somali immigrant Leftist Democrat Congresswoman spouting off anti-Jewish tropes and the said Congresswoman not being called out on that by the Democrat-controlled House does not exactly go with The Narrative, don’tcha know.

Well, after this controversy has been going on for a week, it is fair to say that the dominant response from the woke and semi-woke church crowd has been . . . quiet.  And that is charitable.  I have not heard a peep.  And God knows I’ve been listening and looking.

Here is a good place for a disclaimer. I obviously am not omnipresent nor omniscient.  So if I have missed something of import, please feel free to comment.  Also, it is possible that some are being very careful about what they say and are about to post something.  I wish they would exercise such care about many issues, but I can relate to that; heck, I have delayed making this post. It is possible someone mentioned below speaks up after this post. And with that, here goes with a sample.

At Russell Moore’s site, I see nothing about anti-semitism.  Now I grant he does not post with the frequency of say…

…Al Mohler.  Yes, yes, he is hardly a flaming woke church guy.  But it is fair to say he is sympathetic.  And he does post very frequently on the events of the day.  But scrolling the topics of his daily briefing, I see nothing on anti-semitism the past two weeks.  And that although he tends to be quick about commenting on the events of the day.  For example, this morning he comments on the latest academic cheating scandal.  But I see nothing on Omar and anti-semitism. Why?

The Southern Baptist Convention’s and Russell Moore’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission?  Nothing recent.

The Gospel Coalition’s site?  Nothing recent.

National Association of Evangelicals? Nothing recent, but their site is not frequently updated.

Here in the Anglican Church in North America, we have the Anglican Multi-ethnic Network (AMEN), which is very sensitive to racial and immigration issues.  Are they sensitive to Leftist anti-semitism?  You would not know from their site. But they are not frequent posters, so maybe they will pleasantly surprise me some day. 

I hesitate to lump Sojourners in with the above.  Those Leftists are hardly Christian at all anymore.  But they are oh-so-concerned about everything woke under the sun and do they post their concern and wokeness!  Are they concerned about Omar’s anti-semitism?  No. 

This is obviously not comprehensive. (Again, feel free to add in the comments.) But I think all of the above people and groups would say that how we handle social and cultural issues should enhance our witness to the Gospel, not detract or distract from it.  And on that much, yes, I agree.

So what kind of witness is this recent quiet about anti-semitism?

A New Year’s Word for Evangelical Anglicans

I never have been much into New Year’s resolutions.  I tend to make my resolutions scattered throughout the year, especially at Lent and Advent as the Lord intends.  But I just came across a word that resonates so and that I think a number of Anglican jurisdictions (I will restrain myself and not name names here.) need to take to heart that I have to publish it myself as a suggested resolution.

It comes from Gerald McDermott via Duane W H Arnold, who prefaces it as “a word to my Anglican friends who wish to be missional and contextual at the expense of the Tradition...”

Anglicanism without the beauty and power of liturgy and sacraments would become just another evangelical alternative. It might continue to use the "Anglican" moniker, but it will be indistinguishable from many nondenominational networks that are now denominations by another name. It will not be able to compete with its flashy competitors on the other side of town with more exciting youth programs, and sermons tied more directly to the latest cultural trends. People will wonder why they should be Anglican when they can get pretty much the same thing elsewhere without the name. But if Anglicans retrieve their ancient heritage of liturgy and sacrament they will have something unique to offer this new century when the beauty of holiness (Ps 96:9) is resonant in ways it has not been for centuries.

Amen!  And Happy New Year.

Francis Schaeffer’s Last Book - The Great Evangelical Disaster

For the first time in decades, I picked up and read my well marked copy of Francis Schaeffer’s The Great Evangelical Disaster this week.  And I noticed more the sadness of it than I did in my callow 20’s.  In both the preface and text, Schaeffer acknowledged his health was failing, and he died a few months after publication in 1984.  This was to be his last book.

I think his health affected the book.  He told in the preface of his hospitalization with a deadline to meet.  With help he made the deadline.  But the result does not seem as well written or as tightly reasoned as his earlier work.

Nonetheless – and this is part of the sadness as well – it is a prophetic work as noted elsewhere.  Most of what he decried in culture and church in the West have only gotten worse.  Perhaps his saddest statement comes early on:

It is a horrible thing for a man like myself to look back and see my country and my culture go down the drain in my own lifetime.

Though younger now than he was then, I can certainly relate.

As for his warnings about the direction of Evangelicals, he may have seemed alarmist at the time.  But the Neo-Evangelicals of today have pretty much proved him right.

Personally, I used to be a happy reader of Christianity Today.  But a few years ago, I cancelled my subscription.  I was gladly active in InterVarsity in my college years.  (By the way, the leader of my chapter at the time was one Mark Dever.)  But with their pushing Black Lives Matter and more, I am thoroughly alienated from them now.  I am thankfully not at that point with evangelicals within ACNA, but I have been disturbed by what I see more than once.  Too much of what I fled when I fled mainline denominations decades ago I now see among evangelicals.  That is one reason I do not refer to myself as evangelical.

Schaeffer’s warnings about American culture have proven too true as well.  Have I mentioned this is not a happy read? 

And, although I revere the man, I concede his last book is probably not his best book.  Nonetheless, it should not be neglected by those who acknowledge the importance of Francis Schaeffer and of his critique of church and culture in the West.  Nor should it be overlooked by those concerned by the current direction of evangelicalism.

Francis Schaeffer on “Evangelical Accommodation to the Socialistic Mentality”

With its [Neo-Evangelical*] call for justice and compassion it sounds at first like it is the same as, or very close to, what Scripture teaches on justice and compassion. . . . But what they are in fact taking about is “another gospel” . . . with disastrous consequences theologically and in terms of human rights and human life.

Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster

(*”Neo-Evangelical” is my term, not Dr. Schaeffer’s to my recollection.)

I may write about Schaeffer’s last book, The Great Evangelical Disaster, and may apply the above quote more directly in due time.

Look who’s keynoting ACNA’s Matthew 25 Gathering.

In September, the Matthew 25 Initiative of the Anglican Church in North America will be putting on The Matthew 25 Gathering: Justice And Mercy Contending For Shalom.  The keynote speaker is Rev. Dr. Soong-Chan Rah of North Park Seminary.

Having dug around the internet, I now think his selection to keynote an ACNA conference is a matter for concern for ACNA members, especially pertaining to the Matthew 25 Initiative.  At this point, I want to stick to presenting what I know.  I may comment more at a later date, but for now, I just want to get the facts out there out there about aspects of Dr. Rah’s background.   

As I’ve mentioned, Dr. Rah is the scheduled keynote speaker for The Gathering.  His website may be found here.  His bio at Sojourners may be found here.  He is on the board of Sojourners.  I think most of my readers are aware of the background of that organization.

In 2016, he signed two open letters attacking Donald Trump, “Called to Resist Bigotry — A Statement of Faithful Obedience”, and “A Declaration by American Evangelicals Concerning Donald Trump.” Among the “Evangelicals” who signed the latter were Brian McLaren, Rachel Held Evans, Jim Wallis, and Ron Sider.  (For the record, I opposed Trump and supported other candidates for most of 2016.)

In contrast, just after the election of Barack Obama in 2008, he wrote, “I am Barack Obama, and Barack Obama is America.” Just after his inauguration in 2009, he wrote, “On January 20th, 2009, hope replaced cynicism.”

He was a keynote speaker at the DisGRACE conference, which had a very Leftist direction it is safe to say.

When Rev. Franklin Graham urged people to obey the commands of police for their own safety, Rah signed a letter denouncing Graham’s statement.  Rachael Held Evans and Jim Wallis were also among the signers.

He has called Michael Brown, shot and killed at Ferguson, a victim of violence.  (It is well established that Brown attacked a police officer, and that the officer acted in self-defense.)

In 2015, in a post listing numerous grievances, he denounced saying “All Lives Matter” instead of “Black Lives Matter”:

So next time, white evangelical leaders, you feel the urge to mouth off that “ALL Lives Matter” — CLOSE your mouth and OPEN your eyes, ears, and minds to get yourself some knowledge.

The above is obviously not comprehensive.  It what a brief time searching the net has produced.  And I’ve not investigated his theological views – other than his opposition to preaching, “All lives matter.”

With the above background, I contacted Canon David Roseberry of the Matthew 25 Team.  He said this about The Gathering and about having Dr. Rah as the keynote speaker, “Anglicans always try to be both modest and generous in their mission and their thinking. By modest I mean that we never believe that we have all the answers and all the right perspectives possible.  By generous I mean that we always want to engage others in discussion. No one who claims the name of Jesus Christ as Savior should imagine they are outside of our fellowship. And anyone who works for the name of Jesus Christ can be our partner in mission.”

And I will be modest and generous and let him have the last word for now.

Another “Evangelical” Shows His Hand

My observant readers may have noticed that I rarely, if ever, refer to myself as “evangelical.” The reason is there is so much that is supposedly “evangelical” with which I do not wish to be associated . . . at all.

For example, the compromise, appeasement and, yes, surrender of one “evangelical” Bishop of Liverpool.