Jesus is NOT a liberal political activist - He's the savior

One of the reasons I’m concerned about the current emphasis on social justice, especially by leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention, isn’t because of the language being used (although there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about confusion given the secular and Marxist use of the term).  No, I’m concerned because there is an inevitable slide toward the kind of theological missteps that took place in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s with the so-called “Social Gospel” movement.  You see, it is clear that no matter how hard we try, we are never, let me repeat that word: NEVER, going to create heaven on earth.  In fact, it will take the return of Jesus to consummate God’s entire plan.

This being the case, we need to be very careful as we explore what we mean when we talk about social justice.  If we mean things like mercy ministries for the widow, the orphan and the prisoner, great.  If we start tacking into political territory about transforming society, we’re moving into ground the gospel simply doesn’t cover.  Jesus told us that our primary focus, our number one job, our main goal was to make disciples (Matthew 28:19-20).  He modeled how disciple making was to take place.  He pulled a small group out from the larger following, then developed an even smaller following from that group to act as leaders.  Discipling took place on three levels: the preaching level (larger groups), the small group level (twelve men) and the intimate level (three men).  Discipling was designed for those disciples to follow his lead by creating more disciples, from Jerusalem, to Samaria to the ends of the earth.  The formula had much to do with engagement between teacher and disciples and among disciples.  Jesus offered no political insights and no grand theories about fixing societal ills.  What he did offer was a means for individuals to come to know the God of the universe and, in doing so, transform their inner lives.  Good works were never offered as anything beyond an outworking of the inner change – evidence of a transformed life which then manifested itself in care and concern for others (see Luke 10:25-36, The Parable of the Good Samaritan, for instance).

Jesus never once told his disciples to concern themselves with transforming society by fixing racial problems, ending poverty, or assuring that women would be treated properly.  Yes, he clearly wanted us to be concerned about others.  Primarily, however, he was concerned about eternal, spiritual matters, not temporal problems.  Yes, when temporal matters got in the way, he was tough on them.  He spoke clearly to the rich young ruler not because wealth was, in itself, evil, but because this man’s wealth was an idol that was holding him back from entering God’s eternal kingdom.  Giving away the wealth wasn’t some prescription by Jesus for solving society’s problems.  It was a prescription for the heart ailment of anyone who was letting their wealth convince them they were heaven bound.  Jesus notes “how difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God.”  Luke 18:24. Jesus cared that this man, who was wealthy, would not enter the kingdom of God – moreover, he was concerned for anyone else who, like this man, had wealth upon which they were relying to “save” them.  Not once does Jesus say anything like “if you are wealthy give all your wealth away to solve societal problems.”  Moreover, Jesus doesn’t once suggest that his concern was for anything other than the spiritual condition of the man to whom he was talking and any who were like him.

There is a vein of evangelicalism right now that is obsessing with the idea that Jesus is some kind of societal and political leader out to make the world a better place right now.  My wife recently alerted me to a post on Facebook from someone who we would have otherwise believed to be a serious Christian who offered that Christians should focus on Jesus as “a liberal activist” during Christmas.

No.

Jesus was not and is not an “activist” of any kind.  Jesus is the God-Man, come in the flesh from his throne in heaven, as messiah, first for the Jews, then for the rest of the world.  He sought those who would repent and believe (Mark 1:15) to enter the kingdom of heaven.  His focus was not on making earth a better place to live.  He told Pilate that his kingdom was not of this earth. 

This idea that Jesus was a liberal activist limits him so severely it makes him less than who he is.  It is, in a word, heresy.  I’ve written over 100 blog posts and the term heresy appears sparingly, so I don’t say this lightly.

Worse, this is nothing more than a form of the prosperity gospel – it’s Joel Osteen’s “Your Best Life Now.”  To turn Jesus into some kind of social do-gooder is to relegate him to the merely mortal and merely human: a leader who will fix our current problems with social and political change.  The Bible simply doesn’t support this kind of view of Jesus.  This is why serious Christians eschew the syrupy gobbledygook of Joel Osteen and other purveyors of “health and wealth” gospel claims.   This view of Jesus as liberal activist (and, therefore, God as liberal activist) becomes nothing more than a cosmic Amazon.com delivering directly to us, for us, at our convenience whatever it is we think we need.  It is heretical, unbiblical nonsense.

Southern Baptist leaders are complicit here.  They’re not clear and they’re often so busy talking about “justice” that the people in the pews are getting the message that Jesus is about transforming society in the here and now.  Isn’t that precisely what the Jews expected and one of the fundamental reasons they were so disappointed in Jesus?  They thought they were getting a political, social, religious, and military leader like King David.  Instead they got Jesus . . . and they crucified him.

Let’s be very clear that the gospel is the message that we are dead spiritually and in need of a savior.  The primary responsibility of Christians isn’t to fix social ills, it’s to make disciples (Matthew 28:19-20) so they can receive life everlasting.  John 3:36 says that those who believe in Jesus will have everlasting life; those who don’t will not see life but will feel the wrath of God.

Are we not, then, crucifying him afresh by causing his people to veer from the primary message of salvation through repentance and belief in the bloody, battered, king on a cross, who died and yet lived?  Let’s stop talking about Jesus as an activist and talk about Jesus as savior.

For Tim Keller the Gospel is Apparently Not Enough

Tim Keller recently wrote the following in a New York Times editorial:  Christians cannot pretend they can transcend politics and simply “preach the Gospel.”

These words so stun me that I am almost unable to respond.  Almost.

First, let me say I agree with Keller when he says, “To not be political is to be political.”  As the rock band Rush once said in their song Freewill – if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.  So, if Keller means that Christians who completely disengage from political action and political discourse are making a statement, I agree with him that they are making a statement. 

Yet, his claim that Christians cannot transcend politics by simply preaching the Gospel terrifies me.  What does humanity need more than to hear the Gospel message of repentance from sin and belief that Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life?”  Is Keller suggesting political action is on par with preaching the Gospel?  Or worse, is he claiming that people can’t be saved unless Christians engage politically?  I don’t think that’s what he means, but his sloppy use of language here leaves open these possibilities. 

His use of Joseph and Daniel as exemplars of political engagement confirm my suspicions about his sloppiness here.

Dare I say this: Keller’s use of them to make his point is (gulp, ahem, cough) wrong.

Joseph and Daniel don’t teach any “ought” regarding political engagement.  If anything, what both teach is that integrity, endurance, and fealty to our Lord are primary; what surrounds us is secondary. More importantly, neither man “sought” out any political engagement.  Let’s go back and review for just a moment: Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers, but because God gave him wisdom and an ability to interpret dreams, Joseph rose to power through a series of events that could have only been orchestrated by the very God he served.  As he told his brothers when they came to live with him in Egypt, what you meant for evil, God meant for good.  In other words, Joseph’s political actions were a matter of God working through him to obtain God’s ends, not Joseph “deciding” to engage in political action in order to fix the world around him.

Daniel was, likewise, ripped away from his native land when the Babylonians overran the nation of Judah.  Daniel was a captive who was forced to live in exile because God was using that captivity as a means of disciplining his wayward children.  Daniel didn’t ask to become a political figure.  When he was caught praying to the one true God despite the decree of King Darius that people only pray to him, Daniel was not making a political statement.  He was showing his integrity and willingness to accept the consequences of obeying God rather than obeying man.  His miraculous stint in the lion’s den (like the miraculous walk through the fiery furnace of his cohorts Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego) was accomplished by God, not by human legislation or judicial intervention.  Moreover, Daniel sought only to do God’s will, not to fix social ills through political action.  He never asked for any political help, although his obvious close and powerful connection to King Darius might have provided him with means for doing so.

Keller then argues that Christians should abstain from identifying Christianity with any political party while urging that Christians should be engaged in political action.  He is clearly targeting the large segment of conservative, evangelical Christians who have identified mostly with the Republican party the past 30 plus years.  He argues that if Christians identify with just one political party it then sounds like one has to be a Christian and a Republican to be saved (Keller puts a blank in his statement where I put Republican, but it’s insincere for him to do so, when we know full well who he is targeting).

This argument is extremely weak.  If people are hearing they must be a Republican to be saved, then either they aren’t hearing the Gospel preached or they are hearing what they choose to hear.  Often people make claims about Christianity that aren’t true (Christians hate homosexuals is a current falsehood) not because they understand what Christianity teaches but because they don’t want what Christianity teaches and are looking for an out.  The hackneyed “God isn’t a Republican” argument is much more about personal preferences than it is about what Christianity really teaches.  It’s mostly a cop out for people who don’t want Christ in the first place, not a real argument against Christianity in the United States. 

Keller says Christians are committed to racial justice and biblical sexual norms then labels the first a “liberal” position and the second as looking “oppressively conservative.”  Presumably, he’s trying to tie each position to a political viewpoint. 

Once again, Keller’s argument fails.  As my Dad would have said: crapola.  My Dad was as conservative as they come, but he taught me and my sisters from a very early age that people are people no matter what they look like.  He was committed to treating everyone fairly and decently, regardless of their ethnicity.  Galatians 3:28 says that there is “no Jew or Greek” in Christ.  I take this to mean that at the foot of the cross we are leveled in God’s eyes because we are all sinners in need of a savior – we’re all in the same position in relation to God – regardless of our skin color or ethnic origin.  This is true racial justice.  My very conservative Dad would have suggested his view was the truly conservative position since it places a high value on the individual as having meaning, value and purpose regardless of ethnicity.  In other words, Keller’s dichotomy is false.  That is, unless Keller means something else when he speaks of “racial justice” as he equates this with a “liberal” viewpoint.  I suspect he does mean something different, but I don’t know what he means by such vague use of the phrase.

Keller claims Christians are then “pushed toward two options” which he labels withdrawal and “package deal politics.”  He defines “package deal politics” as the notion that one must take all of a political party’s views or none.  This simply doesn’t match the reality of politics in the United States.  Neither the Republican party nor the Democratic party is monolithic.  John McCain is now being lionized by Democrats when just eight short years ago they hated him and called him by any vicious name possible to avoid his election as president.  Many Republicans have made clear their distaste for the current president who happens to share their brand name.  Keller’s shameless use of a false dichotomy further weakens his already deceptive and poor argumentation.

Finally, Keller gets to his real point: “Jesus forbids us to withhold help from our neighbors, and this will inevitably require that we participate in political processes.”  Of all things, he uses the parable of the Good Samaritan to argue this point.  Um, Tim, in case you didn’t notice, the Good Samaritan didn’t do anything political at all.  He used his personal resources to help someone in need.  He didn’t appeal to the local government for help.  He didn’t rush to the local constable or seek legislation or appeal to the Roman occupiers.  He acted out of compassion and mercy, as an individual.  Keller’s argument here is not merely sloppy exegesis, it’s deplorably misusing the text to suit his own preconceived idea.

Continuing his assault on biblical truth, Keller urges that Jesus lost “power and glory” by coming to earth.  No, Tim, he didn’t.  Jesus showed us that power and glory are not what we think they are, which isn’t the same as “losing” it.[1]  He was still absolutely God while on the cross:  the same triune God I have always presumed you worshipped, Tim.  He told Pilate that if he wanted to, he could call on an army of angels to save him.  He told his disciples he was laying down his life of his own choice and would take it back up again.  There is absolutely nothing about Jesus losing power and glory in this story.  More importantly, Jesus never sought use of the political authorities for any purpose, as if his authority as the God of the universe were somehow insufficient, undermining the primary thesis of Keller’s article.

Finally, and ironically, by Keller’s way of thinking, the Amish must not be Christians since they don’t engage politically.  The Amish are from the Anabaptist tradition with which my own denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, shares roots.  This tradition goes back right to the beginning of the Reformation, through the theology of Menno Simons, a Dutch Reformer who broke with the Catholic Church around 1536 (we get the term Mennonite from Simons).  Simons was a pacifist who urged significant, if not total, separation from the state.  Thus, according to Keller, Simons must have been sub-Christian in light of his unwillingness to engage in political action.  Wrong, again, Tim.

For such a supposedly smart guy, Keller offers weak argumentation, poor exegesis and no appreciation for church history.  Christians don’t need to engage politically if they don’t want to do so.  It’s a matter of conscience.

Worse, though, this editorial implies the Gospel isn’t enough.  I’m reminded of the scene from the movie “Cool Runnings” where John Candy tells Derice, the captain of the Jamaican bobsled team, “if you aren’t enough without a gold medal, you’ll never be enough with it.” 

Tim Keller – if the Gospel isn’t enough without the politics, it will never be enough with it. 

---

[1] This gets one perilously close to the kenosis view of Jesus, which falls outside of orthodoxy, as it claims Jesus gave up some of his divine attributes while on earth.

The Horror Of Middle School Girls Acting Like Ladies

From the annals of overreaction, a Houston middle school took down the following quote from its hallway: “The more you act like a lady, the more he’ll act like a gentlemen.”  The hysterical inanity from feminist agitators is beyond ridiculous and pathetic – it’s downright evil.  Instead of seeing the quote for what it is, simple common sense, these pathological “do gooders” see it in the light most absolutely removed from common sense. 

Here’s the tweet from L. Beckman, who was at the school for teacher training (she posted a picture of the offending quote):

“This is the wall at Gregory-Lincoln Middle School in Houston ISD. It's perpetuating horrible gender stereotypes, shaming women, and relinquishing boys of all responsibility. It's sexist, mysogonistic, and discriminatory!”

So let’s tackle each of her claims one at a time.

1.         First, it doesn’t perpetuate any “gender stereotypes.”  Rather it points out the reality that if you want a certain reaction, you should consider your own behavior first.  There is a “golden rule” kind of vibe about this vote.  Treat others as you wish to be treated.  I guess I’m not clear what Ms. Beckman would have preferred.  How about, if you want to be treated like a lady, act like a prostitute?  Of course, in the minds of the Ms. Beckman’s of the world, women should be allowed to act however they want and men are supposed to just . . . do nothing?  It’s like the absurd reaction to school dress codes from Soraya Chemaly – apparently guys are supposed to never react to anything a woman does, including dressing provocatively, even though the very reason women dress provocatively is, well, to provoke a reaction.  See Post Harvey Weinstein: Do Feminists Owe Mike Pence an Apology.  If acting like ladies and gentlemen are “gender stereotypes” then count me in.  Why don’t we want our kids behaving that way?  By the way, I wonder what the middle school kids would tell us about what that quote meant?

2.         Exactly how is it “shaming women” to suggest they act like ladies?  I’m not following the logic at all.  So we want women to act like tramps, harlots (fill in your own word here _______)?

Is there some definitional problem that I don’t understand with the word lady?  The Dictionary.com definition suits me: a woman who is refined, polite and well-spoken.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.  We just can’t have young middle school girls learning such shameful ideas.  What would happen if they all left middle school refined, polite and well-spoken?  Oh, the horrors that would entail.  Oh the human misery and suffering that would immediately occur.  Our whole society would almost certainly die an instantaneous death.

Apparently, though, according to our feminist friends, being a lady is, in fact, a terrible thing.  Women should be unrefined, impolite and poorly spoken, I guess.

3.         Nothing about this quote relinquishes boys from responsibility.  It merely points out to young women that they are likely to get different behavior from young men in light of their own behavior.  Are we suggesting our behavior has no impact on others?  If that is the case, then why does Ms. Beckman care?  Is she that worried that young women will act like ladies, but get no reciprocation?  It’s clear she just reacted and didn’t actually do a whole lot of thinking.  Moreover, it doesn’t absolve young men from acting gentlemanly and nothing about the logic of the quote conditions the actions of young men on the actions of young women.  There is no requirement that young ladies must do something first or take the lead.  It’s just something that makes sense.

4.         I guess sexism is in the eye of the beholder?  Let’s revisit Dictionary.com.  Sexism is:  attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles.  I suppose one could argue that behaving like ladies and gentlemen are “traditional stereotypes.”  That said, could our friend Ms. Beckman explain why it would be so horrible if our young men and women aspired to behave in lady-like and gentlemanly fashion?  She breezes past such notions as if there is nothing good about them.  In my simple mind, the idea of being a gentleman means I seek out the lady’s best in my actions and my words.  I consider her ahead of myself.  It doesn’t mean I think less of women; just the opposite.  I know, it’s disgusting of me to think in such an antiquated, vile, inhospitable manner towards women.

5.         The current favorite cliché – it’s similar to calling someone a Nazi – misogynist.  It’s an argument ender, a killer word that negates any possible retort once applied.  Oddly, though, back to my friends at Dictionary.com, I’m having a hard time actually seeing how this quote is misogynist.  Here’s the definition: a person who hates, dislikes, mistrusts, or mistreats women.  Note that a misogynist is a person – the quote in question is a statement – so by definition, it can’t be a misogynist.  More importantly, however, there doesn’t appear to be any hatred, dislike, mistrust or mistreatment of women in the quote.  One rarely makes suggestions to persons one hates or dislikes.  Certainly the quote doesn’t mistrust women; in fact, quite the opposite is true.  The quote presumes an ability on the part of women to engage in reasoned and rational aforethought in order to behave a certain way.  Finally, mistreatment generally suggests something hurtful – Ms. Beckman, of course, just assumes the quote is hurtful because . . . well, I’m not really sure why other than it doesn’t say something bad about males.  How does it actually harm anyone?

6.         The quote is only discriminatory if one can show it is “characterized by or showing prejudicial treatment.” (Thanks again to Dictionary.com).  I suppose since the quote doesn’t specifically say to boys “the more you act like gentlemen, the more she’ll act like a lady”  it is discriminatory?  Somehow, I think, even if that part were added it wouldn’t satisfy the Ms. Beckman’s of the world.  Exactly what prejudicial treatment is being foisted upon young women here?  See the arguments above.

It’s sad that so many people just automatically jumped on board the Twitter feed with agreement to this nonsense.  This appears to be more a matter of feelings than actual rational thinking. 

Fine, take the quote down.  I’m absolutely certain it ruined many a life at Gregory-Lincoln Middle School . . .

NOT.