"Stand Together? No! Stand Apart"
“if Satan really were to take over a city, the following would happen: the bars would close, no alcohol would be sold; there would be happy marriages and well-behaved children, no crime, and everyone would be in churches on Sunday where Christ is not preached.” –Donald Barnhouse
Before I begin this article I want to preface my remarks with two key things:
1. As the Apostle Paul instructed Timothy he says, “But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith” (1 Tim. 1:5). This is my prayerful desire, motive and goal in all that I write. Love from a pure heart (humility and holiness); a good conscience (godly character); and a sincere faith (a unhypocritical faith, free from hypocrisy, a genuine faith, one free from double speak, double standards and that conforms itself to sound doctrine.)
2. I know that none of us have arrived in every facet of our theology or doctrinal convictions—I know I surely have not. I want to be a faithful Berean examining anything anyone would say in light of Scripture; and I crave other faithful Bereans to examine anything I would write or say through the lens of Scripture as well. I sincerely believe that all of us in the heat of this crucial discussion, as Protestants, do desire to please the Lord by having our positions clearly agree with His holy Word. The problem is, we all have "theological blind spots" and need to remain teachable from the Word of God--especially when it comes to the volatile issues of intersecting culture and faith.
I receive a few hundred email a day on various issues and themes that I have either sung about, spoken about or written about throughout the years. Those comments range from very caustic, to foul language being hurled at me in the heat of the moment, to disagreeing with me, to encouraging, to I agree with you wholeheartedly. I try to respond to each one personally and can honestly say, that even in the most vitriolic of emails sent to me I have learned from them and the Lord has used them in my own sanctification to conform me to Christ. I have never let the tone of someone's emails be a justifying reason for not giving creedance to the content of their comments. When someone says, "it's not what you said, but how you said it" that usually means they're trying to deflect attention away from the real issue of content being addressed. If someone has taken part of their valuable to express an opinion in any tone, they deserve the courtesy and mutual respect for a reply.
I've not only been on the receiving end of those kinds of responses, but I'm confident that I've responded in ways or have written in tones, due to my own pride, sinfulness, or passion on a subject that were in hindsight expressed less than godly attitudes. We all need to extend grace and patience to each other at those times; we are all in the crucible of His grace learning each day. In saying that, if anyone sees where I have gone beyond the purview of Scripture in my conclusions, or have not cut straight His truth in the application of Scripture to the issues, please site those places and I will be more than delighted to correct, change, rewrite or take out altogether those things to honor Christ and His truth; and for the love of the brethren. As Paul rightly says, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).
With that said, let's press on to the matters at hand.
Where Do We Agree? The Condition
I do agree with my co-belligerent brothers on the state of things in this nation. The days are evil; we live in perilous and propitious times. Moral decay is on the rise and we should all be concerned. As believers in the Lord Jesus Christ we should stand for life for the unborn, stand against euthanasia, stand against future Terri Schiavo's death by starvation; we should also stand against drug abuse and casual sex that is constantly knocking on our teenagers doors.
Living in a free society we should also let our voices be heard on political issues through voting, personal contact with our Senators and Congressmen (state and federal); and if necessary through civil disobedience if the government commands us to do something God prohibits; and/or if the government prohibits us from doing something God commands. Then, like Peter, we must obey God rather than man. We should support constitutional process as the framers designed to stop a runaway judiciary; we should protect the biblical foundation of family in society—that marriage/family is between one man and one woman (with children if possible) in covenant for life; and we should not support same-sex unions or gay marriage. We should feed the poor; reach out to those who are HIV/AIDS positive; and support those who serve faithfully in Crisis Pregnancy Centers.
But those convictions for the Christian are not born in a vacuum—they flow from the heart of a life transformed by the gospel of Jesus Christ. We do those things out of love for and obedience to the Lord as an act of daily worship so that our good works seen by others may cause them to glorify God. That is what it means to be salt and light in a pagan world (Matt. 5:13-20). Therfore, I agree with my “evangelical co-belligerent brothers” on the condition.
Where Do We Disagree? The Cure
Where I would disagree with them is on the cure. They think it is through the mass partnering with anyone who demonstrates unanimity to the specific social concern and using the political process to bring about the desired results that is the answer. This has proven faulty so far. It turns the body of Christ into a political action committee, a lobbyist group, or right wing voting block to politically strong arm or intimidate elected officials (and sadly this does happen) with the threat of “conform to our social agenda or we will remember in November by voting you out of office” is unbiblical, unloving and outside the proper conduct of Christian citizenry. If we take this posture in society to the very ones who need the life giving truth of the gospel, we are severely prohibited in giving "a reason for the hope that is within us with gentleness and reverence" (1 Peter 3:15).
There are many of us who believe that real resolve for dealing with the moral depravity in our culture begins with the church acting as the church (Acts 2:36-46; 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus). It is also through the clear proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ (Sola Fide/Sola Gratia/Solus Christus/Imputation/Repentance) which alone can transform the life (Acts 17: 30-32); Matt. 28:16-20; 2 Timothy 1:6ff). Also, who we partner with in that mission is just as important. The Great Commission and The Two Great Commandments are given only to believers in the Lord and that is whom we are called to labor and serve with in this world (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1). There is no greater witnessing tool than the transformed life lived in obedience to Christ. This is our individual duty of being salt and light to a lost world—the wonderful fruit of which, as the Lord Himself said, is "seeing our good works that they may glorify God who is in heaven" (Matt. 5:13-18). And lastly, we can make real impact by loving our neighbor each day right in the sphere of influence where the Lord has sovereignly placed each of us to demonstrate His grace by serving others (Matt. 22:37-40).
The Great Divide
I do reject the notion that political legislation has any impact as the cure for the moral decay in our nation. I reject the notion of a “common morality or civil righteousness” inherent in the human condition that all people have that when united can bring resolve to the culture wars. This is an unbibilcal view of the nature of man. All of mankind is created in sin; by nature children of wrath; with hearts that are eternally sick and deceitful; incapable of pleasing God or doing anything good by their own merits to gain favor with God (Eph. 2:1-3; Romans 3:10-18; Titus 1:15-16; 1 Tim. 6:1-4; Isaiah 64:6). It is unscriptural to think that Christians should stand with unregenerate man in creating a alliance of moral good united in common social causes to win back the day from a perverse and wicked society. And that this can be accomplished absent from the regenerating work of the gospel of Jesus Christ in the hearts of His creatures. Our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount utterly rejects any human righteousness either for salvation or moral purity as worthless, imperfect and unfruitful (Matt. 5:13-20).
This is the great divide that currently exists among Evangelicals and Protestants today on this issue. One group believes the way to cure the cultural moral slippage is by an ecumenical political activism, amassing all who will agree on the social/moral cause being fought using the legislative process to produce change. The other believes the cure is through the clear preaching and teaching of God’s Word through biblical ministry stemming from the authority and accountability of the local church through the proclamation of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
What is Cobelligerence
Co-belligerence can be defined as a cultural philosophy that warrants in order to make social impact and change against the moral slippage that plagues our nation, one must create and foster alliances on the basis of one thing and one thing only – the cause at hand.
What is required in order to accomplish this? Two things:
First, you must set aside your religious beliefs and convictions. Why? They are not deemed essential. The only thing that is considered indispensable in the fight of the culture wars is unanimity by anyone, solely on whatever issue you are battling.
Secondly, you must also accept the ones you’re standing “shoulder to shoulder” with in this battle have only one required qualification – consensus on the issue you agree to fight against. A quorum of the masses, Christian or otherwise, is the goal here. Again, it is one thing to agree with those in the general marketplace about common moral ills (the condition); it is quite another to stand with them as co-belliegerents for the resolve to those same moral ills (the cure).
Consider the Cost
As you can imagine, taking a stand on this issue and especially against some well respected and trusted evangelical leaders, is not met without consternation. Some are upset with me for questioning certain leaders in their support of co-belligerence methodology or political intervention for cultural restoration from the social ills through the political process (some use these terms as possible code words for an insipid Theonomy/Reconstructionism that underpins some of this movement). Others are quite upset that names were mentioned publicly. Others are angry that I would dare “take on” friends in the ministry over this issue; but at the same time are not upset about what those same friends are now “taking on” (cp, Gal. 2:14 where Paul confronted Peter publicly for not being straight-forward about the gospel--even though they were friends and both were Apostles, Paul did this openly before all concerned for Peter's reputation and the purity of the gospel). And still others are ruffled because I included men of orthodox beliefs on my list in the mix with others that are plainly liberal in their theology or even down right heretical.
But you see, beloved, that’s the whole point here. This is the fallacy and bane of Evangelical Co-belligerence—it doesn’t matter what one believes in terms of doctrine, the gospel, the person of Christ, the veracity of Scripture, etc. it only matters what one affirms in terms of the cultural moral dilemma facing us in society. That is why from Catholics to Baptists; from liberals to conservatives; from Republican to Democrats; from those who believe the true gospel to those who believe a false gospel are all welcome at the cultural table of the evangelical co-belligerent.
A bit of context will prove helpful here: where has this Evangelical Co-belligerence sprung from in recent years? Shockingly, the foundation in for this kind of philosophy is ECT (Evangelical and Catholics Together) and Peter Kreeft's, The Ecumenical Jihad. ECT was originally conceived by Charles Colson and Roman Catholic Priest, Richard John Neuhaus. (A move in ecumenism that both Peter Kreeft and Dr. James Dobson have since championed.)
The Local Church—Political Action Committee or the Body of Christ?
Let me give you a recent example of what this kind of philosophy produces spawned by a political social moral jihad.
A well meaning group of evangelicals and “others“ gathered last Sunday evening at a Baptist Church in Louisville, KY for a Sunday evening event they called “Justice Sunday.” What brought them together was not to hear the clear teaching and preaching of God’s holy infallible, inerrant Word; nor the worship of the One Triune God; but “church as usual” was suspended for that evening to inform evangelical Christians on a vital important issue of eternal weight and concern that the organizers felt deeply affects the lives of us all. What was this issue of great magnitude, paramount significance and biblical urgency? “To inform evangelicals on how to break a democrat filibuster in the Senate.” This is really trivial compared to the genuine issues of eternity, isn't it?
Though politically important, to give up an entire Sunday evening service for this "cause" is astonishing. This is foolish when compared to the proclamation of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and the worship of our holy God. The words of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthian church are indeed insightful, “For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). Or this unmistakable mandate for ministry, “We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord” (2 Cor. 4:5). Church, the gathering of God’s people, is not the place where the worship of God is to be subservient to the cultural political needs of the hour—even if for just one service. The Lord does not share His glory with another—nor is He inclined to take a backseat to social concerns.
It gets worse though—much worse.
The Pulpit—Sacred Desk or Political Podium?
Not only was the preaching of God’s Word given a night off (postmodernity in action) but this also dramatically affected the speakers participation as well. What do I mean?
You not only had true believers taking the platform to address what several considered to be the most crucial issue that we are facing today concerning the future moral direction of our nation; but also invited to this Sunday evening event to share the platform was a traditional Roman Catholic (Dr. Bill Donahue, President of the Catholic League.) I’m not kidding. As a Christian, this is offensive; as a Calvinist, this is utter compromise; as a defender of Sola Scriptura, unthinkable; and in light of the cost that previous generations of Christians have sacrificed, even died defending the faith against Romanism, this is heartbreaking. When was Rome ever allowed access to our churches and given the right to influence those in reformed evangelical pews on any issue—and this on the Lord’s day? I say this with tears and great concern, as of last Sunday, the “new downgrade” has officially begun.
Spurgeon would have been outraged at such Romanistic accomodationalism; Luther would have never flattered Rome by capitulation to any Pope over “cultural morality;” Latimer and Ridley went to the flames for not adhering to the false doctrine of transubstantiation—they would be shocked to learn that partnership with the "whore of Babylon" can now be condoned over something as social as the “culture of life.” Polycarp would have never favored unanimity with Caesar; Paul would have never found favorable alliance with Nero on anything; John the Baptist wasn't given to co-belligerent thinking when he stood before Herod, confronting him on his incestual adulterous relationship with his brother's wife. And David Martin Lloyd-Jones would be thundering a call to repentance to anyone who was in fellowship or association with the vicar of Rome. (David stood against Billy Graham in the early years of Billy's ministry, because Billy wanted to have Romanist leadership on the platform with him during the Crusade. Lloyd-Jones rejected such a notion. Think of what the good Dr. would say today if he knew they now had access to the microphone?)
Loyal to No Man Save Christ Alone
When well meaning evangelicals who allow these kinds of happenings, no matter how justifiable the cause humanitarily may be, then it is time we confront it head on and sound the alarm. Not one of us owes loyalty to any man (friend or foe) absent from the gospel of Jesus Christ our Lord. Our devotion is to Christ Jesus the Lord and His Truth. And if for so doing we are ridiculed, lose friendships, laughed at by treasured co-laborers in Christ, the recipient of cheap shots, or cut off from those who are closest to us in ministry, then I say with Luther we must “let goods and kindred go; this mortal life also; the body they may kill; God’s truth abideth still; His kingdom is forever!”
This has been a tremendous heartbreak beloved. I never thought I would see in my lifetime Rome having access to an evangelical church and the pulpits of our faith turned into rallies for dispensing political information. If this kind of practice keeps on without repentance, in the midst of such theological and ecclesiastical compromise it could eventually be written over the doorposts of our churches, "ICHABOD, the glory of God has departed."
The justification for this has been couched very carefully in the language of being “good citizens of heaven” and that “the gospel has political consequences” – but no matter what the spin, it remains a travesty for the gospel, the church, and for the cause of Christ. We are to “contend for the once for all delivered to the saints faith” – not for societal rightness and political moral suasion with Romanists who align with our moral agenda.
Corinthian Cobelligerents?
Corinth is the perfect example for dismantling this kind of strategy. Home of the Isthmian games, Corinth even by “pagan standards became so morally corrupt that its very name became synonymous with debauchery and moral depravity. To ‘corinthianize’ came to represent gross immortality and drunken debauchery. Corinth also had an acropolis with its most prominent edifice being a temple to Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love. It is believed that some 1,000 priestesses, who were religious prostitutes, worked there and then by night would come down into the city to offer their services to male citizens and foreign visitors” (Quote taken from The MacArthur Bible Handbook p. 373-374). This gross immorality even found its way into the church in the form of incest (1 Cor. 5).
It was a wicked city full of lascivious living, gross immorality, temple prostitution, child sacrifices, the occult, etc. In the midst of such moral upheaval and degradation how does the Apostle Paul instruct the church to combat this society of sin and evil ways? Does he organize the local folk who were outraged by such lasciviousness—and then sign up anyone with a fraction of a moral compass still intact to picket the adulterers? NO. Boycott the temple of Aphrodite? NO. Sign a petition that he can present to the "heads of state" to let the governing officials know of their collective outrage? NO. Does he wage political reform against the Emperor? NO. Does he encourage the church to become political agitators against the local magistrates? NO. Never once does Paul resort to amassing the co-belligerent troops to some sort of call to societal or political moral rightness.
“The weapons of [his] warfare [were] not carnal” like the Evangelical Co-belligerents of our day. He does something almost unheard of in our culture: he boldly proclaimed the gospel; sought to call men to repentance by faith in Christ; preached unashamedly of the resurrection; corrected the church on everything from leadership, spiritual gifts, communion, worship, evangelism, sexual immorality, church discipline, lawsuits, to holy living. He sought to know nothing among them “but Christ and Him crucified.” This is the mark of uncompromised ministry and undiminished focus on what the mission of a Christian leader in a pagan culture looks like. He was not “beating the air” - “running without aim.” He knew what God had called him to do and be, and he set his life as flint for Christ to run with faithfulness to the end.
Focus on the...
If in that sinful city, which is seldom if ever rivaled in our day, the Apostle would not stoop to co-belligerent moral political tactics, then by what justification do the Evangelical Co-Belligerents of today function and strive? Paul never “focused on political moral intervention”; he focused on the Lord, he focused on the faith, he focused on the gospel, he focused on the church, he focused on the cross, he focused on repentance; he focused on the Word, and he focused on the ministry.
May we regain our focus once again on what is eternal, not temporal.
|
