The Lex Talionis, the Just Nature of God, and the Death Penalty

The lex talionis is the foundation of biblical justice. It is laid down in the Pentateuch but it is everywhere assumed. It is not only assumed in God’s special revelation but also in natural revelation. Hence, it appears in many ancient Near Eastern law codes and forms the foundation for their laws as well.

Lex talionis means “law of reciprocation.” In other words, the act of the crime must be placed back upon the criminal. He must pay the amount he took. If he took out someone’s eye, he must have his eye taken out or pay compensation equal to an eye. If he took out someone’s tooth, he must have his own tooth taken out or pay compensation equal to a tooth. And if he took a life, he must pay for it with his life. Hence, “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life” is God’s justice that reveals His character and divine responsibility to address crime in the world.

And this is important to note. The lex talionis is not some arbitrary law that God decided to use. It is God’s law of justice in accordance with His character, which means that He Himself will not transgress it. If He does, we must say that God is unjust according to His own revelation of what justice looks like. Not only this but if He orders His people to transgress it and take an eye for a toenail or a life for a tooth then He is not only unjust Himself according to His own rule but He will have commanded His people to be unjust in the law, reversing the very lex talionis He told them to observe in the law.

Since God is not contradictory of Himself, nor unjust, nor a tempter of evil who tells people to break His own laws, we must conclude that every punishment given is equal to its crime. It is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life.

This means that if a crime carries the death penalty, God must by virtue of His own nature consider the crime to be akin to murder in some way. If He does not consider it to be murder, and He orders that the death penalty via execution or exile be exacted upon the criminal, He will be guilty of going against His very nature as the God of justice and good.

Now, a common objection must be dealt with here. Some will argue that because man is fallen, he is under a death penalty anyway and so God killing anyone and everyone is just since all deserve to die anyway. Hence, God can take a life for an eye because it is always an eye and a life that was taken in both the Fall and the individual sin of the criminal.

However, there arises a couple major problems with this reasoning. 1. God never says that the punishments He gives out are for the crime of Adam but rather for specific crimes. If the above were true then God should actually say that everyone who transgresses laws of non-fatal injuries, like knocking out a tooth, should be put to death, since they are guilty of taking life through Adam and a tooth. Not only is this never argued but it would set the world into a bloody chaos of death, as there would be no need to even commit a crime since everyone already is guilty of Adam’s sin. One would be justified in killing any and every human being they meet. In fact, murder would be impossible, since everyone deserves death already. 2. Although one could say that only God gets to add Adam’s sin to the crime, seemingly arbitrarily, he actually commands His people to exact these punishments on criminals and so they become the instruments through which anyone can be killed at any time. All of this is contrary to God’s own statements, however, which limit executions only to those cases that in some way take away the life of another. God states that the lex talionis is to be applied by His people to all cases that are not even mentioned but fall into the categories mentioned. This means that one cannot take a life for a mere injury. If an item that can be replaced is stolen, the thief is allowed to pay it back plus the interest of what was lost due to the item’s removal.

This means we are back at the argument before. If God requires the death penalty in the law, it can only mean that it is because He considers the crime akin to murder in some way. This does not mean that it is literal murder but rather that it is associated with murder in some way. In some form, the crime committed takes away human life, and according to the lex talionis, the life of the one who committed the crime must be taken.

So, for instance, in Leviticus 20, two laws are given that require the death penalty.

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ² “Say to the people of Israel, Any one of the people of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones. ³ I myself will set my face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given one of his children to Molech, to make my sanctuary unclean and to profane my holy name. ⁴ And if the people of the land do at all close their eyes to that man when he gives one of his children to Molech, and do not put him to death, ⁵ then I will set my face against that man and against his clan and will cut them off from among their people, him and all who follow him in whoring after Molech.

⁶ “If a person turns to mediums and necromancers, whoring after them, I will set my face against that person and will cut him off from among his people. ⁷ Consecrate yourselves, therefore, and be holy, for I am the Lord your God. ⁸ Keep my statutes and do them; I am the Lord who sanctifies you. ⁹ For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.

The first law can be understood as requiring the death penalty because it kills children. However, even here, the emphasis seems to be more along the lines of the idolatry committed. Either way, however, the second law, given the lex talionis, is baffling to the modern reader.

How can God require the death penalty for cursing one’s father or mother? There are two things that could be said here. The first is that when a person does not honor his father or mother, it detracts from the household in some way, threatening the household and its livelihood. A son, for instance, who refuses to work in the field, or take care of his parent’s financially when they are in need, etc. threatens their lives and works toward the destruction of parents and their household. Likewise, a daughter who ignores her parents and whores around, threatens not only the reputation, and therefore, financial stability of the household, but also marriage prospects that also threaten the finances of the household.

The second component to dishonoring or cursing parents, however, is far worse and more likely the cause for the death penalty. Many scholars have noted before that the command to honor one’s father and mother sits in the first five laws of the Ten Commandments. Whereas some may divide the law into four laws concerning the worship of God and six laws concerning one’s relationships between people, it may be instead divided between five and five. This would mean that one’s father and mother represent God and are a means by which a person worships God. Notice the contrast in consulting mediums for information vs. being under the guidance of one’s parents. To curse or dishonor or shun them in some way is to curse and dishonor or to shun God and to do so is to lead people to disregard the fear of God as their source of life. To cut off the source of life from the covenant community is to kill those influenced by such rebellion. It is to teach a different religion, and as such, is a type of murder (cf. Rom 3:10-18). Hence, the penalty is not a fine of some sort but death.

Similarly, in Leviticus 24, a curious episode is given to the reader as an example of this very thing.

¹⁰ Now an Israelite woman’s son, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the people of Israel. And the Israelite woman’s son and a man of Israel fought in the camp, ¹¹ and the Israelite woman’s son blasphemed the Name, and cursed. Then they brought him to Moses. His mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan. ¹² And they put him in custody, till the will of the Lord should be clear to them.

¹³ Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ¹⁴ “Bring out of the camp the one who cursed, and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation stone him. ¹⁵ And speak to the people of Israel, saying, Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. ¹⁶ Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.

¹⁷ “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. ¹⁸ Whoever takes an animal’s life shall make it good, life for life. ¹⁹ If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, ²⁰ fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. ²¹ Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death. ²² You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the Lord your God.” ²³ So Moses spoke to the people of Israel, and they brought out of the camp the one who had cursed and stoned him with stones. Thus the people of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses.

We often don’t think of blasphemy laws as being akin to murder. Instead, we simply understand that God is the king and should not be spoken against or treated poorly in any way. But we tend to fail to understand why one should get the death penalty for treating God this way. The text above does not merely give a circular reason for the death of this man. It does not say that he should be put to death because God is God and should not be cursed. Instead, God gives the lex talionis as the reason. 

¹⁷ “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death . . .  ¹⁹ If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, ²⁰ fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him.

The strange thing about this text is that the reason given that the man is to be killed for cursing God is because the Israelites are to take a life for a life. But what life did the man take that he must now pay for it with his own life?

Instead, if we understand that treating God poorly undermines His appeal to His people to seek Him as the only life source, and therefore, to live, we understand that this man’s act worked toward murdering everyone who would be influenced by his degradation of God. Hence, he is paying with his life because such an act is akin to murder, even though he did not visibly murder anyone.

The same can be said of texts that demand the death penalty for breaking the Sabbath (Exod 31:14; Num 15:32-36). To observe the Sabbath was to communicate one’s allegiance to YHWH as the sovereign King of Israel, the Creator who gives life to all who are in Him, but to ignore it was to communicate the opposite of that, that YHWH was not the ultimate source of life and that Israel did not need to have to give their allegiance to Him. It is therefore a preaching of a false religion to not observe the Sabbath in the old covenant. Hence, it is akin to murdering those who are influenced by this evil testimony, and the individuals were, therefore, to be put to death.

What this all means, therefore, is that God is just, the lex talionis is justice, and if God demands a particular punishment upon a particular crime, it is because in some way it is akin to the unauthorized taking of human life. It is murder in God’s eyes whether it is murder in our own or not.

It may be extreme and crazy for some to think of false religion this way in our day of inclusivism where differing religions are merely various expressions of the one God manifested through cultural differences but that God considers the practice or preaching of false religion as a knife in one’s hand (or rather in one's mouth) with which he slays another man is made clear from these texts. God is just, the lex talionis is justice, and if God says that one must be put to death for practicing or preaching a false religion, it must be that He considers it akin to murder.

So when you read these penalties you must also understand the severity of the crime by the nature of those penalties.

The remedy of this, of course, is to confess one’s evil and the depth thereof, to turn away from being advocates of these deadly ideas, and to come to the cross where all of the heinous sins of God’s people have been punished by the execution of the Son of God who died in our place.

Sola Ecclesia in the New Testament Implies Sola Scriptura for Both Protestants and Catholics Alike

 One of the confusing things about the Roman Catholic/Protestant debate over sola Scriptura (i.e., Scripture is the ultimate source of authority relating what God has spoken) or sola Ecclesia (i.e., the church is the ultimate source of authority relating what God has spoken) is when both go to the Scripture and attempt to argue their cases from the time of the apostles. It seems very clear that the primary authority in the early church was that of the apostles. The apostles' word was the final word concerning the right interpretation of the Hebrew Bible and the new revelation of Jesus Christ. All would agree that they would never contradict the Hebrew Scripture, since they were speaking from the same God who gave it, but it seems very clear that they were the ultimate authority through which the Holy Spirit spoke. Hence, the Roman Catholics are right in that the ultimate source of authority in the early church would have been the apostles, and hence, sola Ecclesia.

The problem is this. If the apostolic teaching is written down into a closed canon, and that closed canon now joins with the Hebrew Bible to complete Scripture, as most Christians believe that it does, then the only logical conclusion to make is that the sola Ecclesia of the early church demands sola Scriptura for the rest of the church from that point on, as it is the only place where the apostle's teaching is confirmed.

The mistake is in thinking that if Roman Catholics can somehow prove that the early church was rooted in sola Ecclesia, the rest of the church throughout history should be as well. This is also what many liberals try to argue. The problem is that the authority is in the apostles' teaching, and apostolic succession must be in agreement with it or it is wrong; and hence, if their teaching is sufficiently represented in the New Testament, then the entire church must bow down to it as the supreme authority because it is bowing down to their teaching that is the supreme authority. In other words, in order for Christians today to submit to what the early church did within the framework of sola Ecclesia, they must submit to it via sola Scriptura. 

Hence, Roman Catholics actually have to speculate and make up an additional apostolic teaching they supposedly know through tradition. Yet, this tradition is only supposed as apostolic and it must be confirmed by what is known to be apostolic, i.e., what is written in the New Testament, and if it contradicts what is written, proves itself false. This means that even Roman Catholics must believe in sola Scriptura if their claim that there is an apostolic tradition that is equally authoritative as the New Testament is true, since the one must verify the other and thus proves itself the superior authority. 

Inerrancy and the Incarnational Model in Both Gnostic and Orthodox Frameworks

Some errantists like to argue that the Bible is comparable to the incarnation. In that regard, the Bible takes on a true humanity while also being fully divine. I think most Christians would agree with this idea. However, errantists have assumed that in order to take upon an incarnational model, one must assume that true humanity means fallen humanity, the errors of humanity. This is actually not the orthodox view of the incarnation because it isn't the biblical view. Jesus was like us in all things, except without sin (Heb 4:15). He is the spotless/unblemished lamb. 

So I would submit to you that the incarnational model of errantists is actually Gnostic rather than orthodox and apostolic. It assumes that true humanity, humanity in its very ontology, is corrupt and in error. Jesus would have to be corrupt and in error as well. He could not be unblemished or without sin if He is fully human. In this regard, the divine only hovers above and around the humanity but never would join with it, as it is corrupt. It uses the humanity but never unifies with it.

Hence, this is more of the adoptionist model of incarnation applied to Scripture. Scripture is a corrupted book with human speculations, sinful and wicked ideas, and erroneous theology and ethics but God somehow comes around it, never agreeing with it or joining with that erroneous human element but using it in the way the divine presence/Christ used the corrupt man Jesus to save. 

Errantism in this sense, then, is actually a product of gnosticism applied to Scripture. The apostolic and orthodox view of incarnation applied would mean that the divine message is in full and complete unity and agreement with the human message. This does not imply that the human message must be omniscient, as even Jesus' humanity is not omniscient. Instead, it implies that the divine keeps the human from an erroneous message being communicated because of its lack of omniscience. 

This means that a human author can believe that the earth is not round, for instance, but that misinformation is not an obstacle to, and indeed even used as part of the language for the divine to communicate its inerrant message through, it.

This simply suggests that, since liberalism, the religion of the Enlightenment, is essentially gnostic, that errantism of this sort is liberalism, and liberalism, as gnostic, is itself heresy according to the apostles. Ergo, errantism of this sort is heresy according to the apostles. 

The Church of 7-11

 I don't know about you but one of the highlights of my youth was walking with my friends up to 7-11 every weekend and getting beef jerky in some form or a slurpee. Later the slurpee turned into a Big Gulp and then a Super Big Gulp as my choices in life became so much healthier. The great thing about 7-11s is that they were on every street corner and you could be in and out within a few minutes. The problem is that what we were eating and drinking was probably killing us. Such is the nature of fast food. It's very tasty and convenient. It doesn't require much time or work to get it.

Many churches are like 7-11s. They're convenient for numerous reasons. 1. They're offerings are palatable to almost anyone. The type of Christianity that is offered isn't much different from what most people think Christianity is. It's tasty to most people, not just regenerate Christians. 2. It's served up quickly at your convenience. You don't need much of a time commitment to them. You can come and go as you please and it doesn't matter if you miss this or that lesson since it's all pretty much the same thing you already know anyway. 3. Along those same lines, there is little to no work required in thinking through hard biblical things that are taught to you because nothing hard from the Bible is taught unless it's already an aspect of what most people believe. 4. They're everywhere. You can find churches that will give you fast food Christianity on every street corner. They're a dime a dozen (or should I say they're 7 in a 11?). They're easy to reproduce everywhere because there isn't much that goes into them. 

In contrast to 7-11 churches are what I would call the church of the home-cooked meal. This church is not common and it isn't really open to just anyone, since it exists primarily for the committed Christian. It requires much of his time and energy to engage in the whole counsel of God, some of which is extremely hard to hear and digest. It takes the preparers of the Word much time and energy to bake and prepare that food. If you miss a study, you've missed an essential point in a longer argument that may cause you to misunderstand the entirety of the issue. It therefore requires a time and effort that 7-11 churches simply do not.

Many people say they would rather have a home-cooked meal, and yet, it is clear that although that is ideal in their minds, they are not willing to put in the time and effort to really get one. Fast food is just too convenient and is an easy fix for their cravings. They know what they're getting when they order it. Homemade food may not be what they like that night. They may eat something served up by the preparers that they don't find tasteful. It's easier to just grab that five-day old pizza under the heat lamp. You know what it tastes like already and there is no further commitment than just shoving it in your mouth. 

I think that's why fast food has replaced the home-cooked meal, not because anyone thinks it is better for you but because everyone thinks its a sufficient substitute. Fast forward thirty years later and we're all sick and dying early because it really wasn't. 

Extreme Makeover: Epistemology Edition

 Modern Evangelicals have a variety of terms they use to shut one another down. They may use the term “racist” themselves but they also have their own home-cooked brew of pejoratives. “Legalist!” “Pharisee!” “Arrogant!” “Extreme/Radical!” It’s this last concept I wish to explore here.

The idea that something is radical or extreme is an interesting one because it assumes a standard of normality that is often under scrutiny at the time one makes this claim. In other words, when one presents a view that the other thinks sounds extreme and is labeled as such, he is likely begging the question by doing so. This is the case because whatever is true should actually be the standard, not whatever one is used to.

Unfortunately, the standard of familiarity tends subjectively to assume that whatever a particular person is most used to is the standard and whatever he is least familiar with is extreme or radical.

Now, if one is making the claim because he is appealing to the revealed Word of God using the objective criteria of exegesis to mark the standard of normality then there is nothing arrogant about claiming that something is extreme or radical. However, this is often said before those arguments are put forth, precisely, because that is not usually the appeal. Rather the person assumes that whatever he is familiar with, whether from tradition, “soundslikegesis,” what he was taught previously by various teachers in the church, etc., is the norm and whatever goes too far beyond it is extreme/radical.

I cannot stress the amount of arrogance that this subjective criteria musters in order to make a claim that is not rooted in exegesis. It is likely the case that we have many blind spots and simply fail to realize in our desire to preserve our personal beliefs we tend to make appeals to things we should not.

Whatever the reason may be, the person doing this, ironically, may actually be the one holding a radical or extreme position that deviates too far from or even completely contradicts the true norm that only has the possibility of being found by employing all of the objective tools of exegesis.

If evangelicals are to get past their cult they must make a radical shift, an extreme makeover, in evaluating how they are actually arriving at their norms.

Discerning Charges of Arrogance in Biblical Interpretation

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man isn’t king, he’s an arrogant jerk. That’s because if no one sees what he sees then to boldly make a truth claim concerning the nature of reality is to be arrogant in the opinion of the masses if that truth claim should be contrary to what everyone else might believe.

Unfortunately, we are all the products of Enlightenment inclusivism whether we like it or not. What that means is that anyone claiming to know a truth that excludes the opinions of others will be seen as an arrogant tyrant who lifts himself up over others. This is especially true of religious knowledge.

This is because, in the Enlightenment, it was argued that religion cannot be known in any sort of objective manner. Hence, one could only subjectively take hold of what was religiously true based on his or her experience. Since no one could really know what was religiously true, anyone claiming to know it was arrogant, thinking that their subjective experience is better than someone else’s because they must be assuming that they are smarter, more spiritual, more righteous, or more important in some way.

In the Post-Enlightenment Era in which we find ourselves today, this assumption is deeply rooted in our ideas concerning religious truth claims and our concept of arrogance. Religious relativism is the religion of the humble. Exclusive dogma is the religion of the arrogant.

To make any sort of truth claim about religion that excludes and rejects the validity of the religious truth claims of others is to lift oneself up as superior. Hence, what is really important is how one speaks, not the content of what one says. One must speak in a manner that concedes to the validity of other religious truth claims that contradict one’s own. This is what the humble man does because, as said before, only the arrogant man would think that his subjective experience is better than another’s. He must never claim that he knows what is true if that truth should claim that others, especially the majority, are wrong.

Hence, to claim, for instance, that Christ is the only way of salvation will be met with accusations of arrogance toward the one who makes that claim. These accusations run something to this effect: “Who are you that you think you’re so special as opposed to all of these other people, the majority, who don’t believe what you do? You must think you’re better than they are. How could so many others be wrong? Most people in the world don’t believe that. You’re holding a minority view. If you personally believe that, that’s fine; but say it in a way that acknowledges that the ideas of others that contradict yours are just as valid.”

The same conversation can be repeated for virtually any religious belief, since all beliefs automatically infer an exclusion of any truth claims that contradict them.

Evangelicals, although willing to be labeled arrogant for what they consider essential, have largely adopted this stance toward any religious truth claim that falls outside of what they personally think is not only clearly true but in their minds universally held. Hence, to make the claim that one knows the right interpretation of a particular biblical text that falls outside what is considered essential is to be arrogant. The same types of arguments are made but within the framework of Christian essentials. “Who are you to say such and such is true. So and so has a different opinion and so do many others. You must think you’re better than them, smarter than them, godlier than them, but they are really smart and godly too. You must be arrogant for saying that you know what is true and that they are wrong.”

Now, let me say that it is possible that the accusation of arrogance toward such a person is true. However, it is often assumed to be true when, in fact, it is not. What must decide the matter for us are two essentials pieces of knowledge that must be considered first. These are (1) Is the person’s claim to know the religious truth claim that rejects the opinions of others as false based on subjective or objective criteria? And (2) Does the Bible condemn as arrogant exclusive truth claims made upon the basis of objective or only subjective criteria?

Let’s deal with the first question first. There is a stark difference in biblical interpretation when someone practices exegesis as opposed to what I would call “soundslikegesis.”

 Exegesis is when one looks at the objective evidence of lexicography, grammar, syntax, literary context, genre, audience background, and the objective reasoning of logical and linguistic principles in order to interpret a passage. There is no appeal to the self. The interpreter is not saying that he thinks this text says such and such because he is better in some way, smarter, godlier, more important, superior, etc. He is concluding what can and cannot be the correct interpretation of the passage based upon objective evidence and many times that objective evidence excludes other interpretations that have not taken into consideration everything above and have therefore concluded falsely.

Conversely, “soundslikegesis” is where someone believes that his or her interpretation of a passage is just as valid as someone who has used all of the objective tools above to discover the correct interpretation without him or herself using any of those objective tools above to do the same. In other words, this individual is merely looking at the passage and thinking that it sounds like it is saying something to him, and since he is who he is, his interpretation is just as valid as those of anyone else, learned or otherwise.

The first person is using an objective criteria that is outside of himself. The second person is using a subjective criteria that assumes that he has all that he needs to interpret the passage correctly since he is who he is. Whether this is because he is a Christian and he believes all Christians have some special spiritual insight into Scripture, or because his life experiences or traditions put him on par with the scholar using objective criteria, this person thinks that he should be included in the list of those with valid interpretations.

Now let’s answer the second question. What does the Bible consider arrogant? All of the above? None of the above? I would argue that it considers the last man arrogant and not the first. In order to claim this, let me briefly describe what the Bible considers arrogant.

One can be arrogant in one of two ways in the Bible.

The first way that one can be arrogant is that he can think that his opinions are linked to God directly and therefore the Bible is more of a suggestion book than a divine instruction that is absolute. In this regard, this person either ignores a biblical teaching because although he or she does believe it is right, he does not think it is necessary to hold, or he blatantly rejects a biblical teaching as wrong. This is to lift oneself up over God's Word in some way. This man is contrasted with the humble man who trembles at God’s Word (e.g., Isa 66:1-2).

The second way a mere human can be arrogant is by thinking that he is better than other people. He is superior in some way in that he is more important than another Christian (e.g., Phil 2). In this regard, I would say that the man using subjective rather than objective criteria is arrogant for thinking that his opinions and interpretations of Scripture are valid just because he holds them. Since he is just as good as anyone else and maybe even better, his opinions are just as good as anyone else's.

The one using objective criteria isn’t making a claim based on his equality or superiority in some way. It isn’t based on who he is. It is based on the objective criteria of exegesis. The objective criteria functions as an eye in the land of the blind, not some personal trait or quality that he inherently has.

Ironically, it is often the one practicing “soundslikegesis” who is calling the scholar using objective criteria “arrogant” because he is making a religious truth claim that excludes the views of others who may be just as godly, smart, or important. The mistake is in thinking that our biblical interpretations should be rooted in any of these subjective criteria in the first place. One might even say it is arrogant to assume that they are. But there I go again, arrogant jerk that I am, using that one eye of mine to describe reality.

The Tragedy of Evangelicalism for Those Who Enter Reformed Churches from Their Ranks

 The true tragedy of Evangelicalism and its lack of teaching a full worldview to those who grow up within it is not necessarily that people grow up in it unaware of how much of their lives had been wrecked by not knowing all sorts of biblical things they needed to know. The real tragedy instead is that coupled with the lack of having been taught a full worldview, evangelicals often assume they already have the standards they need to discern what is Christian and what is not, what is right and what is wrong, what is true and what is false. 

In other words, the real tragedy is the assumption of understanding the whole of Christianity when only a part of it has been taught. This is the Dunning-Kruger Effect. It is the tendency for all humans to assume that when they have been given some knowledge of an area of study, when they do not realize the vastness and complexity of the field, they tend to assume that they have a sufficient understanding of that field enough to make all sorts of judgments based upon that now assumed expertise. We see this in college courses where students may take something like Philosophy 101 and suddenly think that they are experts in the field of philosophy, or when seminary students take Greek 101, all of a sudden, they are biblical scholars (which is why you will often hear the statement that a first-year Greek class has enough Greek to be dangerous now).

Even though this can be true of any field (think about how we're all doctors in our own minds because we have so much medical information available to us) it is most true of religion due to arguments given by certain philosophers in the Enlightenment arguing that religion cannot be evaluated empirically but only experientially. We have an assumption that religious opinions can neither be confirmed nor contradicted. Postmodernity has assumed this argument in its general feeling that religion is personal and cannot be judged by anyone outside of oneself. To do so is arrogant because it lifts one's experience over another's. 

What this means for evangelicals is that the little knowledge that has been given to them is assumed to be sufficient to judge any other teaching that comes their way. The problem is that Evangelicalism does not teach a full worldview and what this ultimately means is that where it does not teach a Christian worldview, the culture's worldview remains intact and even syncretized with Evangelicalism. What this further entails is that evangelicals are believing and practicing things that the wicked world practices because they were never taught that these things are not consistent with a Christian worldview.

Now, that is not yet the tragedy. Anyone can recover from being taught falsely. The problem is that many have come to believe that they do not need to be retaught and instead use their culture's beliefs, which they believe are consistent with Christianity, to judge everything that now comes down to them from the pulpit of Reformed churches that are teaching a full Christian worldview. in other words, they have standardized many of their previous beliefs and practices and have made them the measure of anything they hear from now on.

Because they have already come to believe that what they know and practice is Christianity itself, everything else will be pulled through the grid of that insufficient, and often syncretized, worldview. What often happens then is a conflict takes place between the evangelicals and the Reformed churches into which they enter because what they are now being taught is contrary to what they had already thought to be good and true. Some will realize they had not been taught the full counsel of God and avoid this trap. Many others, however, will either cause dust ups in the church or just leave quietly. Either way, these latter two groups will not tolerate the fuller worldview that contradicts their previous one.

The tragedy, therefore, is that Evangelicalism, by teaching people that what they're hearing is Christianity, causes people to believe that they know what Christianity does and should teach, and by doing so, closes them off from being open to a fuller Christian worldview.

The worldview of Christianity that they were taught is normative to them. The worldview of Christianity that they were not taught, and runs counter to things they have already adopted as good or true, sounds crazy to them. It's extreme. It's radical. It sounds like a cult. No one wants to be a part of a crazy cult. They want the normal Christianity with which they are familiar or imagined as ideal based on their present understanding that makes them feel safe. They assume that there is a safety in numbers, so if most evangelicals do or do not believe something, it must be safe to assume that they've landed on the right position. Likewise, many of our reformed churches even are recovering evangelical churches and have themselves not come fully to a Christian worldview. It is thought that there is safety in those numbers as well. 

Instead, I would suggest that evangelicals start with the assumption that they do not understand Christianity rather than with the assumption that they basically have gotten it. This will help with learning new things that may sound crazy if one already assumes the absoluteness of its opposite. In fact, I would suggest that we all do this regardless of how much you think you already know. We are all under God's Word. It is God who grants understanding of it and He does so through the teachers of the church; but those teachers themselves must approach it with fear and trembling. It is no plaything with which he feed our egos. If it says, "Jump," we should say, How high?" not, "I've never heard it tell me to jump before so I think that's nuts and won't do it." 

We are all recovering from a worldview that runs contrary to God's Word and are often unaware of it. The worst thing one can do is dig his heels in before honestly and openly hearing out Christian teachers who are also seeking to believe and present a fuller biblical worldview in their ministries. 

In this regard, even though we often view Evangelicalism as a steppingstone to further growth, it is often a stumbling block instead, and this is the tragedy of those who are brought up in it. It prevents people from being teachable, and tragically, they are often unaware that the previous evangelicalism that had trapped them in false beliefs is still doing so even when the movement has been left behind.

I've often argued that this is really the only way to be a heretic. Most of us believe heretical ideas in our early Christian life simply because we weren't corrected until later concerning them. The heretic, however, is not merely one who believes heresy but rather one who refuses to be corrected in his heresy. In fact, church discipline is only done upon those who are unteachable. They refuse to acknowledge and repent of their sin but if they had been open to the church's teaching about that sin there would be no church discipline needed. We might then say that being unteachable is the only unpardonable sin, as if the Pharisees had been teachable to the Spirit of God they would not have blasphemed Christ. To be unteachable to God's Word through God's church is, therefore, the one sin that Christians should fear the most. It hardened Pharaoh's heart, caused Judas to betray Christ, and has brought about the damnation of Popes. 

So this is a lament, I guess, for the evangelicals caught in the trap of the Evangelicalism that did not provide the needed worldview to create Christian standards of discernment but rather only the illusion that no further or contrary standards are necessary. May God turn all of our hearts of stone into hearts of flesh and open the eyes of the blind that we might truly see the light of His glory in all things. And may He do away with the stumbling block of partial-Christianity and replace it with the fullness of His whole counsel. 

What Song Is That?

Have you ever had a tune stuck in your head that you just couldn't stop playing in your head? What's worse is when you get an awful song in your head that you can't get out of it. The words are on repeat even when you're not conscious of it. The tune is on your tongue. This is likely why the words of the song that warns children everywhere says, "Oh be careful, Little Eyes what you see. Oh be careful, Little Ears, what you hear." 

In a similar way, we each have songs in our heads that have been taught to us by the world. Everyone is singing one song or another with their explicit ideas or humming one tune or another with their attitudes and actions. 

When it comes to the song that Christian women are to sing and hum, it is made very clear in Titus 2 that it is one of a husband-lover and a child-lover. Look at those words carefully. It does not say to be one who is married and has kids. It says that one is to become the very essence of a husband and child lover. This means that the song that is sung in one's explicit declarations and the tune hummed by one's attitude and actions is the song of love for husband and children. 

This would make sense since the woman is saved through childbearing (1 Tim 2:15), that the command given before all commands is to "be fruitful in order to multiply, multiply in order to fill up the earth, fill up the earth in order to subdue it and subdue it in order to rule over it," and that the very image of God, the instrument of God to accomplish this goal of filling up the earth with covenant children is expressed then in having "other sons and daughters" (Gen 5). 

The world has a different song to sing, however, and it sings it loudly. It wants you to sing along. It is a hater of husbands and children. It wants you to roll your eyes at your pathetic husbands and to express how awful the burden of children is. It may be Ok with your expressing that you think your current children are worth it, you know, after you express what a burden they are; but it wants you to follow that up by statements such as, "I definitely don't want any more." Nothing makes children feel more loved than your saying how much you love them but how awful it would be to have any more of them. I personally say that about things I love too (e.g., time with my wife, money, love itself, the security of having food and shelter, forgiveness and peace with God), you know, all the things we only want a little of because we love them so much. If we love it, our motto is "a little dab will do ya."

It is now the weekend after a holiday we call "Thanksgiving," yet nothing but ingratitude for having children is often expressed by Christian women and far worse than this is that there is little thought of whether one is obeying the command to "teach the younger women to be lovers of husbands and lovers of children," to sing God's song to one another, in what they are communicating to one another. When Christian women get together they have an opportunity to lift up God's Word that proclaims children to be a blessing and that the quiver that is full of them is blessed by God. Instead, it is often used as an opportunity for the world to play its broken record yet again. If the same song you can hear at any pagan gathering is sung at our Christian fellowships something might be off.

I get it. It takes time for Christians in our day to understand what's happening. Many are recovering evangelicals and have been taught worldly ideas through it. Evangelicalism sings the same song as the world because Evangelicalism is a Christian cult, not an orthoprax Christian movement. Like any cult it has incorporated Christian ideas into it but not all Christian ideas. It warps certain ones to give a false worldview that is not consistent with the Christian song that has been sung for two thousand years (and I would argue from the beginning of time among God's people). Evangelicalism simply sings a different song on this matter than the church has always sung. It is incumbent upon recovering evangelicals to relearn that song and to sing and hum it everywhere.

I get that children are hard to bear. They are a burden. The world, however, teaches us that they are a burden not worth bearing and that is what must be corrected by God's Word. I used to be impoverished and went around calling my children "my gold." It is clear, however, that many consider children something much less than that. Whether a burden is worth bearing really depends upon what you think that burden is. Gold is worth bearing. More worthless items may not be. Perhaps if children were seen at least as valuable to women as money, time, and sleep it would be considered an even trade. Perhaps if they saw children as more valuable than those things, there would be a joy and praise in their music that is often otherwise absent. Instead, we get the dirge because children aren’t worth it in the eyes of the world’s fallen composer.

But when Christian women complain about children or bemoan the prospect of having more of them what they inadvertently sing is the world's song and the devil loves it. His goal is less covenant people, not a filling up of the earth with them. Everywhere and always he has tried to convince the world to sing his song. From Atra-Hasis to Margaret Sanger, he is relentless. The hardship of joining with God to create life in this world is brought on by him that we might give up, not only in seeing the good of it in our minds but believing the good of it in our attitudes and actions. 

Let me end with a little biography of myself, since I too have been on this journey out of Kinderhassville. Everywhere I went, whether churches or schools, pastors and professors alike would tell me that my gifting to understand the Bible was not common and that they thought I was meant to do something great in the world because of that ability. Students at my schools would say it. I had an old mentor who was in charge of an international ministry call me out of the blue one day after not seeing him in decades and tell me that he had been praying over a mountain of people in his life and my name came up as one who was supposed to do something great. He died a week later as if it indicate that God had this one thing left for him to tell me. So many people thought I would be this great reformer of the modern church. I believed it myself right up until the point when I was made sick at an early age in my career, impoverished, and thrown into obscurity. While in exile, I tried hard to reestablish that path, thinking that this was simply one more obstacle in the way to this great ministry God had for me. Whether studying or writing, I attempted to reacquire what I thought had been lost. All the while my children would constantly interrupt me with things they thought were important. They would come in and sit on my lap and tell me about something they were doing or ask me a question of some sort. The feeling that I could do so much more and be so much better without these interruptions would constantly come over me. But eventually one's theology trickles down to his attitudes and I began to hum a different tune because I began to have a different song playing in my head. My children were my ministry. They were the place of reformation. Their interruptions were God's regular daily schedule for me, giving me opportunities to teach them the gospel and disciple them. I wish I had understood it earlier. Many a thing was destroyed and many an opportunity wasted because I was confused as to where and upon whom the currency of my time in life was to be spent.

I will not likely be the great reformer everyone thought I was going to be. I'm nowhere near it. I live in obscurity and will likely die there. My reformation is happening at home. My children and the little church at which I shepherd is my ministry, not some global movement. I have been called, not only to sing God's song to them, but to teach them to hum it with joy too. This is my ministry because it is every Christian's ministry, whether they can partake in the act of childbearing and childrearing or not. 

It is my hope that when Christians gather together, especially Christian women, they will be mindful of Titus 2 and sing and hum it to one another, that they would encourage one another in the Lord's creational work rather than discourage one another from it.

The world works hard now to blast its music through whatever speakers it finds willing. It works hard to get Christians to join its choir. All you need to do is to not be critical of its song but to be sympathetic toward it, to basically agree with it, to hum its tune. But be careful, Little Ears, what you hear, and, O Christian, be careful, Little Mouth, what you sing.

Which View of the Image of God Is More Consistent with Christian Orthodoxy?

 If the ontological image of God is moral responsibility and decision making, intellect, relational, etc. then is not man also made in the image of anything else that has those qualities? Does he not image the devil? Demons? Angels? Even other men? What special relationship is there between man and God if man also images all of these other beings too? 

Is it not that man is physical and these others are spiritual? Is that not the difference between them all? But is not that also the difference between man and God? So how is it that man's physical nature can be God's image?

Most of these advocates don't believe that man images God physically, as that would make God physical in their minds, since they think that the word "image" means "reflection in some way." But this is part of the problem. The word "image" does not mean "reflects an appearance of" or "looks like in some way" to where we can only look at spiritual qualities of God and see how the relate to us.

The word "image" here refers to a cult image. A cult image is a physical image that provides a medium for the god to work in the world. Through this physical image, the deity uses it to create order in a particular area, in his temple and then in the city in which the temple resides. It represents the deity's domain and sphere of rule. From that sphere, chaos is thwarted by the deity's presence and work through the idol/image. But one would have to say that the image of God is functional and not ontological in order to say that man is God's image in his physical nature. In other words, if man is God's image in his physical nature and the word "image" means "looks like" then either the Mormons are right or the word "image of God" refers to man's function as God's physical medium in the world, not something that evidences that man is like God in his ontology in some way.

I think this is a real problem for those who define the image of God the way that they do. They are essentially arguing that man only images God in some spiritual way. which is the adoption of a gnostic view. Man, in his spirit, reflects the divine, but not in his crude or evil physical form. 

Hence, it seems that the functional view would be the view more in line with orthodoxy and the ontological view assumes a gnostic view of man, where his physical nature must be disregarded when speaking of the image ontologically. 

They All Have Become ἄχρηστος

 Romans 3:12 argues that humanity all together has become achreiow, a word translated as "worthless." Someone arguing on FB for the inherent value of man found other English glosses that he thought fit his argument better to where it was translated as "unprofitable" or "unserviceable." 

Now, this is a distinction without a difference if this debate is known well. The entire point is that if man is unusable for any service or unprofitable for any service then the word is conveying the same thing by being translated "worthless." 

Here is the BDAG entry for both the verb and noun.

ἀχρειόω (s. ἀχρεῖος) (t.r., S., Vog.; by-form ἀχρεόω Tdf., W-H., M., Bov., N25; SIG 569, 31; s. B-D-F §30, 2) 1 aor. inf. ἀχρειῶσαι LXX; 3 pl. pf. ἠχρείωκαν Da 6:21. Pass. 1 aor. ἠχρεώθην; pf. ptc. ἠχρειωμένος (Philo Mech. 60, 16; Polyb. 3, 64, 8 al.; Vett. Val. 290, 1; OGI 573, 16: LXX; ἠχρειώθησαν Just., D. 27, 3; Theoph. Ant. 2, 35 [p. 188, 29]) in our lit. only pass.

① make useless, outwardly, in symbolism, of damaged sticks Hs 8, 3, 4.

② of becoming a liability to society because of moral depravity become depraved, worthless of pers. Ro 3:12 (Ps 13:3; 52:4).—M-M.

ἄχρηστος, ον (s. χρηστός, χράομαι; Theognis+) pert. to not serving any beneficial purpose (in Gr-Rom. society gener. pert. to lack of responsibility within the larger social structure, s. antonyms εὔχρηστος, χρηστός) useless, worthless, perh. in wordplay on the name Onesimus and certainly w. the term εὔχρηστος (as Hv 3, 6, 7; cp. Hs 9, 26, 4; Jos., Ant. 12, 61) Phlm 11 τόν ποτέ σοι ἄ. who was once useless to you (ἄ. τινι as EpArist 164); ἄ. of a slave Epict. 1, 19, 19 and 22 (cp. wordplay χρήσιμον ἐξ ἀχηρήστου Pla, Rep. 411a). W. περισσός Dg 4:2.—Hv 3, 6, 2; Hs 9, 26, 4; ὀξυχολία ἄ. ἐστιν ill temper leads to no good m 5, 1, 6.—DELG s.v. χρή. M-M. TW.

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 160). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Man is worthless in terms of his function, and is, therefore, worthless in terms of his form. That is the point of it. 

If gold is no longer valuable due to its servicing function, it is no longer valuable, period. But one might say, "If gold were to lose its monetary value, it could still be used for other things. But that is to say that it is not rendered unserviceable but rather merely had a change of service. So this is not what the word means. Another might say, "Well, even though the gold has no other function, it can still be valuable to the owner. But this is a misunderstanding as well. If it is pleasing in its appearance or just in its existence to the owner then it is serving a function and is, therefore, serviceable/functional/valuable. Changing the translation with other synonyms does not help the case. 

Likewise, the Hebrew word it is translating in Psalm 14:1 is the word שָׁחַת, which is something that is ruined in terms of its function. It is rendered useless as it no longer functions for the purpose it was created. 

Man no longer functions in any good way, which is the point of Romans 3:9-18. He, therefore, does not have value as something that is in some way pleasing to God just by virtue of being man (Rom 8:8). He is not pleasing in function, and therefore, has no value in form. 

This may sound awful to our modern ears but I would suggest it is the glory of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We are not like gold that simply has no monetary value but is still valued by its owner due to some inherent worth or delight. We are more like garbage that has no value whatsoever and is good for nothing but to be thrown away.

Instead, God, in His great mercy and love has chosen, without being compelled by some inherent worth or value in man, freely and without attraction to man's worthiness, decided to redeem what was without value and give the worth and value of the Son of God to worthless people. Those who have been redeemed are now the most valuable creatures that could ever exist. Those who are called by the gospel are being offered the inexpressible and exclusive riches of Christ's value to God and may now obtain this free gift through faith in His Son. 

Fallen man is no longer valuable as God's image but he may become so through the One who is most valuable, and as the images of God, instruments of creation and life, Christians, our duty is to express this magnificent offer to everyone everywhere. The barren may become fertile again by the magnificent work of our Lord Jesus Christ.

In this way, I wonder if those who argue so rigorously that man must retain some inherent value realize that they may actually be diminishing the glory of the gospel in doing so. If man is inherently valuable as the image of God then why wouldn't God value him and save him? Who wouldn't buy back some gold? But only a God whose love and mercy is beyond measure buys back garbage and makes it into gold.

Jesus Is More the Image?

 I was reading comments on FB concerning the image of God debate this morning and it seems clear that there is a bit of a confusion concerning ontology and function. The statement was made that Jesus is more the image of God than fallen man, and I immediately thought to myself, "In what way?"

 Likewise, in a recent conversation a couple of my fellow church officer's had at a conference with another conference attendee, I was accused of divorcing ontology/form and function with my view, an accusation of which I was surprised since the exact opposite was going on. It is those who believe that fallen man is God's image who must either slip into a gnostic division between form and function or agree with me that the form should not be called the image of God. Let me explain.

If man is ontologically God's image, he cannot be something else. He can only be what he is ontologically. Since God did not make man in any way the devil's image, he cannot, by nature, be the devil's image, which is to say that he cannot, by nature, be evil.

Now, of course, we do not believe that man's created nature is evil, but this is missing the point. My point is that if man is made as God's image, he can only function that way. He cannot function in any other way.

What this means is that the image must be divorced from any moral quality, as we know that man does become wicked. The image, therefore, cannot have anything to do with God's goodness, a right relationship with God, etc. If it does, then we have a contradiction between form and function. The gills on a fish are breathing air, its fins may fly, and a bird's lungs can breath water. Form and function are linked. No one can act contrary to his ontology because no one has the ability to act beyond his limitations. 

If man is the image of God by nature, however, not only can he not be anything else, he cannot act in accordance with any other nature. That means that if there is a moral quality to the image at all, man must not only remain inherently good, but can do no evil.

This, we know, is not true. So what is really going on here?

I think that what is truly going on is the old "image and likeness" view that some have held in church history due to tacking on an extra image of God to man. The first is that man is the image of God only in certain human abilities. In other words, in a sort of generic humanity. Man can reason, have relationships, make moral decisions, etc. but this generic humanity has no moral quality to it. It is amoral, and therefore, can fall toward the good or the evil. 

Then there is a moral function assigned to the man that is also called the image or likeness of God (some people divorced the words image and likeness in order to support this paradigm), so that man is actually the image of God in two ways, one ontological and one functional. The functional image does not necessarily flow from the formal image because the formal image is generic and we know that man falls and becomes evil in function, so it can only be generic.

Now, here is the issue. If man's abilities, like rationality, being relational, able to make moral decisions, is the ontological or formal image of God, then we must also say that the angels, the devil, demons, etc. are also the formal or ontological image of God. I might even argue that some animals fall into this category, depending upon how we define "moral decision making" and how that might be distinguished from what unbelievers do but I digress. This would be a rather novel doctrine but it follows necessarily if that is the way we define the image. But it also means that saying that someone is the image of God in the formal sense doesn't really mean much. One is merely saying that everyone is a higher created form than anything that does not have those qualities but there is no special relationship in it.

Likewise, I actually affirm that humans are made this way ontologically. My contention has always been that this is never called the image of God in Scripture. Scripture always discusses the image of God as the functional image, so to make up another definition for the term that includes all of humanity is simply applying biblical terminology to something that is never associated with that terminology. 

However, many do not divorce the moral quality of man from the ontological image, and this is both where we have a logical problem and a slip into gnostic thought. Now, to be clear, gnostic thought does not confuse form and function, as these people often do, but rather posits two forms/two ontologies to humanity. Man does evil because he is ontologically evil by nature in his flesh, but he can do good because he is ontologically good in his spirit. So man has two ontological natures, one good and one evil. The reason why this is the case is because he can do good or evil, and since ontology cannot be divorced from function, he must have two ontologies. 

What those who are offering up is that man has an amoral ontology, something with which I would agree, but a moral duty to use that ontology to be in right relationship with God and do good upon the earth as the instrument of God. Again, we all agree. The issue is whether this is also to be called the image of God and only Scripture and logic will help us here.

So what becomes extremely important is understanding what an image is in the ancient Near East rather than assume we know what an image is because our English word for image sounds like Scripture is talking about a reflection or something. An image in the context of a temple (I realize the idea that Genesis 1 is a cosmic temple is another issue) is talking about a cult image of the deity. In fact, leaving behind even the idea that Genesis 1 is a temple, the fact that you would have the phrase "the image of [insert deity]" shows that we are talking about a cultic image. 

So what is a cultic image and how does it function? Imagine someone creating an image for Marduk. He ontologically makes the image in such a way so that it can function as an image. He is making this image for Marduk but let's say someone steals the image and puts it in the temple of Sin, the moon god, in order to function as his image now. It is no longer the image of Marduk even though it was originally made for Marduk. The reason why it can be used this way is because it is not inherently the image of Marduk. It is not ontologically the image of Marduk. It is simply ontologically an image but it can function as either the image of Marduk or the image of Sin or any other god it is used for. 

Now, part of this understanding is knowing that the images in the ancient Near East did not necessarily look like the gods they were imaging. That is why one could have images that were animals that represented various strengths or domains, or it could be made as some sort of human figure that could represent any god, or a combination of both. So the word "image" does not automatically mean "looks like in some way" when we are talking about a cult image. That is an important point that is often misunderstood.

However, if an image was made specifically with ontological qualities where it could only be the image of Marduk and never anything else, then it cannot function as an image for any other god. This is where we run into a problem. If man is the image of God ontologically, then he cannot function as the image of the devil in any way. If man is only an image ontologically, however, who was made to function as the image of God, then man may walk out of God's temple and into the devil's to image him because although the form of being an image is inherent the function of being the image of God is not. The form is being an image so man must image something by nature. Form and function cannot be divorced. But this means that man is not ontologically the image of God but rather an image made to function as the image of God in a right relationship with God as His instrument of creation and good in the world.

This goes back to our FB discussion. If man is formally the image of God, then Jesus cannot be more the image of God in that sense at all. That would mean that He is more than human in His created nature as a man. That would be heresy. Jesus is God as the Creator but He is fully man, not more and not less. 

Likewise, if we are merely saying that Jesus is more the image of God than fallen man because He functions as the image of God, then we would all agree that He is more than but I would say that He is more than fallen man because fallen man does not function as the image of God at all. He functions as the devil's image.

So what is it to really say that Jesus is more the image of God than fallen man but to agree that fallen man is not the image of God? If one says that fallen man still retains some good moral quality to him in his function then we must move on to prove total depravity from Scripture against what is clearly the beginning of Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian anthropology. 

In the mean time, this problem of form and function is resolved by merely allowing Scripture to guide our vocabulary in the matter and categorize the philosophical view of what man is in distinction from other creatures with some other nomenclature.

As a last comment, it is interesting that Reformed folk in general tend to ask the question, "By what standard?" when it comes to legal and ecclesiastical definitions but even if they come to the understanding that the ontological image of God is not biblically attested seem content to use unbiblical definitions of phrases when it comes to this issue.

Why Evangelicalism's View of Essentials Produces Rotten Fruit

Ideas have consequences. I know that should seem obvious but we've so downplayed the importance of ideas today that a reminder doesn't hurt. I'm told there is a sign hung at the entrance to Auschwitz that reads, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." It's a fascinating thing that most evangelicals are staunchly committed to their religious ideas concerning what is essential and what is not, but have little understanding of their own history concerning how they got those ideas. We've all heard the mantra that is falsely attributed to Augustine, "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity." Certainly, in all things charity but what is assumed to be essentials and non-essentials is a matter of debate, and it is a vitally important debate at that.

The story, although severely oversimplifying, is basically this in a nutshell. Liberalism, which adopted the ideas of the Enlightenment, like egalitarianism and inclusivism, did not like the restrictions that Christian orthodoxy placed on the church in light of the philosophical and scientific fads of the day as well as the fatigue of religious infighting stemming from what were considered the "religious wars" and continuing through denominational splintering.  They desired a much more inclusive orthodoxy that had a wider base than what historic Christianity could offer so that everyone could join hands in order to fight the moral decay of the culture due to the undermining of Christianity by secular culture. Coupled with an egalitarian tendency to see authority as tyranny and an inclusive tendency to see doctrine as that which divides, many liberals taught that those who denied what was historically considered to be orthodox was not definitional for who could consider themselves a Christian, even though many of them held to traditionally orthodox tenets themselves.

In fact, one of J. Gresham Machen's points in Liberalism and Christianity is that Liberalism is not a different religion just because it denies certain doctrines. Liberals may affirm every one of what were called "fundamentals." Instead, what made it a different religion is the idea that one could still claim to be a Christian even though he rejected one or more of them. In other words, liberalism is not the denial of certain doctrines but the belief that doctrine should not divide.

Fundamentalism, historically named, was a counter-movement that often missed the mark by attacking liberalism by affirming those things that liberals often denied or claimed were unnecessary to believe as a Christian. Rather than understanding that liberalism was not a denial of orthodox doctrines but a redefinition of orthodoxy that placed a lesser importance on an affirmation of those doctrines, it spent most of its time defending these particular doctrines and not as much time defending the idea that these doctrines were necessary because they were at the foundation of a Christian worldview, which is what was really being attacked. Hence, the foundations were held but the rest of the house was allowed to fall into decay.

As a result, in the 1950's, the Enlightenment worldview displayed itself in the church's adoption of Neo-Evangelicalism in the West. Assuming the liberal ideas of inclusivism and egalitarianism, along with the fundamentals of their parents, Evangelicalism denounced the divisiveness of most doctrines but held to the importance of those their parents had called "fundamentals." In other words, both of the essential components of fundamentalism and assumptions of liberalism concerning doctrine were adopted in order to create what we now see as Evangelicalism. The only rejection of liberalism was that evangelicals did not apply this idea originally to the fundamentals. They just applied it to all other doctrines. 

During this time, what was left behind, was any sort of robust biblical thinking about orthopraxis. This has its roots in the fact that the original disagreement between liberalism and fundamentalism was not over morality, which each largely agreed upon. Over time, however, because of the corrosion of an orthodox Christian worldview within liberalism, its morality also began to change and be conformed to a moral system more consistent with Enlightenment principles of egalitarianism and inclusivism. 

With the advent of Margaret Sanger reversing the Comstock laws and convincing women to take upon more egalitarian roles, liberalism's inability to provide a worldview that stood against these ideas soon simply gave way to them. Quite a few years before Sanger's campaigns, the social gospel was making inroads into the church with its adoption of the universal fatherhood and brotherhood of man, arguing that Christians needed to think about a new view of orthodoxy simply because the old one was in the way of this new Spirit-led social movement.

Fundamentalism had largely adopted a social gospel because it had often had a similar morality to its own, even though its assumptions were largely that of the Enlightenment. It had been against prostitution, contraception, drunkenness, etc. so that fundamentalists felt they could join hands with those who had similar goals of orienting society toward moral purity. 

What this ultimately led to is that even though fundamentalists countered liberalism in its doctrines, it did not largely counter it in its morality until it was too late. This is largely because its morality looked the same for awhile. But its worldview was clearly a foundation that would later give rise to a completely contrary morality to that of historic, Christian orthopraxis. This would soon be understood by fundamentalists to a degree but it would largely be too late. 

This is important to understand because Evangelicalism adopted no view of orthopraxis due to their parents giving to them no idea that there even was one. Orthopraxis was the culture's orthopraxis. Hence, to this very day, evangelicals argue over whether a homosexual can be a Christian because Christianity to an evangelical is defined by the doctrinal essentials and not any ethical essentials that would stem from a necessarily definitional biblical worldview.

What happened as a result of teaching that Christianity could be reduced to these particular doctrinal "essentials" is that evangelicals were left with a vacuum where they needed a worldview in order to make life decisions. In absence of a Christian worldview, of course, the worldview of the Enlightenment, which is the primary religion of our culture, filled that vacuum.

The sexual ethics of evangelicalism became secondary to one's identification as a Christian. As such, people calling themselves Christians could simply disagree about these things. Homosexuality, transgenderism, birth control, and even abortion were all considered in-house debates. In fact, when asked whether abortion should be included as a part of Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority agenda, Falwell replied, "Isn't that a Roman Catholic issue?" Most evangelicals rejoiced a the decision of Roe vs. Wade, as they were as convinced of the social good of abortion as liberalism's social gospel was simply because evangelicalism was void of an orthopraxis when it came to sexuality. Eventually, evangelicals were swayed by an article by John Warwick Montgomery in Christianity Today that argued that abortion was murder and came to adopt, for the most part, that abortion was wrong. Due to the promiscuity created by this void of a Christian worldview in evangelicalism and liberalism, the sexual revolution found its pinnacle in the promiscuity of the 60's and 70's so much so that evangelicals began a counter-campaign of purity culture that attempted to argue that people should wait until marriage. Even with this, however, no robust worldview was offered as to why one should wait. 

Hence, the rebellion of our teenagers, the promiscuity of our culture, and the overall confusion over sexual ethics and the lack of any distinguishable behavior between evangelicalism and the pagans in our culture is directly a result of the thinking that Christianity can be reduced down in its essentials to some core doctrines absent of a fuller biblical worldview that includes both historic orthodoxy and orthopraxis. And as Jesus warned us, bad fruit comes from bad trees, not good ones. You will know the false prophets by their fruit. 

So what I would propose instead of this disastrous experiment that has claimed the souls of so many of our families and bound God's people in so many vices is that we adopt the motto, "In historic Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxis, unity. In historic disagreement within Christianity, patience and tolerance (which deals with the divisiveness issue biblically rather than as Enlightenment inclusivism would). In all things, working toward a biblical worldview with charity." 

The Bible, as adopted by historic Christianity, has given us our essentials (Acts 15:28-29) and they include both doctrines pertaining to worshiping the right God with the right means and practice pertaining to sexuality.

For it seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to us not to place any greater burden on you than these essentials: that you abstain from meat that has been sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what has been strangled and from sexual immorality.

These two components set an essential foundation of orthodoxy and orthopraxis for the substructure of a robust Christian worldview upon which a Christian can build a life of godliness as he understands more and more of God's Word. We must not return to the black hole of evangelicalism simply because it creates an immediate, yet artificial, unity. We must strive toward the slower and more difficultly achieved unity of the faith by speaking truth to one another in love until we are all built up in the truth and love of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The worldview of the Enlightenment is a tree that bears the fruit thereof. It cannot bear the fruit of Christianity even when a few doctrines are thrown on top of it. As the sign says, however, if we fail to know our history, we will in fact be doomed to repeat it.

Earliest Church Fathers on the Neighbor

The reason why the earliest fathers are important, even more important than the later fathers who wrote during and after the fourth century, is because, for most Christian communities, everyone for the most part was considered a professed Christian. This is especially true after the decree of Theodosius in 380 that outlawed all other religion except Christianity but can be said of even the earlier time after Constantine's decree that made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. This remains true pretty much for Western culture up until the Enlightenment (i.e., until after the Reformation). This means that everyone who professed to be a Christian and a part of the church rightly would be considered a neighbor. It is only the earliest period and the period following the Enlightenment that helps us see what Christians have believed concerning the idea of the neighbor and why they have believed it.

Clement: ^“Therefore let our whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each of us be subject to his neighbor, _⌊according to the gift given to him”^[1]

“However, then, we have fallen away and whatever we have done through any insidious plots _⌊of the opponent_⌋,  let us ask that we be forgiven. And those also who became leaders of the rebellion and dissension [i.e., of the church schism] ought to pay careful attention to the common hope. For those who lead their lives with fear and love, they themselves prefer to experience mistreatments rather than their neighbors, and to endure condemnation themselves rather than the harmony being handed down to us rightly and justly.”^[2]

In other words, Clement is saying that the church leaders wronged by the schism would rather be mistreated than to mistreat fellow Christians.

Ignatius: “Therefore you all, having received a divine agreement in your convictions,  have respect for one another, and let no one consider his neighbor according to the flesh, but _⌊always_⌋  love one another in Jesus Christ.”^[3]

“These people, while seeming trustworthy, mingle Jesus Christ with themselves like those who produce a deadly drug with honeyed wine,  which the ignorant one gladly takes hold of in evil pleasure, to his death.  Therefore be on guard against such as these. And so it will be for you, not being puffed up and being inseparable from God,  from Jesus Christ and from the bishop and from the injunctions of the apostles. ² The one who is inside of the sanctuary  is pure, but the one who is outside of the sanctuary is not pure. That is, whoever does anything without the bishop and the council of elders and the deacons, this one _⌊does not have a clear conscience_⌋.  Since I do not know of anything of such a kind among you, but I am protecting you, being my beloved, anticipating the snares of the devil.  Therefore you, adopting gentleness,  regain your strength  in faith which is the flesh of the Lord and in love which is the blood of Jesus Christ. ² Let none of you hold a grudge against his neighbor.”^[4]

Ignatius is talking about being slandered by other Christians and warning the congregation not to hold a grudge against their fellow Christians as these others have.

The Epistle of Barnabas: “You shall share in all things with your neighbor and you shall not say it is your own. For if you are sharers in the incorruptible, how much more in the corruptible?”^[5]

The Martyrdom of Polycarp: “For he waited to be betrayed as also the Lord, in order that we also might be imitators of him not only looking out for _⌊our own concerns_⌋  but also _⌊the concerns of our neighbors_⌋.  ⁵ For true and steadfast love is not only to desire oneself to be delivered, but all the brothers as well.”^[6]

Tertullian: “Recognise also in Him the Judge, and one, too, who expresses Himself on the safety of His followers with the same tenderness as that which the Creator long ago exhibited: “He that toucheth you toucheth the apple of my eye.” Such identity of care proceeds from one and the same Being. A trespassing brother He will have rebuked.⁸ If one failed in this duty of reproof, he in fact sinned, either because out of hatred he wished his brother to continue in sin, or else spared him from mistaken friendship, although possessing the injunction in Leviticus: “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart; thy neighbor thou shalt seriously rebuke, and on his account shalt not contract sin.”¹⁰ Nor is it to be wondered at, if He thus teaches who forbids your refusing to bring back even your brother’s cattle, if you find them astray in the road; much more should you bring back your erring brother to himself. He commands you to forgive your brother, should he trespass against you even “seven times.”^[7]

“He brings no accusation against men’s bodies, of which he even writes as follows: “Putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbor: for we are members one of another. Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: neither give place to the devil. Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands (the thing which is good), that he may have to give to him that needeth. Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good for the edification of faith, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil-speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: but be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ hath forgiven you.”^8[8]

J

---

^[1] Brannan, R. (Trans.). (2012). The Apostolic Fathers in English. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

^[2] Brannan, R. (Trans.). (2012). The Apostolic Fathers in English. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

^[3] Brannan, R. (Trans.). (2012). The Apostolic Fathers in English. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

^[4] Brannan, R. (Trans.). (2012). The Apostolic Fathers in English. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

^[5] Brannan, R. (Trans.). (2012). The Apostolic Fathers in English. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

^[6] Brannan, R. (Trans.). (2012). The Apostolic Fathers in English. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

^[7] Tertullian. (1885). The Five Books against Marcion. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), P. Holmes (Trans.), Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (Vol. 3, p. 407). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

^[8] Tertullian. (1885). On the Resurrection of the Flesh. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), P. Holmes (Trans.), Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (Vol. 3, p. 578). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.