Is Jesus the Only God?

What Does John 1:18 Affirm about Jesus Christ?

 

John 1:18 in NU (Nestle Aland 28/United Bible Societies 4) reads, Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. My literal translation is, “God no one has seen at any time: the one and only God who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has declared [Him].” At issue is the specific phrase μονογενὴς θεὸς, the one and only God. Some MSS read ο μονογενης υιος, the one and only Son. Did John write “the one and only God?” or “the one and only Son?” and what is John affirming about Jesus Christ in writing these words in the first place? It is the goal of this post to explore these two questions, while making every effort to avoid the more technical details of textual criticism. At the same time, however, we will at least be dipping our toes into the waters of the textual issues surrounding this verse, even if we do not go any further than ankle deep.

 

The text in question is significant because it reveals John’s views on the identity of Jesus Christ. Since John’s views in his gospel, his letters, and his apocalypse are all fully inspired by God the Holy Spirit, it follows that John’s text is a divine revelation of God Himself about the identity of the person of Jesus Christ. In addition, John informs us in this text that his view is that the unique God, Jesus Christ, is the one, the only one who has explained God to us. Hence, not only is this text telling us something about the deity of Jesus Christ; it is telling us a great deal about how we are to know and understand the Father! If the consensus understanding of this text is correct, John is telling us that 1) Jesus Christ is the unique God, and 2) He is the only way that human beings can know the Father. By consensus understanding, I simply mean the reading that is in NU (Nestle Aland/United Bible Societies), which is the base translation of most modern English versions.

Bruce Metzger tells us in his commentary that the committee regarded μονογενὴς υιος, which is the easier reading, to be the result of scribal assimilation to Jn. 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9. Scribal assimilation is the attempt on the part of the Scribe to make one reading similar to other readings he is familiar with in the document. The only begotten Son is common language for John while the unique or only begotten God is not. Our goal is to decide which one is most likely the original reading. The sources I believe providing the best information to finally make a decision regarding the text are the early MSS P⁶⁶ and P⁷⁵. Both of these early papyri are part of the Bodmer collection. The former dates to around the middle of the second century while the latter is dated to the late second century. [Comfort, Encountering the MSS]

P⁶⁶ reads, θ̅ν̅ ουδεις εωρακεν πωποται· μονογενης θ̅ς̅ ο ων εις τον κολπον του π̅ρ̅ς̅ εκινος εξηγησατο^[1]

P⁷⁵ reads, θ̅ν̅ ουδεις πωποτε εορακεν ο μονογενης θ̅ς̅ ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο^[2]

 

Without getting into the technical aspects of textual criticism, it is easy to see that neither manuscript contains the phrase μονογενης υιος. The only difference between the two texts is that P⁷⁵ has the article while P⁶⁶ does not. Concerning that issue, Metzger says, “there is no reason the article should have been deleted.” Comfort says, “Even without the knowledge of the two papyri (which were discovered in the 1950s and 1960s) Hort (1876, 1-26) argued extensively and convincingly for the reading μονογενὴς θεὸς. [Comfort, New Testament Text & Translation Commentary] As one will see, the external support for each reading is mixed. It would appear that “the only begotten Son” has more manuscript support, but this is only if one is counting manuscripts. In textual criticism, more important than the number of witnesses is the witness itself. This is why it is an essential element of textual criticism to know and understand the manuscript.

The major manuscripts that support the reading μονογενὴς θεὸς are P⁶⁶ א^* B C^* L, and for ὁ μονογενὴς θεὸς, they are P⁷⁵ א¹ 33. The dates of these manuscripts range from approximately 150_AD (P⁶⁶) to  the eight century (L - Codex  Regius) with most of them dating prior to the fifth century. In fact, Codex Regius is the only manuscript dated later than the early 400s. The variant reading, ο μονογενης υιος, is supported by A C³ K Γ Δ Θ Ψ f^1.13 565 579 700 892 1241 1424 and the Majority text. The earliest of these is A (Codex Alexandrinus) and it dates to the fifth century. C³ is the 3^rd corrected edition of Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus. This manuscript also dates to the fifth century. The remaining manuscripts beginning with K date from the 9^th century and later. Hence, given the weight of internal and external evidence, the reading, μονογενὴς θεὸς, seems to be the preferred reading among textual scholars even though the matter remains largely open for discussion. In other words, while the door is not fully open, it is not closed shut either. Scholars are still discussing the matter even if most of them have made a decision.

With this in mind, it is time to look at the syntax of the text in question. Syntax is the study of how words within a unit relate to one another. The question of how we should interpret the phrase now comes into view. The relationship of the adjective μονογενὴς with the noun θεὸς tells us that John viewed Jesus as the unique God, the one unique God. The anarthrous construction tells us that μονογενὴς is an attributive adjective modifying θεὸς. Some translations render it the only begotten God. Wescott comments, “But the best-attested reading (μονογενὴς θεός) has the advantage of combining the two great predicates of the Word, which have been previously indicated (v. 1 θεός v. 14 μονογενής).”^[3]

 

Lukaszewski classifies it as a Casus Pendens Clause, which is, “An classic Semitic construction, it is found Greek under the name of a suspended nominative phrase, often called the nominative absolute, or simply as a form of anacoluthon.”^[4]

 

This construction is more common in John that in the Synoptics. [BDF $466]

This is a theologically rich text, deserving of more consideration than a blog post can give it. It sums up John’s prologue, beginning with 1:1 where John refers to the Logos as existing at the beginning with πρὸς τὸν θεόν, and then identifies the Logos as θεὸς. In verse 14, he introduces the word μονογενοῦς to describe the Man Jesus Christ and then here in verse 18, he brings the two concepts of μονογενοῦς in v. 14 and θεός in v. 1 together as he concludes his prologue. We are reminded of John’s purpose for writing his gospel in John 20:31, “but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” John seems to be opening his account of the life of Christ as if he were arguing a case. And 20:31 explicitly affirms this to be the true.

The first truth one discovers about the person of Jesus Christ is that John affirms that He is in fact, God. There is far more here than I can hope to explore in this post. Hence, I am restricted to identifying those things that stand at the front of the text. Merrill C. Tenney comments in a footnote in his commentary, “there can be no doubt that this text also asserts the deity of Christ.” [EBC, 34n18] Lenski writes, “the simple truth is that John is revealing to us who Jesus Christ really was: the Logos, true God, begotten of the Father from eternity.”^[5] The preponderance of the evidence for this verse indicates that John is unapologetically affirming that Jesus Christ is the one unique God. Over the past several decades many theories have arisen asserting that there were several “Christianities” existing in antiquity and that orthodoxy just happens to be the version that won out. Craig Bloomberg says of this hypothesis, “This whole approach is deeply flawed and, as is the case in so much of this debate, reflects anachronism and exaggeration.” [Bloomberg, Fabricating Jesus] In his book on the same subject, Ben Witherington III writes, “Perhaps a better set of questions might be, what is it about our culture that makes us prone to listen to sensational claims about Jesus and his earliest followers, even where there is little or no hard evidence to support such conjectures?” [Witherington, What Have They Done with Jesus?] According to John, Jesus was the one and only unique God, the one who is the closest to the Father, and He is the one who has declared the Father to us. One should not miss the point that John’s view is that Jesus is the only one in a position to explain God to us. John also informed us that he wrote these things so that we might believe and have life. Hence it follows that believing is tied to believing what John wrote. In other words, life only comes by faith. And faith only comes by reading these things and hearing them. In other words, our personal eternal state is dependent on receiving the things that John has written. And John wrote that Jesus is God.

The second truth that John reveals concerns Jesus’ mission on earth. The implications are far-reaching. John informs us in v. 18 that our knowledge of God is insufficient. No one has ever seen God at any time. There is a barrier between God and man and hence, a chasm between true knowledge of God and man’s knowledge of God. This is a serious problem for man. Without true knowledge of God, life is impossible and death is certain. John does not leave us hopeless. He tells us in no uncertain terms that Jesus Christ has ἐξηγήσατο the Father to us. This word is where we get our English word, “exegesis.” John is informing us that Jesus Christ has explained the Father! The word means to make fully known, to inform, to provide detailed information. Prior to Jesus Christ, the revelation of God was veiled and incomplete. Previous revelation pointed to a fuller revelation to come. Calvin writes, “Nevertheless, all things will tend to this end, that God, the Artificer of the universe, is made manifest to us in Scripture, and that what we ought to think of Him is set forth there, lest we seek some uncertain deity by devious paths.” [Institutes, V. I, 71] Jesus Christ Himself has shown us the Father. And that revelation itself is contained in the revelation that is Holy Scripture. In essence, one revelation contains the other. Francis Turretin observes, “Christ is our only teacher (Matt. 23:8) in such a sense as that the ministry of the word is not thereby excluded, but necessarily included because now in it only he addresses us and by it instructs us. Christ is not set in opposition to the Scriptures; rather he is set in opposition to the false teachers of the Pharisees who ambitiously assumed the authority due to Christ alone.” [Turretin, Institues, V. I, 59] Without the Word from God, we will surely perish because the very knowledge of God that brings life depends upon our ability to know and understand His Word. Keep that in mind the next time an ignorant fool claiming to know and love Christ opens his mouth to reduce or detract from the significance of divine revelation. The accusation of bibliolatry is most often leveled by enemies of the cross, not friends. Anytime anyone speaks negative about Scripture in any way, it should serve as the reddest of red flags.

The apologetic practical implications of this text are just as noteworthy as the theological ones mentioned above. To begin with the apologetic implications, it is significant that all true knowledge of God is derived only through Scripture. While it is true that man knows God apart from special revelation in Scripture, that is, in the natural order of things, it is also true that that knowledge is always perverted by the sinful intellect. That knowledge, while sufficient for culpability, is insufficient for eternal life. Contrary to William Lane Craig, the gospel is not found in natural revelation. Natural theology is a falsehood that is nowhere advocated in Scripture. Because all knowledge is indelibly linked to ultimate reality, it is impossible to divorce the two as many philosophers do. You cannot escape having some idea of reality bound up in your views on what passes for knowledge. Since God is ultimate reality, our knowledge must begin with the reality of God. Hence, man’s dependence on God for all knowledge leads us to the conclusion that all knowledge of God is revelational for the believer and unbeliever alike. John 1:18 informs us that Jesus Christ Himself has revealed God to us. The person of Jesus Christ is the key to any and all true knowledge of God. Since God is ultimate reality, we can know nothing apart from knowledge of God. Not only does John 1:18 pin the redemptive hopes of all mankind on the person and work of Jesus Christ, he pins all hope of any true knowledge on Christ as well.

What are the practical implications? For believers, we are obligated to believe all that Scripture teaches. Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ is God and that He and He alone has explained God to us. That explanation has come to us by the revelation of the inspired text. Hence, we are duty bound to embrace it, to teach it, and to defend it. In order to know God, we must know Christ. Christ brings God to us. Without Christ, we are without God. Christ reveals God to those whom He pleases even if that does not exactly please us. This is true even if we cannot always understand it. Every human being who hears what Christ has explained and taught about the Father has an obligation not to question it, but instead, to receive it with all humility. God commands men to repent on the basis of the resurrected Christ who has explained the Father to all of us. Paul tells us that the fact of the resurrected Christ will serve as God’s basis for judging the entire human race.

---

^[1] Philip Wesley Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 2001), 389.

^[2] Philip Wesley Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 2001), 568.

^[3] The Gospel According to St. John Introduction and Notes on the Authorized Version, ed. Brooke Foss Westcott and Arthur Westcott, Classic Commentaries on the Greek New Testament (London: J. Murray, 1908), 15.

^[4] Albert L. Lukaszewski, The Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament Glossary (Logos Bible Software, 2007).

^[5] R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), 97.

Social Media and the Christian Ethic

Survey Says Social Media a Source of Rising Incivility

According to a recent article in the Christian Post, social media has become a source of growing incivility. According to a survey by Vitalsmarts, 19 percent of respondents have decreased their offline contact with someone because of something that person said on social media. An alarming 35 percent reported blocking or unfriending someone because of a disagreement they had on social media. One source believes that one solution is for “manners to catch up to technology.” After all, social media is a form of human communication. Since all human communication is behavior, it follows that all social media falls under the rubric of human behavior. All human behavior among Christians is governed by Christian Scripture. Hence, Scripture should inform how we behave on social media.

 

The first step, according to the article, is for Christians to talk about the behavior. This is certainly a good first step. My experience has been that Christians, even supposedly reformed, conservative Christians ignore any attempts to talk about civil behavior on social media. In fact, I have been told by some that any attempt to address incivility is not civil itself, making any conversation on the subject virtually impossible. Perhaps we should have a rating system of sites that are deemed to pass the grade of Christian civility. This way, Christians could go to that site and visit only those internet sites that are rated 4 or 5 stars and avoid the rest.

 The second solution the article offers is that Christians need to self-appoint themselves as judges or monitors. When they see behavior that violates the standards, they need to step in and point it out. This would be an excellent way to keep conversations civil. The issue is finding people who are willing to do that on sites where a handful of people rip others to shreds. The problem is that other viewers are worried that they will become the next target of the cyber-space bullies.

 88 percent of respondents said that people are less polite on social media than they are in person. Based on my experience with two supposedly Christian websites, I can say that this is very consistent with what I have encountered personally. There is no question that the behavior I have witnessed would never go on in Sunday school or Bible Study, not even for a second. This tells me that people really do know better.

The sad truth is that I have encountered some of the least civil people I know on Christian websites in forums that are supposed to promote open and free dialogue. The problem enters when the conversation steps into areas of authority. However, one must question how Christians can speak about most subjects without at the same time touching the issue of authority. What I mean is that if we are discussing human sexuality as an example, the authority of Scripture necessarily comes into view. Such authority forces us onto the sacred ground of judging and violates the greatest command of all relativists: thou shalt never judge anything for any reason, no matter what! The larger problem at issue, of course, is the threat that such conversations pose to autonomy and ego.

 American Christians have swallowed, hook, line, and sinker the American idea that everything is about individual choice. We can choose everything just the way we want it. Moreover, such a choice is ours by birth rite and that being a Christian doesn’t make it not so. If we want a divorce, it is our right, Scripture be ignored or at least reinterpreted to accommodate ME. Secondly, we have grown up under the radical notion of hyper self-esteem. The second great command is, you shall feel good about yourself, and everyone and everything that would make you feel bad or less significant in any way is ipso facto of the devil. People believe what they want to believe, not what they must believe. In fact, I am going to make an assertion that has been completely lost on the Church in America. All Christians everywhere are obligated and duty-bound to believe whatsoever the Scripture teaches. Modern, American Christians, especially the young ones who are more prone to social media, are repulsed by such talk. Others may give it lip service until you show them that Scripture clearly teaches something they find repugnant, such as prohibitions against gay marriage, abortion, and premarital sex.

For purposes of this article, these young believers have dispensed with certain Christian values, seeing them as outdated, ancient, and irrelevant. One of those values is Christian civility. Specifically, they have dispensed with Christian civility on social media. Christians are obligated to believe all that Scripture teaches. Scripture teaches that Christians must be civil toward others. Therefore, all Christians are obligated to believe that they must be civil toward others. It is a simple argument.

What does it meant to be civil? Webster tells us that civility means to be courteous and polite. Does Scripture have anything at all to say about the Christian’s obligation to be courteous and polite? Courtesy means to have respect for and consideration of others. When you disagree with a view or criticize a position, you must be able to do so while showing respect and consideration for others. Now, this does not mean that we soften heretical views or immoral conduct. We need not be considerate of heresy or sin. It is to the person that we must display consideration. This sets the definition for civility.

Are Christians obligated to believe all that Scripture teaches? Paul said in 2 Thess. 3:14 that if anyone does not obey his instructions in that letter to the Church, that they were to mark that man and do not associate with him. This can be done without hating someone. The person is simply informed that you do not think their Christianity is genuine, but at the same time, you do not regard them as an enemy. In other words, you do not think of them as an enemy, but you instruct and correct them as if they were a brother. Jesus said those who are of God keep God’s word. Those who do not keep God’s word are not of God. Yes, it is clear from Scripture that Christians are obligated to believe all that Scripture teaches.

Does Scripture teach that we are to be civil? The Greek word prautetos used in 1 Peter 3:16 commands believers not only to be courteous to one another, but even to those who are hostile to the faith. Even our defense of Christian theism must characterized by a gentleness of attitude and behavior, in contrast with harshness. In fact, courtesy is a fruit of the Spirit. This same word is used in Gal. 5:23. Gal. 6:1 tells us that even when we confront sin, we must be courteous. Scripture teaches that courtesy is a trait of those who have been chosen by God (Col. 3:12). Paul told Timothy, as a leader correcting others, that he must be courteous. (2 Tim. 2:25) The same Paul commanded Titus that he was to malign (slander) no one and that he must be courteous (Titus 3:2).

Civility is not down playing egregious error, heresy, or immoral behavior. It is not vacating our responsibility to hold one another accountable for living up to the confessions and the values that all Christians everywhere are obligated to believe and to practice. Civility is respectfully and gently, even if directly, putting one’s finger on the error and insisting on repentance. By insist, I do not mean yell, threaten or anything like that. By insist, I simply mean that we force the choice. There is no middle ground on the position or the behavior. Either the behavior or belief be abandoned or additional correction will follow.

Mock Situation: A person is engaging in some practice that Scripture deems unacceptable for a believer.

Wrong approach: You tell the person that what they are doing is ungodly, that they must be stupid, foolish, or unsaved and that they better repent right now or else. This is uncivil, discourteous, ungodly behavior in itself and makes the corrector no different from the erring believer (which we all tend to be from time to time).

Biblical approach: You tell the person that we are all sinners saved by grace and that we all err from time to time. God’s method for correcting error is community accountability with Scripture. You take the person to Scripture to discuss the error and show them how their behavior is out of step with Scripture. You help them understand their need to change their behavior, all the while recognizing your own sinfulness.

In terms of social media, it is no different. Christian values are not checked at the mouse. When you disagree with someone, your focus is on the position, not the person. If someone claims that a particular doctrine of practice is true or suitable, based on Scripture, it is perfectly acceptable to require them to substantiate it to be so using Scripture. In fact, it is our responsibility to make such requirements on one another. Those who think otherwise fail to comprehend the true impact of sin on the intellect. I can say that a person’s view is heresy without being ipso fact discourteous. But when I call them stupid, or other names in the process of criticizing their heresy, I have crossed the line. It is safe to scrutinize doctrine and arguments for truthfulness and validity. It is not spiritually safe to engage in malicious slander on the internet, in written letters, books, lectures, or any form of human communication. God has forbid all Christians from engaging in such behavior and we are all duty bound and obligated to do as our Creator mandates. If love is not the predominant identifier of Christian communication, then I would suggest that the communication is not distinctly Christian. All those communicating in a manner that is inconsistent with Christian love and civility should take the time to search your heart to see if there is something there that requires immediate and serious attention.

Phil Johnson on "Letting our Light Shine in the Political Realm."

Phil Johnson's good word on proper perspective on political activism

 

What Does Jesus Say about Playing Apologetics?

Dogs and Pigs and Snakes: Oh My!

As I continue to refine my views, not on apologetic method per se, but on the overarching question of doing apologetics, it seems clear to me that something is very wrong in this field. Apologetics has become a form of self-entertainment for the intellectual Christian. Some are so enamored with the field that they even leave aside any hint of love or humility as they engage in battles of intellectual one-upmanship. This is no doubt also true of the skeptic and the atheist. There are men who have repeatedly rejected the Christian faith over the years. Jesus has some harsh things to say about them and some specific instructions for us on how we should relate to them.

In Matthew 7:6 Jesus said, “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.” These words reflect a divine command from the Lord Jesus. It is one of the commands dispensed by our Lord that, in my opinion, receives only the slightest consideration within the Christian community. We continue to engage in the same debates with the same people on the same subjects incessantly. In addition, we evangelize the same person(s) with the same gospel message repeatedly even though they have rejected our message time and again. The question for the believer is how shall we, in modern times, commit to obeying the divine command issued in Matt. 7:6? It seems to me that Christ is telling us that we do not have unbridled liberty to engage in evangelism and apologetics with those He deems to be dogs and pigs. Now, I realize that such analogies are extraordinarily offensive to the senses of our refined cultures. My aim in writing is not to avoid offense, nor is it actually to satisfy people’s demands that I write with a more sophisticated style. My goal is to please God by accurately and clearly stating that which He has divinely revealed to us on Scripture and in nature. In this post, I aim to make the case that evangelism and especially apologetics have cast aside a command that they are obligated to obey. I am not writing merely to have an interesting or intellectually stimulating conversation. What I am saying is that if my understanding of this text is correct, then Jesus Himself does not approve of much of what passes for evangelism and apologetics in conservative Christianity today. And that should give us reason to pause, reflect, and perhaps repent.

To begin, there are no significant textual variants in the text. The language of our Lord is about as direct as it possibly could be. Jesus Christ, the Lord, Master, and founder of our faith, our God, has issued a clear and express divine mandate that we are not to give the holy things to dogs or throw our costly pearls before swine. The command of our Lord falls within the great Sermon on the Mount. These dogs would have been wild dogs in ancient Palestine. With few exceptions, dogs are spoken of as despicable animals in Scripture. They are described as always hungry and always prowling about. They eat whatever is thrown out, to include garbage and attack whatever is helpless. Interestingly, these wild dogs will eat all sorts of rubbish tossed out, even rotting and decaying garbage, but they will snub their nose at pure things and tear those apart who would dare throw such things their way. It is a perfect picture of the reprobate who has heard the gospel repeatedly or the staunch atheist or skeptic who has heard a sound apologetic argument but continues in their resolve to blaspheme God in new and inventive ways. We throw them the bread of life, the gospel of salvation, and instead, they prefer the rotting decay of irrational autonomy.

The disciples were commanded in Matthew 10:14 to shake the dust off their feet when a particular house or city had outright rejected them and their message. In Acts 13:46, Paul and Barnabas, in an outrageous and bold act turn away from the Jews to the Gentiles because the Jews soundly rejected the message. A similar event took place in Acts 18:6 at Corinth. Then again in Acts 19:9, men began speaking evil of the way and Paul took the disciples and walked away. The idea seems to be that outright rejection of the gospel message by a house or a city would classify them as dogs or pigs and we are commanded not to give the holy things to the dogs.

In outright contradiction to this command, we repeatedly give the gospel to the same person who has rejected it repeatedly, thinking that we are justified in doing so. In addition, Christian apologists seem to revel in engaging the same skeptic who has repeatedly insulted Christ and the Christian faith over and over as if there is no harm in it. Let’s take Richard Dawkins as an example. Mr. Dawkins has insulted Christ for years. He has repeatedly belittled the Scripture, God, faith, and anything that has anything to do with Christian theism. Should we continue to provide Mr. Dawkins with entertainment? Every time an apologist gives him something holy, Dawkins tramples it, and then turns to insult the one who gave it to him. Is this what Christ had in mind when He said do not give what is holy to the dogs? If it difficult to imagine what else He could have meant.

Let’s be perfectly clear about what I am arguing here. I am not suggesting that we do not train the Church in the views of skeptics so that they will be able to intelligently interact with such philosophies at some general level. I am also not suggesting that we stop writing about these views. I think the Church needs as much help as she can get in understanding these attacks. We need to help one another see just how foolish they tend to be. I am also not suggesting that we stop publishing books and recording lectures on the topics. What I am suggesting is that we begin obeying our Lord's command by refusing to play the apologetics and debate game with these individuals. They are clearly not seeking truth. They clearly want the entertainment of debate. They like to argue. They revel in intellectual pugilism. The Christian’s goal is obedience. Our goal is to think like God in the sense that we humble submit our intellect to His design, thinking His thoughts after Him. We must avoid the intellectual seduction of debate for the sake of debate. We must refuse to play these games and stop thinking that we have a right to cast the holy things of God to those that God Himself has said must not receive them.

What should we do with men like Dawkins? We should not debate him. We should not interact with him at all in fact, other than in passing and being polite as we would any other stranger. Should Dawkins come with a notably different attitude, sincerely inquiring with a remarkably different spirit, perhaps some engagement would be merited. Perhaps God is bringing him to faith. The point is that our purpose for evangelism and apologetics is not pragmatic. It isn’t for performance or results that we spend our energy. It is for the glory of God in proclamation and defense of the truth.

In summary, I am arguing that most of our evangelism and apologetics is done in blatant contradiction of Matthew 7:6. I am suggesting that we reconsider our approach and become more critical of our own behavior in a humble effort to remember why we do what we do. We give the gospel in humble obedience to God. We seek to accurately hand His truth for His glory in hopes that He will graciously allow us to witness changed hearts and lives. We do not spend the energy to produce something. It is not our purpose to satisfy the unbeliever with dazzling evidence and rational argumentation. Our purpose is to glorify our Father and that means giving the gospel to those whom He has not deemed to be dogs and swine.

But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. [John 10:26-28]

The sheep hear the word of their Shepherd.

 

Young Evangelicals, Biblical Authority, and Ecclesial Authority

The Most Pressing Challenge for the Society of Christ

I have often argued that the root of sin itself is located in the illicit desire, on the part of Adam and his progeny, for absolute autonomy. I am convinced that the act of rebellion by our first parents and our subsequent acts of rebellion are ineradicably related to a fundamental desire for comprehensive and unqualified independence. In addition, I am convinced this desire is not eradicated at regeneration. Hence, I am committed to the idea that the fiercest battle that we face as believers is not located out there in the world someplace. To the contrary, I am convinced it is within. In fact, I am convinced that the most intense battle that every believer faces is related to our demand for independence as opposed to God’s demand for absolute, unconditional surrender of all that we are. If I am right, then it logically follows that one of the most pernicious threats to the Christian community is the threat of the individual desire for unmitigated autonomy on the part of most of its confessors. By nature, autonomy finds itself at odds with the idea of submission to authority and hence it naturally repels from the idea of Christian unity. In other words, unity is not as natural for the Christian as we would like because of the rebellious nature of fallen human autonomy. It is even more foreign to those born and raised in radical autonomous Western cultures. This state of affairs has created significant issues within the body, especially as it pertains to orthopraxy, orthodoxy, and leadership. Therefore, one of the biggest problems confronting the Church is not abortion; it is not gay marriage; it isn’t gun control; and it isn’t socialism. One of the Church’s most serious threats is the presence of young men and women who are in the Christian community confessing a belief system that they really do not understand nor embrace, in thought and unquestionably, not in practice. The purpose of this blog is to provide an evanescent argument to that end. My point is simple: the crisis of modern Christianity is a crisis of authority, top to bottom. While the crisis is discernible in countless expressions, each one can be traced to the root of autonomy. The young generation wants nothing to do with anything authoritative that they themselves did not approve. Hence, unless they have the final say, and are the final arbiter of authority, it simply cannot stand.

My focus is on two sources of authority and one aspect of submission. First, I will look at ecclesial authority and examine briefly how Christ structure His Church and how orthodoxy has historically understood that structure. Next, I will review the authority of Scripture and propensity of young evangelicals to question even the most sacred doctrines of the Church. I will also expound on the hypocritical claim that such inquiries come with pure motives bound up in a sincere desire for truth. Finally, I will spend my last few paragraphs on what it really means to be a disciple, a devoted student (from the Mediterranean aspect) in terms of humility, teachability, and submission. In other words, God’s Word has specific instructions for the young people within the Christian community and they need to hear what He has to say. I also need to point out that participation within the Christian community is a tremendous blessing and a profound privilege. It is not a right or an entitlement, nor is it a club that desperate seeks your membership fees. The demand of participation is that we walk in a manner worthy of the Holy God who called us out of darkness into His glorious light.

“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. In this famous passage, we find Jesus’ expression and idea for the authority given to His Church. While only the apostles were given legislative and judicial authority, the Church at large has been granted judicial authority. “The binding in Matt. 16:19 and 18:18 recalls the Heb. ‘āsar which denotes both teaching authority (to determine what is forbidden) and disciplinary power (to place under a ban).” [Meding & Muller, NIDNTT, V-I, 171] The apostles, as Christ’s special delegates, would receive distinct authority from Christ concerning what the messianic community must confess and what values she must embrace. It is apparent that Christ has a very specific purpose for His Church and He establishes a very specific structure in order to preserve, protect, and execute that purpose. This authority was not to be abused, nor was it an isolated or independent authority. The authority was derivative from and valid when it adhered to the authority of Christ’s word. It is clear from this passage that Christ put in place a standard, and that confessors of the faith were expected to submit to that standard. Moreover, it is clear that the Church, the messianic community has authority to enforce this standard. She is expected to ensure that the confessing members of the body conduct themselves within the confines of that standard. If a “confessing member” refuses to submit to the standard, the community must act to excommunicate that member in order to preserve Christ’s idea of community.

The true Church of Jesus Christ is characterized by unity of truth and holiness of living. Under unity of truth is unity around gospel proclamation and the apostolic tradition preserved through the sacred writings of the New Testament.

The story of Acts 15 and the Jerusalem conference provides yet another example of the authority of the Church. The controversy was about belief as much as it was about practice. In order to solve the issue, the leaders came together and authoritative leaders of the community consulted the sole authority over the community, sacred Scripture. There can be little doubt that the conclusion of this counsel and its written instructions carried absolute authority of all the members of the messianic community. Can you imagine what the reaction of Paul or Peter or James would have been if some of the young members demanded that we revisit the issues and refused to obey the leaders’ instructions? What post-modern philosophy often extols as a virtue, God condemns as rebellion and idolatry of the heart.

In Acts 20:28 the presence of structure and authority are impossible to miss. It was these bishops, elders, overseers that Paul issued his command that they must preside over the souls of men with great care and due caution. Such a task would be nigh impossible in an environment like the one we see in modern American and Western cultures where people feel as free as God Himself to think, to do, and to go about life as they please without a care or even a hint of submission.

In 1 Corinthians 5, we experience Paul’s displeasure with a community that was obviously negligent in her duty to preserve purity within her membership. A sexual act and a forbidden marriage was underway and the Church, rather than respond with reprehension, rejoiced in grace and freedom. In so doing, she failed to enforce the standards Christ had established for the messianic community and Paul, the leader, was swift to act. The couple would be excommunicated from the group and this action was required immediately upon reading Paul’s communication. The matter was that serious. Can you imagine young evangelicals being subjected to this sort of absolute authority in our culture? I wonder how they would react.

Tertullian wrote, “I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those moulds¹⁴ and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God.”^[2]

Apostolic authority, teaching, and tradition come down to us through the text of Scripture. The Scripture is the authoritative preaching of the apostles themselves and as such, this preaching is not up for grabs as just one more American or Western option that we can take of leave as our idolatrous hearts desires.

Cyprian informed his readers, “The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ.”^[3]

That participation in the messianic community places certain demands on its members is without ambiguity. The standards of godly fruit and right thinking are indeed high. That the Church has authority to look after our souls, and preserve and protect those standards is perspicuous. This was the attitude of Christ from the outset, the apostles that He appointed in the beginning and it continued in the fathers down to recent times.

Post-modern religious moralists have created a term for conservatives who have a high view of Scripture. That term is bibliolatry. I realize I will be accused of poisoning the well by framing it this way. So be it. Jesus and the apostles had the highest view of Scripture and as mentioned above, the messianic community is obligated to follow the standard set forth by our founder and His chosen leaders. For its first millennium and more, the church affirmed and practiced the supreme authority of Scripture. [Allison, Historical Theology, 79]

Calvin wrote, “At any rate, there is no doubt that firm certainty of doctrine was engraved in their hearts, so that they were convinced and understood that what they had learned proceeded from God. For by his Word, God rendered faith unambiguous forever, a faith that should be superior to all opinion.” [Calvin, Institutes, V-I, 71] And this is precisely what we are dealing with. The mere opinions of the young and inexperienced who have grown up in Sunday School or who are fresh out of seminary and have cast aside the boring stuff of doctrine in preference for the seeker-sensitive, emergent-driven desire for relevance. The Church is “out of touch” with its stodgy old doctrines and legalistic standards, we hear. In addition, entrance into the messianic community requires faith. And faith can only come through the authoritative word of God! Hence, admission into the community begins with Christ’s word and His gift of faith that comes through that word. Any attempt to harm Scripture is an attempt to interfere with the very prerequisite for admission into the community they are supposedly trying to improve.

In John 8:47, Jesus said, “He who is of God hears God word; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” Those who refuse to hear God’s word do so because they are not of God. Conservative Christians and especially academics must resist the urge to soften Christ’s words in this regard. We do not do humanity any favors by allowing them to go on thinking they are fine when even our Lord has indicated they surely are not!

Titus 2:6, Paul commands young men to be exercise sound judgment about matters, to be an example of good deeds, with purity of doctrine, dignified or fitting behavior that commands respect because it gives no cause for the contrary. Young men are to be sound in speech, which means not only accurate in teaching, but useful speech as well. In other words, avoid nonsense and wasteful talk. The idea is to protect the messianic community from attacks of antagonists. The point here is an attitude of submission to the commands of Titus, the leader. Without an authoritative structure in place, such instructions would simply be acts of wishful thinking.

Hebrews 13:17 instructs us to submit to those who are over us in the Lord. Yet, young evangelicals would prefer to challenge not only issues that have been settled for centuries, but the very structure the Lord has put in place. This is not a matter of honest inquiry, as some would like to cleverly frame the issue. Such framing is nothing more than rebellion cloaked in a false humility. It is an issue of rebellion borne from an idolatrous heart desiring radical autonomy.

We are to submit to one another in the fear of Christ. This fear of Christ is related to a godly reverence for the Author and Finisher of our faith. There can be little reverence where there is no regard for His teachings and views. Hence, the way we submit to one another in the fear of Christ is by humbly helping one another submit to all He said and did.

Submission to one another within the messianic community is a very serious matter. Humility is an indispensable Christian virtue. One could rightly say that humility is a sine qua non for the Christian. To be a disciple of Christ, a truly and fully devoted student of the Master is to lose yourself in Him. Following Jesus as a disciple means the unconditional sacrifice of your entire life to Him. This means every part of your life. Only when you have bound yourself to someone fully and completely in order to acquire his or her practical and theoretical knowledge can you truly be said to be a disciple. The language of submission is laced throughout the entire NT. The structure of the Church, that is, the messianic community, is one based on authority and submission. It begins with the self-attesting authority of God’s word. This word was legislated to us through the law and the prophets and most recently through the holy apostles of our Lord and Master. These men, specially called by God to perform a very unique function, legislated the final revelation of God Himself through the person of Jesus Christ in the pages of sacred Scripture. Having established apostolic churches in the beginning, their tradition, namely, Scripture itself, has been preserved and passed down to the Church over the past 2,000 years. It is the duty of the Church to recognize these teachings and indoctrinate her members thoroughly with them for they are the very words that save and preserve the souls of those members.

No small part of the current state among young evangelicals can be traced to the crisis of authority that took place during the renaissance. That generation’s desire to throw off the shackles of authority, or tradition, and of what was beginning to be viewed as superstition, was indeed quite strong. This movement of course would clash with religion so much so that Luther showed great contempt for philosophy and especially for Aristotle. He called Aristotle’s Ethics ‘the vilest enemy of grace.’ Luther understood the danger that such thinking posed for the Church. Luther faced a dilemma of no small measure. The shackles of the illegitimate authority of a contradictory tradition had to be replaced with one modelled according to Christ. Medieval Philosophers recognized that their claim to unaided reason could not establish the nature of the divine attributes, the content of divine commands, or the immortality of the human soul. This skepticism was due to the underlying commitment to the authority of the Church, and the expression of the Christian tradition. The reformation helped to subjugate the authority of the Church once more to the authority of Scripture alone. However, the philosophical consequences moved in another direction. Philosophy moved toward the authority of the man, the authority of unaided human reason. Luther sought to replace illegitimate authority with legitimate authority while the philosophers seized the opportunity to move beyond and seek a new authority altogether. And this sets the stage for our current crisis among young evangelicals.

When we add to this the influence of the deconstructionism of Derrida, and the new school of post-modernism and a Church that is increasingly predisposed to the philosophies of men than it has been to the teachings of Christ, you have the idyllic formula for a considerable crisis of authority. In addition, American thinkers are more susceptible to these philosophies than most due to the ideas deeply entrenched in the capitalistic expressions of American politics and economics. This sets the stage for the individual, not the group. Life becomes an individual dream for the individual pursuer. Christianity is transformed from a selfless society of Christ-followers into “your best life now.” Science, reason, and experience converge to convince young evangelicals that not only can they be whatever they want to be, so too can God, Christ, Scripture, and yes, the Church. Submission, having been entirely eclipsed by the autonomy of the individual has become such a foreign virtue that even its suggestion is met with sneers, disdain, and immediate dismissal. For this reason, young evangelicals feel completely at liberty to do with divine things what they have done with everything else: they have it their way. And who stands in their way to correct them? Since they have grown up in a Church that abandoned the idea of discipline and discipleship long ago, no one will correct them. The minute you try, you are dismissed as outdated, old-fashioned, unscientific, unsophisticated, and worse, a fanatic.

The only answer for the messianic community, the Church of Christ, is to shift her focus to her sole authority and to begin the slow, steady, agonizing process of returning to an unflinching loyalty to the Word of Christ handed down to her from the apostles and to correct or excommunicate any and all who would deny her the right to be what she is by divine call: the group of people called out of darkness into the glorious light of Christ who share the teachings, values, and presence of God in community together, unified in one body, that is the Church.

 

---

^[1] New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Mt 18:18.

^[2] Tertullian, "The Prescription Against Heretics", trans. Peter Holmes In , in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume III: Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 252.

^[3] Cyprian of Carthage, "On the Unity of the Church", trans. Robert Ernest Wallis In , in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume V: Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 423.

Young Evangelicals Redefine Christianity

How the Church Enables their Project

Earlier this month, Peter Enns spoke on the subject of how young evangelicals are out to redefine what it means to be evangelical. His talk, delivered at the Pastorum Live Conference sponsored by Logos Bible Software, focused on how young evangelicals have a real problem with accepting what older evangelicals have claimed for over two thousand years. I have intentionally labeled my post “Young Evangelicals Redefine Christianity because essentially that is what they are seeking to do.

Enns pokes fun at the idea that evangelicals have taught young evangelicals that we must defend the faith and defend the Bible against the bad guys. He says that young evangelicals have difficult questions that older evangelicals don’t want to answer. They don’t even want to have the discussion. What are some of these questions? What objections do young evangelicals have to evangelicalism that older evangelicals are so afraid of that they won’t even discuss them?

Enns brings up the subjects of evolution, Canaanite genocide, and yes, human sexuality. Apparently young evangelicals want to revisit these issues and reshape evangelicalism’s views on them. But is such a project even possible? Can we redefine the essentials of a movement without compromising the very essence of that movement? If one of the four essentials of the “Evangelical” movement is a high regard for Scripture, how can the movement continue to be the movement without that distinction? It is akin to what is happening in politics. You cannot rightly be called a conservative if most of your political philosophy is derived from liberal thought.

Essentially, this whole project of redefining evangelicalism is about redefining Christianity. Young evangelicals desire to place more and more options on the table for what one can believe and how one may live and  still retain their “Christian” status. They want to believe in evolutionary theory even though it is a violent contradiction of the clear teachings of Scripture and what has been received and settled in the Church for centuries. The young evangelical wants to have an open discussion about homosexuality and rebukes his or her elders for scolding them for wanting to discuss an issue firmly settled by Scripture. What Scripture has settled must remain settled. In our arrogance, not our humility, we wish to reopen certain matters from the motives of a sinful and idolatrous heart, not because we sincerely seek what is true. Young evangelicals have a real problem with God’s judgment on the ungodly in the OT. They have serious issues with an eternal hell. They reject the exclusive claims of Christ Himself, especially when it comes to those who have never heard the gospel.

Young evangelicals have a view of God that is a projection of their own wicked selves. This should not be surprising. We are all tempted to disfigure God in one way or another so that He won’t be such a threat to our private pet sins. The Church, if she is to survive (and she will), must stand up and purge the leaven from her midst. She must install discipleship programs that are intense, that are designed to bring people up in the teachings of the faith. Discipleship helps the Church grow, mature, and thrive spiritually. It also helps the community identify liars and wolves. When we encounter one of these young evangelicals that wants to remain part of the group but reject core teachings of Scripture, we must act. We educate, we counsel, we correct, we instruct, and then we rebuke, and eventually, if God does not grant repentance, we say good-bye from the standpoint that their faith will not be recognized as genuine by the group. We love them, but not as fellow God-fearers, but as we would any other unbeliever. They become targets of evangelism, not brothers and sisters with whom we have small differences. Some of these changes in the Christian community are more subtle than others. The shift in the lack of humility, teachability, and respect I see among young male seminary students or those just out of university is more than a little alarming. While this may not rise to the level of abandoning core Christian doctrine, it does rise to the level of abandoning Christian virtue. I will use the remainder of this post to make my point with a current, real-life example of how even conservative Christians are abandoning true Christianity in exchange for a version they find more appealing, more attractive, because quite frankly, it does not threaten to change that part of them they treasure most.

An excellent example of how Christian virtue and values have been all but dismantled, ignored, and dismissed is easy to find. All one has to do is enter any number of supposedly “Christian” apologetics sites and venture to disagree, in any way whatever, with the author or anyone who loiters there. I have enclosed a real-life example from Triablogue. Triablogue is a website that is supposedly reformed and supposedly mostly presuppositional in apologetic method. However, upon close examination, it is very difficult to find consistency in a number of areas. I recently blogged about the ideas and methods of the anti-abortion coalition known as AHA. The AHA responder is also a Triablogger. He issued a response to my argument and I was obliged to respond point by point to their criticism. The posts were respectful from both parties. This particular Triablogger seems more charitable in his argumentation than some of the others.

Enter Steve Hays at Triablogue. Steve and the some of the young men who subscribe to his blog regularly fit the bill I mentioned earlier in that they have decided to dispense with Christian virtue in how they speak to people on their blog, in both the posts and especially in the comments thread. In so doing, the young men at Triablogue have become some of the most rude fellows on the internet, rarely interacting with the actual argument in front of them, preferring instead to engage in a plethora of logical fallacies, such as the straw man, bifurcation, red herrings, appeal to emotion, appeal to the populace, and their favorite, the ungodly ad hominem fallacy. This behavior is not at all isolated to Triablogue. The sad truth is that it is far more pervasive than most Church leaders realize. I am convinced the Church needs to step in when it sees its members engaging in uncharitable discussions, using rude and disrespectful language, and take serious action. My aim is twofold at this point: to respond to the actual argument that Hays makes against my view on AHA’s thesis and praxis and to point out the need for a change in how we react to one another on the internet or any other forum. Steve beings with the following comment about my post.

Here I must agree with Ed. If a Christian layman sees a toddler wander into a busy intersection, that hardly gives him an excuse to take it upon himself to go rescue the child. That’s cowboy Christianity.

What makes you think you have the right to do the right thing just because it’s staring you in the face? You need special permission to do the right thing. We have standards, you know! Before you’re authorized to rescue the child, you must fill out a 4404-QZ Intervention form, signed by your pastor, and witnessed by an elder. After the paperwork is complete, you can go back to the intersection and peel the flattened toddler off the pavement.

From an argumentation standpoint, Hays commits a number of fallacies in this criticism. He is addressing my position that any ministry of the Church must be authorized by the church. He appeals to the populace with the emotional picture he has drawn. He surely appeals to emotion. It is certainly a red herring because it has nothing whatever to do with what I have argued. It is equivocal because it has nothing to do with ministry. In addition, one is left to believe that I have argued that Christians cannot even be Christians without express approval of an elder board. I have responded to Hays by accusing him of being deliberately uncharitable in his comments on my position. Hays is an intelligent man. He is educated. From my perspective, it seems highly improbable that Hays could have really interacted with my post and arrived at this conclusion. At the very least, Hays is either very sloppy in his argumentation or completely ignorant of my position, or worse, he has deliberately misrepresented my position because, well, he does not like it. If Hays is ignorant of my position, he should become more familiar with what I said before he comments on it. If Hays is simply guilty of being sloppy, he should spend more time framing out the actual issue before rushing to print. But if Hays deliberately misrepresented my view, intentionally distorting it, then he should apologize and try to do better in the future. To claim that this was just a literary device will not do. Literary devices are not morally neutral. Authorial intent remains intact. The author knows why he used the device to begin with.

Regrettably, Hays’ argument paints everyone who has a more authoritative view of ecclesiology than he apparently does, as being so bureaucratic that they are unloving and uncaring. And this is the point I wish to make. Hays compares my view with that of the Pharisees who would pull an Ox out of the pit on the Sabbath while rebuking Christ for healing someone. Hays has effectively said that those who think all formal ministry must be authorized by Church leadership are guilty of the same hypocrisy as those in Christ’s day.

When I pointed out the lack of Christian charity in some of the remarks coming from Triablogue contributors, Hays posted the following:

And Ed incessantly reminds us of how spiritually mature he is. Do spiritually mature people feel the need to constantly brag about their superior sanctity? Or is all that spiritual preening a mark of overweening pride rather than humility? Sounds more like the self-congratulatory attainments of a 33-degree Freemason.

My remark is that we must always be charitable to each other, even when we disagree. It is fine to call a position fallacious, wrong-headed, to describe it accurately. But to misrepresent a person’s view, malign and slander them, and bring in the wild card of the hyper-rude JP Holding (a man who lost credibility for the same kind of behavior years ago), is simply not in keeping with Christian virtue. Notice that Hays' initial response went to poisoning the well, it was emotional, and it had nothing to do with my position. After a couple of insults on the comment thread, I insisted we be charitable to one another and Hays responds with even more insults. It seems that you cannot correct uncharitable behavior within Hays’ group without automatically being uncharitable yourself. The very attempt to identify rude behavior is itself rude behavior and sanctimonious. This is the typical fallacious argumentation we see in many young evangelicals. It is precisely how they challenge tradition and authority and look clever their young friends in the process. By Hays’ way of reasoning, any attempt to point out bad behavior is ipso facto born from pride and therefore, no one can point out bad behavior. Sounds more like Bell, Pagitt, and McLaren to me.

This kind of nonsense does not help the Church combat the young evangelical desire to redefine Christianity. Their attempts are quite overt, attacking fundamental doctrines of the faith. Men like Steve Hays and others who engage in the same behavior, are not as far removed from redefining Christianity as we think. In addition, they do little to help stem the rising tide of young evangelicals who think they can pick and choose which doctrines to confess and which virtues to possess. A large contributor to this project is the outright rejection of authority. The young evangelical rejects the authority of Scripture and the authority of the Church by making their own decisions on when to submit. They renounce those doctrine and virtues that displease them. If they don’t like a particular doctrine, they simply dismiss it in the name of science, philosophy, or because it just feels wrong. Whatever threatens their desired lifestyle is destroyed and removed from the text. They also reject the authority of the Church. If they don’t like this Church, they just move on without any hesitation or struggle whatever and almost never for sound reasons. Hays and other websites that have bought into this mostly American idea of radical independence, that we can treat each other without honor, without respect, without dignity does not help matters in the least. Men like this also reject authority. They have decided to redefine what it means to be humble, to be charitable, to be courteous, to be kind, to be respectful. In this world, you can talk to anyone anyway you please and as long as you call it a literary device, you are safe. In fact, I can predict that Hays will call this very post uncharitably because it points out uncharitable behavior. This is the fallacy of tu quoque. It is like saying, you too! Such an approach makes correction virtually impossible. The principle error is the same. Many young evangelicals have no desire to humbly submit to any authority, be it God or the Church.

The Church must act. She must reinstate discipleship and discipline. By refusing to disciple and discipline, the church enables the young unlearned, inexperienced and arrogant at heart to boldly cast off biblical and ecclesial authority to their own detriment. Church leaders are to watch out for those whom God has placed in their charge, not allow them to just run out start whatever ministry they believe is fitting, allow them to cast aside basic Christian virtue, or allow them to cast Scripture into the flames of post-modern thought. Theology matters, and so does our sanctification. Scripture was given to sanctify our behavior, not to make us feel good or to provide fodder for argumentation, even though argumentation is unavoidable at times.

I am not saying that asking questions is ipso fact a bad thing. Young evangelicals are not just asking quesitons even if they would argue that is the case. These are not honest inquiries into Christian truth. They are asking the question, how much Christian truth can we reject and still claim to embrace Christian truth. I am also not arguing that being uncharitable makes one an unbeliever. I have been very uncharitable at times in the past. In fact, I see the same behavior in blogs like Triablogue that use to exist in me not so very long ago. God has been extremely gracious to this wretch in that He has shined His virtuous light into my heart and yanked me out of rude and uncharitable behavior, for the most part and but for grace. However, His work continues in my heart, for I am far from the shinning example I want to be. Our example is Christ and His disciples. When an imperfect man speaks truth, does that mean we any less obligated to embrace it or live it? The ad hominem fallacy would say yes. Sound reason would say no! I point us all to Christ, to His Word and His work. He is our sole authority, and His word, which belongs to the Church teaches us what we must believe, how we must live, and authorizes all ministry through His body, the Church. Anyone who stands against this must come under close scrutiny by the Church to make sure they are in fact not the leaven or the wolf or the ministers of light spoken of in Scripture. Yes, preserving the body is that important. You cannot hate the Church and love God.

A Sliver of Spurgeon

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."

— Isaiah 53:6

Here a confession of sin common to all the elect people of God. They have all fallen, and therefore, in common chorus, they all say, from the first who entered heaven to the last who shall enter there, "All we like sheep have gone astray." The confession, while thus unanimous, is also special and particular: "We have turned every one to his own way."

 

There is a peculiar sinfulness about every one of the individuals; all are sinful, but each one with some special aggravation not found in his fellow. It is the mark of genuine repentance that while it naturally associates itself with other penitents, it also takes up a position of loneliness. "We have turned every one to his own way," is a confession that each man had sinned against light peculiar to himself, or sinned with an aggravation which he could not perceive in others.

 

This confession is unreserved; there is not a word to detract from its force, nor a syllable by way of excuse. The confession is a giving up of all pleas of self-righteousness. It is the declaration of men who are consciously guilty—guilty with aggravations, guilty without excuse: they stand with their weapons of rebellion broken in pieces, and cry, "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way." Yet we hear no dolorous wailings attending this confession of sin; for the next sentence makes it almost a song. "The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."

 

It is the most grievous sentence of the three, but it overflows with comfort. Strange is it that where misery was concentrated mercy reigned; where sorrow reached her climax weary souls find rest. The Saviour bruised is the healing of bruised hearts. See how the lowliest penitence gives place to assured confidence through simply gazing at Christ on the cross!