Private Property

November 4, 2019 - Monday after Trinity 20

The earth is the LORD’S, and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein. For He has founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the waters (Psalm 24:1-2).

The ownership of private property is an important concept to Americans. It might even be argued that they concept of private property ownership is fundamental to the development of Western Civilization. Property, and the money and currency we have developed to help us keep and dispose of our property, represents our time and effort, our work. A certain school of economists are fond of describing money as “frozen work”. We trade our time and effort doing a job and we receive money in compensation. We can then trade that money for other property we need or want, property some other person owned or created. God is the author of the idea of private property ownership; He commands us through Moses not to steal. In order to steal something from someone else, that other person must first have a legitimate claim on that property. He may have produced it, or he has the power to dispose of it as he wishes. To steal is to deprive the property owner, then, of a piece of their time; of something they gave up a portion of their time either making, or working to get money so that they could buy.

Socialism, what the dictionary calls the transition phase between capitalism and communism (though Karl Marx used the terms “socialism” and “communism” interchangeably),[1] subverts private property ownership. Indeed, it must. The goal of socialism is the collective, or governmental, control of the means of production. The means of production is just a fancy way of saying factories - the way “property” is produced. In this system, the State (the government, the “collective”) would decide what things were produced, how many of these things were produced, who has access to those things, and how those things could be used. As Marx wrote, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

This isn’t intended to be a lecture on economics. It is, however, important to understand, at least broadly, these two ideas of capitalism and socialism, and their relationship to the concept of private property. In real capitalism, individuals, through their voluntary interactions and commerce with each other in the market, decide what property is produced, how, and to what degree; in a socialist system, the government does all that. The economy is centrally planned. 

Why the economics lesson? It is important to understand that God created the world. It is His property. He may dispose of it as He likes. As the psalmist writes, “The earth is the LORD’s and all it’s fullness.” The “fullness” would be us. We are also His creatures, whom He made out of the dust of the earth, into which He breathed the breath of life. We confess the creation in the words of the Venite:

For the Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods. In His hand are the deep places of the earth, the strength of the hills is His also. The sea is His, and He made it, and His hands formed the dry land. Oh, come, let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the Lord, our Maker.[2]

This means He can dispose of us and this world as He sees fit, since it is His property which He, through His Only-Begotten Son, Jesus Christ Created:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.[3]

If this is not true, then God does not own us. If God and the creation are the fairy stories that modern atheists say they are, no one owns us or the world, which means that we own ourselves. It means that the things we have learned called Christian morality, do unto others as you would have others do unto you, is not a divine creation given to us, an absolute moral system written on our hearts by God, but rather a creation of man. If morality is not absolute, not created by God, but relative to man, then there is no reason, except a personal desire to submit to it, or compulsion by a stronger human force. Right and wrong, rather than being concrete and unchangeable things, become abstract ideas, relative to the dominant culture. Every culture dictates their own “right”, the one that is appropriate for them. Different cultures, with different ideas of “right” might come into conflict, but the stronger will prevail, and whatever is synthesized out of the clash of those two opposing ideas is “right”. 

Modern atheists, living in the afterglow of Christendom, where Christian values are still widely known and kept, even by people who are not Christians, think they like this idea. They like the idea of owning themselves. It means that they don’t have to answer to anyone except themselves, which is quite convenient, since they are in charge of making up all the rules now. In an interview, comedian Stephen Fry was asked what he would say to God if he were called before God’s judgement seat in order to get into heaven. He answered that he would turn the judgement back on God. To Mr. Fry, God was the one who was sinful and immoral:

“I’ll say: bone cancer in children, what’s that about? How dare you create a world where there is such misery that’s not our fault? It’s utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain? The god who created this universe, if he created this universe, is quite clearly a maniac, an utter maniac, totally selfish. We have to spend our lives on our knees thanking him. What kind of god would do that? Yes, the world is very splendid, but it also has in it insects whose life cycle is to burrow into the eyes of children and make them blind...I wouldn’t want to [get into heaven]. I wouldn’t want to get in on his terms. They are wrong.”[4]

There is a lot to digest in Mr. Fry’s statement, and not at all entirely unreasonable questions to raise. 

Of course, the fact of the matter is that Mr. Fry does not believe that there can be a God, because of the existence of evil. We get into trouble when we assume that the misery isn’t our fault. In reality, God, sin, death, and the state of the universe do not have their existence based on whether or not we humans approve of them. God does not cease to exist because we selfish people, who worship ourselves, don’t understand Him, and subsequently reject Him, much as a petulant child doesn’t understand that the doctor who wants to vaccinate him is working for the child’s good. The doctor doesn’t disappear because the child hates him and, in the end, the child gets the shot.

Or, to put it another way, just because we don’t like what God says or does, how He disposes of His property, doesn’t change anything. It isn’t as though we get let out of the judgement because we don’t like the rules. When Job asked similar questions of God, God showed up in a whirlwind and answered Him:

Shall the one who contends with the Almighty correct Him? He who rebukes God, let him answer it.[5]

Job’s response, his speechlessness and subsequent repentance, is the reality of what will come of any man standing before the Almighty God.

I suspect it is for this reason atheism and evolutionary theory go together so well. It takes away ownership of the earth and it’s fullness from the Creator, and gives it to the creation. More importantly, it removes any obligation for man to abide by God’s morality - Love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind...You shall love your neighbor as yourself - and allows man to make up his own. But we all know this is nonsense. Creation itself bears witness to it’s creator; God’s law, written on our hearts bears witness to the fact that we are evil, fallen and sinful creatures. 

There is also another way in which God has claim of ownership over the earth and all it’s fullness: through Jesus, God in human flesh, second person of the Holy Trinity, Redeemer of the world. Jesus bought back the property that He created, after it had been stolen from Him. Adam and Eve plunged mankind, and all of creation, into sin by their disobedience to God, and their selfish desire to become like Him. The entire creation was put under the curse, now utterly corrupted, and subject to sin, death, and Satan, who was responsible for introducing sin into the world. But God knew that, before it’s foundation, He would redeem the world through the blood of Jesus. God promised Adam and Eve that they would be redeemed, and that Satan’s head would be crushed by the woman’s offspring, even as He sent them out of the earthly paradise. He spent hundreds and hundreds of years preparing and gathering to Himself a people, whom He would set apart from all the other peoples of the earth, through whom this offspring - this Seed - would one day come. He gave them peculiar civil laws and religious worship, so that they would be reminded of the Seed to come, and keep them set apart from the rest of the world; He hammered into their collective heads just what kind of a God He was, as C. S. Lewis wrote:

Those people were the Jews, and the Old Testament gives an account of the hammering process. Then comes the real shock. Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time.[6]

Jesus, God in human flesh, took on human nature and lived the sinless life that it was impossible for man to live. Born of the Virgin Mary, born sinless, He was born under the Law. And He kept the Law perfectly, as mankind could not do. Then, He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, as the Lamb of God, the perfect sacrifice to take away the sins of the world. He was executed as a criminal and a blasphemer in our place, taking the punishment the world deserved, according to the scriptures. He rose again from the dead on the third day, again, as written in the scriptures. He is the propitiation for our sins, the ransom for many. And He will come again with glory, to judge the quick and the dead, and to take possession of His creation as King, once and for all; He will remake it, purging it of sin and death forever. 

It makes no difference if we like this or not. In fact, we don’t like it, none of us. He has to prepare us. He sends His servants, pastors, into the world to preach His Word; they call people to repentance for their sins, and announce to them the forgiveness Christ has won for them on the cross. He connects us to His death and His resurrection in Holy Baptism, where He saves us and washes away our sin. He feeds us with His very body and blood in the Lord’s Supper, nourishing, sustaining, and increasing our faith, so that no matter what misery and injustice we must endure while we live in this fallen creation, it will be for our good. Even the ultimate evil, death, will ultimately be for our good, if we are in Christ. The worst thing that the devil can do to us is kill our bodies. But Jesus tells us not to fear the one who can kill the body, but rather the One who can destroy both body and soul in hell - God Almighty. So, even though we may not understand or like the things that happen to us in this life, we strive to live according to the new creation, His own possession, that He has made us in our Baptism; we love the Lord with all our hearts and we love our neighbors as ourselves, showing our faith by our works. And when we sin, we repent, knowing that we have been baptized into Christ, and that He died for the forgiveness of our sin, and rose for our justification. He also gives us gifts to possess. His death and His resurrection are ours. His life is our life. Because He lives, we shall live. In this world there is trouble and injustice. Christ has overcome the world. He is the ultimate justice.

-------

1. “Socialism: Definition of Socialism by Lexico.” Lexico Dictionaries | English. Lexico Dictionaries. Accessed November 12, 2019. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/socialism.

2. Lutheran Intersynodical Hymnal Committee, and Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America. 1941. The Lutheran hymnal: authorized by the synods constituting the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America. Saint Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House.

3. Colossians 1:15-18

4. Independent Staff. “Stephen Fry 'Blasphemy': Comedian's Remarks about God That Prompted Police Investigation in Full.” The Independent, May 7, 2017. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/stephen-fry-blasphemy-god-ireland-police-investigation-quotes-in-full-a7722256.html.

5. Job 40:2

6. Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity (version alt.binaries.e-book 2002), 1953. https://www.dacc.edu/assets/pdfs/PCM/merechristianitylewis.pdf.

The Great Apostasy

Friday after Trinity 13

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer (1 Timothy 4:1-5).

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) recently held their convention. The convention was broadcast on the internet and, for the orthodox Christian who is unfamiliar with the liberal (and very political) Christianity of main-line Protestantism, the proceedings were quite shocking. Pastors preaching sermons, disguised as virtue-signaling prayers, on how white people can atone for America’s original sin of racism, which is inextricably imbedded in the machinery of both church and state. Groups of people on stage confessing their racial sins to people of color, and not receiving an absolution, but rather a prescription for how to make things right; a kind of modern day, social justice penance. And, in the most shocking moments, a flat-out denial of Jesus Christ. When a layman stood up to speak to a resolution asserting the validity of all religions, pointing out that Christ Himself denies this when He says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me,” (John 14:6), he was derided and ridiculed openly on the convention floor by the clergy. The pastors scrambled to apologize to their “inter-faith guests” for the ignorant layman’s shocking, rude, and culturally insensitive comments.

Paul writes to Timothy, explaining that in the latter days, some people will depart from the faith. Paul seems to be dealing with the legalism of keeping the Old Testament Law, and the man-made traditions of the elders, that he writes about in his other epistles. Departure from sound doctrine, however, is certainly not limited to just these types of things. If you ever needed any evidence that we are living in the latter days, certainly such shameful goings-on should suffice. People dressed as pastors, shepherds of congregations charged with feeding their flocks with God’s Word and administering to them His Sacraments, denying Christ before all the world. Even the Pharisees were better than this. At least they honored God with their lips, though their hearts were far from Him. 

No, these are false ministers of a false Christ; one who is concerned with calling members of the oppressor classes to repentance for their sins of racism, sexism, and class exploitation. These ministers are not concerned with the actual Gospel message of Christ crucified as the ransom for mankind’s sin, and raised to life again on the third day for man’s justification. They are interested only in fixing the injustices of this present world; they are interested only in assigning guilt to people for the crimes of their ancestors collectively, to achieve social justice. They deal only with people as groups, and not as individuals. They never see a man as someone who is a sinner, in need of Christ’s forgiveness. He is only a member of a class, a race, or a gender. If one happens to be a part of an oppressor group, the only forgiveness he can hope for is what he can earn through doing the penance that the oppressed prescribe, and then only if he is deemed worthy enough will he be absolved.

This is called Liberation Theology. It is politics masquerading as religion. It has infected all of the so-called main-line Protestant denominations, along with the higher critical method of Biblical interpretation. It is what happens when you reject the truth of the Bible. St. Paul explains:

But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty (1 Corinthians 15:13-14).

Higher criticism is a man-centered approach to Biblical interpretation. This approach assumes that to understand the Bible, we must understand the mind of the authors, and their perceptions of God, at the time they wrote what they wrote. It is inherently materialistic; in the higher critical method of Biblical interpretation there is no room for miracles. Higher critics claim to believe the Bible, but they cannot accept anything supernatural. That means no six-day creation; no parting of the Red Sea; no Jonah receiving a prophetic word from the Lord and being swallowed, and vomited out alive again, by a giant fish. It means, in fact, no prophetic words from the Lord at all. If nothing supernatural happens then all of the prophecies recorded in the Bible aren’t really prophecies. All of the things that the prophets wrote are just clever pieces of literature, written hundreds of years after the events that they claim to foretell. It means no fall into sin, no promise of a savior, and no Christ, God in human flesh. Jesus was simply a man, if he even existed, a wise and good moral teacher who cared about equality and justice, and taught men to love their neighbors. That means no atonement for sins, and no resurrection from the dead. The result of all this is indeed empty preaching and an empty faith:

For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable (1 Corinthians 15:17-19).

What happens to a congregation, or an entire denomination, in the case of the ELCA, that gives up the guts of the faith? Well, just like when a person is eviscerated, they die. But, those people have to put their hope in something. Since there is no supernatural, no hope in a world to come, no hope in a Jesus in whom dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily, who died as the atonement for sin, who has promised to return in judgment and bring ultimate justice to mankind, they must focus on themselves, and on the here-and-now. All of a sudden, the purpose of the church isn’t to preach Christ crucified for the forgiveness of sins, but to fight for justice in this world. Man’s problem is no longer being dead in trespasses and sins, but rather racism, political oppression, and crimes against the environment.

What’s wrong with justice? Nothing. God’s Word calls us to be just; we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. If, however, you reject what God says about the human condition, you will never understand why that is impossible, in this fallen creation, to achieve that goal. Moreover, achieving social justice, whether you believe the idea is right or wrong, does nothing to rescue us from sin and death.

We are fallen, sinful creatures living in a fallen, sinful world. We are, by nature, sinful and unclean. It is why Jesus tells us, in the Sermon on the Mount, to be perfect, as our Father in heaven is perfect. He’s showing us that we can’t do it. He is using the Law to show us our sin, to show us that we are lost, and that we need a savior from outside of ourselves. In the absence of the real Jesus, churches turn to Counterfeit Jesus. In America, that is oftentimes Comrade Jesus. Comrade Jesus teaches us that our real problems are systemic racism, sexism, and class oppression. Comrade Jesus teaches us to overcome these sins through socialism, communism, environmentalism, and whatever other political “ism” there is that gives man a work to do to atone for their sin. Not their real sin, mind you, but the things that those “isms” call sin; the things they use to control men, and keep them from fixing their eyes on the real Jesus, the author and perfecter of the real faith.

What is the remedy? In short, it is to repent, and believe the Gospel. That is the fix for those caught in the heresy of Higher Criticism and Liberation Theology. Christ’s blood is powerful enough to wash away the stain of our sin, no matter what it is. But we who are firmly ensconced in supposedly orthodox church bodies, like the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, are not immune from what has happened in the ELCA. If we go chasing after fads, and abandon Jesus so that we can try to make friends with the world to keep parishioners in our pews, the same thing will happen with the LCMS. If we bow to the pressure to be relevant to the culture, to be “woke”, to be what the world falsely calls tolerant and loving, if we abandon sound doctrine, we will end up on a stage competing with each other in displays of heresy, virtue-signaling how woke we are on whatever issue the culture is up-in-arms about that week. And we will be outside of God’s Kingdom along with the other social justice warriors who have replaced Christ with the idol of politics. God forbid! Lord, have mercy!

But Woe to You Who Are Rich

Then He lifted up His eyes toward His disciples, and said: “Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be filled. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you, and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of Man’s sake. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy! For indeed your reward is great in heaven, for in like manner their fathers did to the prophets. But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full, for you shall hunger. Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep. Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for so did their fathers to the false prophets” (Luke 6:20-26).

I read an interesting article in the National Catholic Reporter recently entitled “Priceless blessedness” in which the author, Sister Mary McGlone, examines Luke’s presentation of the Beatitudes. Rather than getting a clear exposition of the teaching of Jesus, however, I was subjected to the Higher Critical twisting of scripture, in the name of advancing the Social Gospel – which is really no Gospel at all. Sister McGlone’s main point was simple: To shame rich, privileged Americans into committing themselves to social and political reform, rather than to call all people to repentance and faith in Christ Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins.

When other’s suffering leads people to work for change, they begin to belong to the category of those who will be hated, excluded, insulted and denounced on account of the Son of Man. No one effectively calls for conversion or protests injustice without paying the cost. But their activity buys them a place among that mysterious group of God’s blessed ones whose hopes are shaped by the needs of their most vulnerable brothers and sisters.[1]

Sister McGlone focuses on Jesus’ statement, “Woe to those who are rich, for you have received your consolation.”[2] Sister McGlone writes that we should not “quibble and wiggle with phrases like ‘poverty of spirit,’ we need to face Luke’s presentation of the Beatitudes as it is.”[3] I agree, but this is not what she does. In fact, we should assume that all of scripture means what it says according to the plain reading of the text, always following the three rules of Biblical interpretation: 1) read the passage in context, 2) don’t ignore the context of the passages, and 3) don’t read passages out of their original context. Unfortunately, that means there must be some quibbling. Despite the fact that she even seems to recognize that “poor” in the context of Luke 6:20 isn’t referring simply to worldly poverty, writing, “…we know that there is nothing virtuous about destitution or malnutrition…”[4] this does not impact her interpretation. Sister McGlone wants to use this passage to call people to Social Justice, and focuses on the contrast Jesus seems to be making between the virtuous, noble poor, and the evil rich.

It is easy to use scripture to make it seem like being rich is sinful in and of itself. Jesus does, after all, tell us that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.[5] The Apostles marvel at what Jesus says; if it is impossible for a rich man to be saved, how could the poor have any hope? In the socially and economically unequal society of first century Rome, the Apostles couldn’t conceive that someone who was rich wasn’t blessed by God. Good things, like wealth and prosperity, happen to good people whom God loves; bad things, like poverty and illness, happen to bad people whom God hates. That is how sinful man understands the workings of God. If I work hard enough, I can please God, and He will give me the desires of my heart.

But is Jesus really telling us that it is sinful to be rich? Not hardly. As much as Sister McGlone does not want us to, we must consider not only Luke 6:24, but also other passages which inform what Jesus is teaching here, and we must read those plainly and in their context as well.

In Luke 12:13-21, Jesus is approached by a man who was having a dispute with his brother over money. They were specifically fighting over their inheritance from their father. The one brother who approaches Jesus thinks he can use Jesus to get his share out of his brother. Jesus responds by telling the man a parable:

Then He spoke a parable to them, saying: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded plentifully. And he thought within himself, saying, ‘What shall I do, since I have no room to store my crops?’ So he said, ‘I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build greater, and there I will store all my crops and my goods. And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry.”’ But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?’ “So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.”[6]

The whole point of this parable is pretty obvious. Jesus is quite clear that it isn’t a rich man’s wealth, in and of itself, that is evil and makes the rich man sinful. It is covetousness. Jesus sets up this parable, known as the Parable of the Rich Fool, saying: Take heed and beware of covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses.[7] So, when Jesus warns the rich, He is warning the rich to repent of their sin and have faith in Him for the forgiveness of their sins. This was the same message He brought to the tax collectors and sinners with whom He ate at Matthew’s house. The rich man in the parable was concerned with laying up treasure for himself on earth. He was not rich toward God. He made an idol of his wealth. He did not fear, love, and trust in God above all things. Sister McGlone is right when she says we ought to cringe when we hear Jesus tell the rich that they have received their consolation.[8] For if we fear, love, and trust in our wealth and possessions rather than God through faith in Christ Jesus, we to will have received our consolation while here on earth. St. Paul teaches the same thing when he writes to Timothy:

Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.[9]

The problem with taking the text at face value, however, is that one cannot then easily use the text to advance the cause of social justice. The Social Gospel movement was a social reform movement that developed and took hold in American Christianity in the early part of the 20^th Century.[10] This movement goes hand-in-hand with a method of biblical interpretation that developed in the 19^th Century called Higher Criticism.[11] Higher Criticism in it’s most neutral incarnation, examines scriptural writings like witnesses in a court of law. Higher Critics evaluate scripture rationally; they subject God’s Word to their reason, rather than the other way around. This is contrary to the Historical-Grammatical method, which takes the text at face value. Higher Critics treat scripture as any other human writings; they are not inerrant, but subject to human failings. Higher criticism gives the individual interpreter, not Holy Scripture, ultimate authority. This is incompatible with the Sola Scriptura principle of Lutheranism. Higher Critics look at the Gospel of St. Luke and treat it as though the things Luke wrote were his own message, rather than the word of God. Higher Criticism discounts the miraculous. So, when the gospels record Jesus performing a miracle, like the feeding of the 5,000 for instance, they try to explain it rationally, rather than taking the text for what it says. Jesus didn’t miraculously feed 5,000 people with five loaves and two fishes because He is God in human flesh. Rather, Jesus’ teaching moved people to share food with their neighbors that they had been selfishly hiding away for themselves. Examined in this way, scripture can be allegorized and used teach whatever point a given theologian wants to make.

As a result, Higher Criticism turns scripture into, at best, a collection of morality tales to inspire people to act better; at worst, it turns scripture into a tool to advance heresy, obscure Christ, and scratch the itching ears of sinners who will not put up with sound teaching.

The Beatitudes are often understood as a quid pro quo. If you are poor in spirit, the kingdom of heaven is yours, so work really hard to be as poor in spirit as you can. If you do this, then you get that; or this thing will happen to you. Jesus, however, is not declaring here an ethical demand of his followers by laying out a law of behavior or attitude. The Beatitudes are not so much a mountain of law which one is to climb to be a better Christian, or to qualify for blessing and eternal life, but rather it can be seen – particularly by your “old” man – as a mountain of law under which one is to be totally crushed. The Beatitudes are also gospel. They assure Jesus’ disciples of the future blessings in store for them, blessing which, in fact, already belong to us through our faith in Jesus. The new man hears in the Beatitudes assurance of God’s goodness and future blessing; the old man hears law and judgment. When we recognize our own spiritual poverty, when the Lord leads us to hunger and thirst for God’s righteousness, when He makes us pure in heart so that we seek to worship only the true God, then we are blessed, now and forever.[12] The good works that Sister McGlone says will buy us a place among God’s blessed ones are not currency with which we purchase blessings from God. They are the fruits of our faith that we produce in the way an apple tree produces it’s fruit. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.[13] To view the Beatitudes as a prescription for our behavior so that we can gain blessing from God, and therefore be a good Christian, is to put the cart before the horse. Our good works are a product of our faith.

---

[1] McGlone, Mary M. "Priceless Blessedness." The National Catholic Reporter, February 8, 2019. Accessed February 8, 2019. Kindle Edition

[2] Luke 6:24

[3] McGlone, Mary M. "Priceless Blessedness." The National Catholic Reporter, February 8, 2019. Accessed February 8, 2019. Kindle Edition

[4] ibid.

[5] Matthew 19:24

[6] Luke 12:16-21

[7] Luke 12:15

[8] McGlone, Mary M. "Priceless Blessedness." The National Catholic Reporter, February 8, 2019. Accessed February 8, 2019. Kindle Edition

[9] 1 Timothy 6:6-10

[10] Stevens, Mark A., ed. Merriam-Websters Collegiate Encyclopedia. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 2000.

[11] Mirriam Webster defines Higher Criticism as the study of biblical writings to determine their literary history and the purpose and meaning of the authors. This assumes that the man, rather than God is the author. This is in contrast to what was known in the 19^th Century as Lower Criticism, which is concerned with the recovery of original texts especially of Scripture through collation of extant manuscripts.

[12] Engelbrecht, Rev. Edward A., ed. The Lutheran Study Bible. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2009.

[13] Ephesians 2:10

We are not wrong, but we should apologize...

But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you are blessed. “And do not be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled.” But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed (1 Peter 3:14-16).

Another new year, another new article telling the Church to abandon God’s Word. We shouldn’t be surprised. We have been told that, rather than getting better and better, things would get worse and worse for the Christian Church. I’m not sure what Mark Wingfield, author of “3 words for the church in 2019: ‘we were wrong’”[1] thinks he’s doing. One suspects he is trying to sound modern and enlightened in order to entice “young” people into the Church. Perhaps he just wants to show everyone how woke he is. One thing that is certain, no matter what he seems to say to the contrary, he does not believe that the Word of God is divinely inspired, inerrant, and efficacious; the means by which God creates faith and works forgiveness of sins.

Mr. Wingfield wants the Church to “admit we were wrong” about a host of things. Some of the issues he raises, such as protecting pedophiles, measuring the success of the Church by attendance numbers, and putting our trust in politics to fix all our problems, are legitimate, though there are some straw men lurking in his arguments about these things as well. (Youmay read the entire article here, and I encourage you to do so.) But, fundamentally, Mr. Wingfield’s argument about our wrongness and alleged misuse and idolatrous worship of the Bible are flawed. I don’t know this man personally, but in his article Mr. Wingfield seems to look at Scripture as something men have created to use as a tool to subjugate minority groups. It simply is not. Christianity teaches that Scripture is God-breathed.[2] It has a divine nature as well as a human nature, just as Our Lord Jesus does, who is the Word made flesh who dwelt among us.[3] So, I think Mr. Wingfield is pointed in the wrong direction. We don’t need to say that we were wrong. We do, however, need to apologize. We need to give a defense, as Peter writes in his first letter, of our hope. That hope is, in the words of the hymn, built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.

We also need to repent. We must understand that we live in a fallen creation, and that we must contend with a corrupt nature; we must understand that all of the inclinations of our heart, because of that corrupt nature, are away from God and inward toward ourselves. The inclination of man’s heart is evil from his youth. We don’t make mistakes. We sin. We transgress God’s law. We miss the mark. We don’t love God with our whole heart, nor can we of our own will.

Sometimes our sin manifests itself in some of the ways Mr. Wingfield lists. We defy the authorities over us, we hurt and kill our neighbor, we misuse the gift of sex that God has given us, we steal, we slander our neighbor, and we jealously desire the things our neighbor has to the point that we scheme to get them. In short, we do not love our neighbors as ourselves. The call to us from God through His Word is to repentance.

Mr. Wingfield, however, says we are wrong about what God says sin is. He says that we have interpreted God’s Word to say things are sinful and evil which are not; he is saying that we have, because of our worship of the Bible rather than of Jesus Himself, held on to our outdated social standards and prejudices. Society has evolved upward away from the subjugation of women, the exploitation of people of different races, and the marginalization of people of different sexual orientations and gender identifications. Mr. Wingfield’s call, in the end, is not so much a call to renounce the devil, and all his works and ways, but for us to repent from believing that Scripture is the inerrant, infallible, efficacious word of God.

We are not the problem, God and His Word is the problem. And so are those people who believe what God has said. Rather than repenting of our sin and receiving forgiveness, his fix is for us to admit we were wrong about taking God’s Word seriously in it’s condemnation of sin! The second part in this bastardized confession and absolution is for us to redefine sin and reinterpret God’s Word through our current social and cultural context. What you get when you do that is a definition of sin that says anything that makes me feel bad or uncomfortable is wrong; anything that makes me feel warm and fuzzy on the inside is right.

Rather than expend a lot of unnecessary ink rebutting each mischaracterization in detail here, I thought it would be better to give a brief summary of how Scripture addresses the three points on which Mr. Wingfield and orthodox Christianity most profoundly diverge: Slavery and racism, the subjugation of women and misogyny, and the oppression of homosexuals.

Slavery and Racism

Mr. Wingfield says, “The church has been unable to confess America’s original sin – perhaps in part because it was a faith handed down without question from parents and grandparents…” One must wonder if he says this because he is taken in by black liberation theology[4], or if he is really just unfamiliar with slavery in the Bible.

The type of slavery described in the Bible is not the same type of slavery that a 21^st century American social justice warrior has in mind. It wasn’t pleasant, to be sure, but it did not have the same connotations as what we think of regarding slavery today. Each slave kept his divinity as a human being, as demonstrated in the Law of Moses.[5] It was a temporary institution, unless the slave wished to remain with his master after the seven year period of servitude. Lacking social welfare safety nets in antiquity, this type of slavery was a mechanism by which the poor could pay a debt to a creditor; a slave could also buy his freedom.[6] Again, it wasn’t necessarily pleasant; neither is bankruptcy.

This was much different from the type of slavery Americans think of when that word is used today. We think of the western slave trade, which I will refer to as American slavery. Slaves were property. They were exploited indefinitely by their owners for profit. American slavery, rather than being a type of indentured servitude[7], was racist. It was based on the idea that people with dark skin were inferior to those with light skin. It was ended only because of the efforts of Christian men and women, who worked tirelessly to that end in both the British Empire and the United States. In Britain it was legislated out of existence; in America, between 650,000 and 820,000 people had to die in a civil war end it.

Nowhere in Scripture is this type of racism condoned. God makes no racial distinction. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Either we are slaves to sin, death, and the devil, or we are slaves to righteousness.[8] We are called to love our neighbors as ourselves;[9] race is not a mitigating factor, for all who have been baptized have clothed themselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus.[10] Therefore, anyone who attempted, or attempts to justify racism and slavery by using Scripture is sinning by twisting it to say something it does not.

Women and Misogyny

Mr. Wingfield says that the Biblical evidence against women as co-equals is scant. He’s correct, but not in the way he means. Men and women were created by God as equals, counterparts designed by Him to compliment each other even as they serve as an illustration of the relationship that God has with His Church. He goes on to say, however, that the Church’s bias against women is strong. Scripture, however, nowhere advocates the sinful idea that women are essentially inferior to men. Scripture does give a very clear prohibition on women being pastors, i.e. publicly proclaiming the Word in the regular worship service:[11]

For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant…And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.[12]

Paul gives this prohibition by the divine influence of the Holy Spirit, and for good reasons. From a cultural perspective, the women of Corinth were accustomed to female priestesses leading pagan worship. As there had been priestesses in the adulterous and idolatrous worship of the sex goddess it was quite natural for them to assume leadership roles in the Christian congregation.[13] From a theological perspective, however, the Holy Spirit leads the Apostle Paul to the creation, and the order established by God in it. In the Garden of Eden, when Eve spoke with the serpent, she took on a role for herself which God had not delegated to her. David Scaer writes:

Adam was given the command and promise and he was responsible for all “theological negotiations.” Thus the woman’s assuming the man’s role and his assenting to this incursion are part of the first sin.[14]

The problem is not that Scripture is vague regarding the status of women, or that there is some question of outdated cultural standards. That question of whether this was just a cultural taboo is easily and definitely answered for anyone willing to investigate the Greek used in the passages, and the surrounding context of the passages themselves. The problem is that we don’t like what Scripture tells us here: Men and women, while equal in terms of their humanity, serve in different roles within the Church. So, rather than repent of our sin, we attempt to cover it over with the fig leaves of social justice and liberal theology.

As for divorce, Jesus tells us that Moses allowed divorce and regulated it because the Israelites were hard-hearted.[15] Wives were not to be simply abandoned on a whim. There were rules to be followed, and responsibilities to be taken by the husband. As for Jesus, He gives us the divine guideline that what God has joined together, let no man tear apart;[16] Jesus tells us that the only legitimate ground for divorce is adultery.[17] Inside the marriage relationship spouses are called to mutual submission and respect; husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, and wives are called to respect and submit to their husbands as the Church submits to Christ.[18] That means that men should love their wives as they love their own selves, and should be willing to die for them, and wives should love, respect, and obey their husbands.

Homosexuality

Certainly Mr. Wingfield is correct when he says that the issue of sexual orientation/gender identity is the most divisive of our time. We must not, however, allow him to misdirect us. The issue in question is not whether we “expel faithful followers of Christ when they reveal who God has made them to be” or not. The issue is whether or not God calls homosexuality a sin, and what is the solution He gives us for it?

We don’t need to spend a lot of time here trying to prove that the Scriptures call homosexuality a sin (they do), or if that that categorization still apples to us today (itdoes). We need to refute the notion that the Church rejects homosexuals and excludes them simply because they are homosexual[19]. This is not the case. As with any sinful human being, regardless of what their particular sin might be, there is one criterion used to decide whether or not they are excluded (read excommunicated). That criterion is faith.  Or more specifically, faith in Christ showing itself, as the person bears fruit in keeping with repentance.

But how can you tell someone to repent (turn away from) who they are? This is crueler than simply kicking them out, is it not? I happen to agree with the author that homosexual desire, and perhaps other dysphorias, have a genetic component, though I would not say that God has “made them to be” that way. We are fallen and corrupt creatures living in a fallen and corrupt creation. We should not be surprised when our defectiveness manifests itself. While I do not know what it is like to be a homosexual, I do understand what it is like to feel overwhelming desire for a behavior which is sinful. Every person deals with this struggle, though we all have different sins.

We have been taught that homosexuals are just born that way and do not choose their lifestyle. Science may have even identified the gene responsible for same sex attraction.[20] But science also tells us that alcoholism is genetic. Yet society recognizes alcoholism as unnatural and destructive. We support groups with tax dollars and tax incentives whose entire purpose is to council alcoholics not to engage in such behavior. Is this cruel and bigoted? Is it alco-phobic? Should we not, applying the same standards to this as we do to homosexuality, encourage alcoholics in their lifestyle, since it is who God made them to be? And, before arguing that alcoholism is detrimental to mental and physical health and homosexuality is not, proponents of it’s acceptance would do well to consider the scientific data to the contrary.[21]

Just because people are sinful doesn’t mean society in general, but the Church in particular, should accept and celebrate sinful behavior. That isn’t being loving or inclusive. It is to reject Christ and to embrace the world. To accept a person into your midst as the Church while embracing and celebrating their sin, whatever that sin may be, is the opposite of love, though it may make people feel good in the short term. It is to withhold the means by which God creates faith in the hearts of men, and by which they receive the forgiveness Christ won for them by His death and resurrection – the efficacious Word of God. Without hearing the Law, they will not know their sin; without hearing the Gospel, they will not know what God has done for them, forgiving their sin, cleansing them by the blood of Christ. Alternately, those who hear the proclamation of Law and Gospel and reject it are excluded from the Church, not to harm or punish them, but to show them the magnitude of their situation and, hopefully, bring them to repentance. The congregation which embraces the impenitent sinner is not the Church.

What Mr. Wingfield is really calling for is abandoning an interpretation of Scripture which takes seriously the fact that it has both a human and divine nature. He is trading that for the more intellectual human-centric higher critical approach. He is also, perhaps without realizing it (though I suspect he does realize it), calling for gospel reductionism, a Christianity that says all you need is love.

The love of God is indeed what man needs. That love comes to us in the Word made flesh, Jesus. He won salvation for mankind by dying on the cross, and conquered death by rising from the grave. He comes to create faith in us by the power of His Spirit through the means of His Word, whether preached, read, or coupled with the physical elements of water, bread and wine in the sacraments. He calls us to repent of our sins, to turn away from them. A Christianity that tries to redefine sin out of existence and make God’s Law nothing more than some outdated customs which are no longer applicable because culture has evolved isn’t honest or sincere. It isn’t woke. It isn’t being loving, or socially conscious, or even doing anyone any good. It is simply a Christianity that no longer believes in God’s Word. That Christianity does not hold God’s Word sacred, no matter how much it gives lip service to the contrary. It is no Christianity at all.

If the Church is to be “relevant in its mission and agents of God’s reconciling love,” to quote Mr. Wingfield, the solution is not to be found in preaching social justice. The solution is to preach Christ crucified and risen from the dead. It was for the forgiveness of all our sins that He died, and it was for our justification that He rose from the dead. The solution is to repent, and believe the Gospel. The problem is, preaching Christ will not make us relevant; it will make the world hate us more. To all those who find themselves in such relevant church bodies, where the heretical social gospel masquerades as the Word of God, I am so sorry.

---

[1] Wingfield, Mark. "3 Words for the Church in 2019: 'We Were Wrong' – Baptist News Global." Baptist News Global. January 04, 2019. Accessed January 10, 2019. https://baptistnews.com/article/3-words-for-the-church-in-2019-we-were-wrong/?fbclid=IwAR2Pb-2V78qBwnvPVrvWH0_GlNORjPFlne4AVuzgfhaTIKSBGy5-BKwXwXo#.XDcRoIpMHmr.

[2] 2 Timothy 3:16

[3] John 1:1-14

[4] "Black Theology." Wikipedia. September 30, 2018. Accessed January 10, 2019. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_theology. Black theology seeks to liberate non-white people from multiple forms of political, social, economic, and religious subjugation and views Christian theology as a theology of liberation—"a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the Gospel, which is Jesus Christ," writes James H. Cone, one of the original advocates of the perspective. Black theology mixes Christianity with questions of civil rights, particularly raised by the Black Power movement and the Black Consciousness Movement. Further, Black theology has led the way and contributed to the discussion, and conclusion, that all theology is contextual - even what is known as systematic theology.

[5] Klotz, Joseph. "The Hodgkins Lutheran." Slavery in the Bible. March 13, 2016. Accessed January 10, 2019. http://hodgkinslutheran.blogspot.com/2016/03/slavery-and-thin-blue-line.html. This section on slavery in the Bible is condensed from an earlier article which dealt with the topic in more detail.

[6] Ibid.

[7] An indentured servant was a person who signs and is bound by indentures to work for another for a specified time especially in return for payment of travel expenses and maintenance. "Indentured Servant." Merriam-Webster. Accessed January 10, 2019. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indenturedservant.

[8] Romans 6:15-23

[9] Mark 12:30-31

[10] Galatians 3:27-28

[11] Scaer, David P. "May Women Be Ordained as Pastors?" In Women Pastors? The Ordination of Women in Biblical Lutheran Perspective, 227-52. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2009.

[12] 1 Corinthians 14:33-38; 1 Timothy 2:12-14

[13] Scaer, David P. "May Women Be Ordained as Pastors?" In Women Pastors? The Ordination of Women in Biblical Lutheran Perspective, 227-52. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2009.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Matthew 19:8

[16] Mark 10:9

[17] Matthew 19:7-9

[18] Ephesians 5:21-33

[19] Throughout the article I use the term “homosexual” to refer to everyone who identifies as some gender or sexual orientation, other than their biological sex. In popular culture today, this is most commonly referred to as LGBTQ, or more recently QUILTBAG. Since the acronym seems to constantly change, I have chosen to use the term homosexual as shorthand to standardize the language in this article; it is not intended as a sign of disrespect. I have tried, rather, to be as inoffensive as possible when speaking of people who are struggling with a particular sin, such as homosexuality. This task which becomes more precarious each day when discussing these topics, no matter what precautions one might take.

[20] Knapton, Sarah. "Being homosexual is only partly due to gay gene, research finds." 13 02 2014. The Telegraph. 12 06 2014. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html. A study found that, while gay men shared similar genetic make-up, it only accounted for 40 per cent of the chance of a man being homosexual. But scientists say it could still be possible to develop a test to find out if a baby was more likely to be gay (Knapton).

[21] It is increasingly acknowledged inside the LGBTQ community that there are strong indications of elevated risk of suicidal behavior in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, and there is an increasing problem with domestic violence as well. Additionally, homosexuals of both genders, as well as bisexual men, are at a higher risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. LGBTQ activists tend to blame these problems on the facts that they are marginalized in society and discriminated against by the mainstream.

Haas, Ann P et al. “Suicide and suicide risk in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations: review and recommendations” Journal of homosexuality vol. 58,1 (2011): 10-51.

Shwayder, Maya. "A Same-Sex Domestic Violence Epidemic Is Silent." The Atlantic. November 05, 2013. Accessed January 10, 2019. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/a-same-sex-domestic-violence-epidemic-is-silent/281131/.

"Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance 2017." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. July 24, 2018. Accessed January 10, 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/std/stats17/toc.htm.  A fact sheet summarizing the relevant data may be found here: https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/factsheets/std-trends-508.pdf.

Hodges, Mark. "Government: STD Rates among Homosexuals 'alarming,' 'troubling'." LifeSiteNews. November 23, 2015. Accessed January 10, 2019. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/government-std-rates-among-homosexuals-alarming-troubling. This article quotes the 2017 Centers for Disease Control report on sexually transmitted diseases previously cited.