We are then subjected to ridiculous ad for 'Christian Coffee' whatever that is. To be frank, I'd rather give my money to Starbucks than false Christianity. Don't be fooled, despite their claims, these people have no problem giving their money to support evil. The list of examples is long and would fill an encyclopaedia. It was ridiculous to say the least. Later we are subjected to a sacrilegious soap commercial cast in Dominionist terms and a biography of John Knox is promoted - certainly a whitewash of his actual history and views.
After the adverts are finished, Tom Ascol starts in and expresses his dismay at public expressions of Sodomy in South Florida where he lives. He then says something startling and to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding him, I have played this segment for numerous people and everyone agrees. He's basically saying that Christians should respond like they did in the 'old days'.... and use violence to break up such gatherings. All my family members immediately thought of the three letters I did - KKK. That's the spirit behind what Ascol is saying and what the Klan was all about - vigilante justice to defend the supposedly Christian status quo.
He seems oblivious to the fact that the Hellenistic culture of the 1st century was far more wicked - though our culture is moving rapidly to rival it. That said, the Christians of the time never even entertained such measures and would have promptly excommunicated Ascol for such conduct or teaching. It's anti-Christian and demonstrates once again the paucity of understanding regarding the religion of the New Testament. And since these men are teachers and officers in the Church they stand especially condemned. Paul did. He said they were those who confused godliness with gain. Gain may reference money but money cannot be separated from the power it wields and gains access to. The sword and the coin always go together.
They would probably argue that the only reason the Early Church did not embrace power was because it wasn't possible. It wasn't a viable option. The same argument was made by Gary North years ago when he suggested 'turn the other cheek' is only in effect when Christians are in a situation of oppression. If Christians are in power it would be wrong to turn the other cheek. You need to hit back. And we see this twisting of Scripture and inversion of Christ's teaching in not only Ascol and Davis' words but in the entire Evangelical culture that supports US military power, the lawsuit culture and certainly its idolatrous approach to guns. Once again, the patient ferment of the Early Church is a foreign concept to them.
We've seen all of this before. The False Prophets who confronted, opposed, and persecuted the likes of Isaiah and Jeremiah spoke this way. They turned God's words upside down and strengthened the hands of the evildoers. They turned to Egypt for help and thus the strength of Egypt is their shame and confusion. Zechariah refers to them as those who swear falsely by God's name and we see them exiled to Babylon. The Bride turns into a Whore and rides on the Dragon. These are very harsh condemnations and I don't find very many people around today willing to make them and follow through. These men (in this podcast) are false teachers. If you're part of their churches you need to leave. They're paving a road to apostasy even while they profess to exalt Christ. 'Fear God' says the stickers on their laptops. They don't fear God. They're only hope is in their swords and their treasure chests full of coin and in the strength of Pharaoh. Their kingdom is of this world. It's called Babel. They may have crowned it with a cheap cross but it's still Babel. I apologize to readers for using this image once again but it's so powerful and expresses in such poignant terms the end result of this teaching.
They think that if we don't exercise power (16:00) then the world (or the nation they've turned into an idol) will just fall into the hands of the Leftists. You see once again it's clear - they don't fear God. When Paul says the powers that be are ordained by God, he actually means it and means that it is to affect how we live which he had just laid out in what we call Romans 12. The chapter division is false and introduces a harmful break in the teaching. These men are like those who thought the Church would perish because Rome was sacked by the Visigoths. They have misunderstood the nature and identity of the Church and I fear for them - truly.
At 16:40 the co-host (Gunden) mocks the idea that power is like the 'Ring of Sauron' and that 'we' should give it to others. Again, he doesn't understand what Paul says. 'We' don't have it to begin with. This present evil age is under the god of this world and contrary to their hopes and expectations this age is destined for fiery judgment. We're told that eschewing power is not how Christ exercised his authority. Really? Where can I read about that? Where in the gospels do we see Christ wielding power and authority over the likes of Herod or Pilate? He did challenge the false ecclesiastical leaders who misled the people and collaborated with Rome, but that's not an appeal these men would want to make as they are cut from the same cloth.
We must use the 'power that God has entrusted us with'.... where is that? We're even told by Davis that the wise use of power is to take risks and make mistakes - we can just turn to God's abundant grace. This is startling when one reflects on how leaders have used power to take risks leading to wars and other calamities.
He uses the metrics of the world to judge the state of the Church and thus he would use the world's tools to combat these things. Davis shies (at around 19:00) from the call to violence that Ascol made more explicit and yet it's still implied. Should we call these things out from the pulpit? We preach the text and if that means we denounce the culture, then by all means. But that's preaching in the context of the Church - applying God's Word to believers. It is after all foolishness to the world. I certainly wouldn't shy away from publicly condemning sodomy or the usury-mammonism of the Right (which are in fact related) - but in what context? As a lobbyist? No. As a politician? Absolutely not. If some occasion were to arise that I was required to give my view, then by all means. But these men are looking for a fight, looking for opportunities to grasp power but from what I see they're still too timid and weak to really speak out and move. It's all bluster and so they turn to proxies in the political realm like Donald Trump.
I found myself getting a little angry when Davis starts in on how resistance to their views is to resort to therapeutic preaching (focusing only on personal peace and the like) and how if you don't embrace their power dynamic you're not helping people to deal with their sin. In other words the gospel (as Davis envisions it) is a knock on the door in the night, people thrown to the floor, cuffed and tasered and locked in cages. That's the gospel of grace? I'm sure he would recoil at the suggestion but it's only because he hasn't seriously thought through the implications of what he is saying. This is not the gospel applied to society but the gospel perverted and turned on its head. If he knew some history he would see where this all leads. It's all happened before and results in Crusades and Inquisitions and many other evils. It leads to apostasy.
A great deal more is said over the course of the interview. The Magisterial Reformation's confused teaching regarding 'law' is brought up (around 22:00) with the assumption that it is the state's job to enforce this - implying that the state is somehow in covenant with God, a teaching that has no basis in the New Testament. Ascol confuses this world (and nation) with 'His House' and thus people (the unregenerate) must live by His rules. The gospel is a call to repentance. He implies the state is to enforce the law of God and that this world is the Kingdom. It's a direct contradiction of Christ's teaching. As such, they cannot understand persecution. And yet as Davis talks about the Enlightenment and its focus on this world as an end - he cannot see that their theology has taken the same turn.**
They imply that those who reject what they say are somehow presenting a Christianity that just seeks the good life. On the contrary those who reject them do so on the basis of our calling to take up the cross. Meekness is perverted as is the testimony of Moses' life. I realize they wouldn't necessarily endorse all that Moses did but they dance around the issue and there's a real potential to mislead people. And of course need it be said that one greater than Moses has come?
I grew angry listening to them try and draw connections between a 'loser' view of Jesus and Left-wing politics. The Left hates the Biblical Christ as much as they do and the podcast discussion was driven not by Scripture but by their own political allegiances and misguided perceptions of the culture war. The Baptist Faith and Message of the SBC undoubtedly contains many truths but on the culture it's wrong and needs to be condemned. This has nothing to do with catering to Left-wing politics. The 'loser' mentality also seems to mean an embrace of feminism. That's really interesting. I guess they're unfamiliar with the conservative Anabaptist community which rejects their understanding of the Kingdom and yet one is hard pressed to find any feminism in their circles.
At 39:00, Ascol talks about the transformation of society (referencing the erroneous sections in the Baptist Faith and Message) and the gospel's demand for repentance and regeneration. He insists these are not mutually exclusive. In other words, he's saying the transformation of society is part of the gospel. The one cannot exist without the other. This is an explicit rejection of New Testament teaching and is without basis in the apostolic writings. Many verses can be appealed to that condemn this teaching, but it has no support. He confuses the cheap grace gospel of Evangelicalism with a rejection of social transformation. The notion that you can reject cheap grace and reject his Dominionist theology is something that is either beyond his ken or a possibility he is deliberately avoiding and thus spinning and mis-framing the conversation.
Gunden then reflects on the lack of self-discipline and restraint in the contemporary Church - at least I think he's talking about the Church and not the culture. The notions are easily confused when such categories are embraced. It never occurs to them that today's decadence is the harvest of previous generation's corruption with power and its mistress wealth. The Church held the reins - something they repeatedly celebrate, revisit, and would return to, and yet they fail to see that it was that very lack of Biblical faithfulness that corrupted the American Church and produced today's rotten harvest. It's something we see in history over and over again both with the Church and with societies.
Ascol begins to wrap up at 45:00 with a narrative regarding the conquest and supposed Christianisation of America. The settler-conquerors are lauded for their faithfulness, for seeking opportunities and taking them. He glories in his shame and ignores the tally of blood and theft that is the real history of this nation. Ascol thinks they were 'faithful Christians' who conquered the new world. He baptises their murder and what is little more than the stealing of other people's land. He wants more and wants the Church to do the same. Such teachers are little more than judgment on the Church.
In the end I was struck by the lack of Scriptural reference - when it was referenced it was misused. They rightly oppose many evil tendencies in the culture and yet the weapons they would employ are thoroughly carnal demonstrating a lack of understanding. Yes, homosexuality and feminism are wrong. Very good. Even a lot of unbelievers can get that figured out. But the broad strokes of New Testament doctrine and spirituality are missed and their open embrace of power (and by implication mammonism) - the sword and the coin to build the Kingdom, shows they do not have eyes to see or ears to hear. They are therefore by definition blind guides.
I was struck by the comments and how many people found this vapid discussion and doctrinal filth to be edifying. The transformation that has taken place with the emergence of Neo-Evangelicalism after World War II has been profound and they represent the orthodoxy of the day. They are the Mainline Church of contemporary American culture. The old Mainline bodies have committed suicide and yet they've been replaced by yet another iteration of worldly Christianity that will mislead millions and also self-destruct in another generation. These men are part of it and bear the responsibility. From such turn away.
-----
** Around the same time (35:00) I burst out laughing as Davis talked about dress and the like. Now, I'm completely opposed to the casualness, lack of reverence, and modesty that characterizes contemporary Evangelical culture and approaches to worship. That said, there is a degree of subjectivity to this. Some get upset if you're not wearing a jacket and tie - that's something cultural and these same people would have been shocked by the poverty of the Early Church and of those living in an underclass and underground existence throughout Church history before and after the Reformation. They wouldn't have been polished well-dressed and groomed people.
But as Davis is talking I'm looking at his backwards baseball cap and chuckling because in a previous generation (certainly that of Ascol) such a 'look' would have been deemed disrespectful, backward, and my generation would have said 'punkish'. A lot of older men and women from my grandfather's generation would take offense at merely wearing a hat indoors.
That said, I do remember wearing a cap like that as a lost young man caught up in the world of Heavy Metal music and the like. My point is that even as Davis makes these statements, his own appearance demonstrates there is a great deal of subjectivity to the questions, and thus while we may indeed need to draw lines we can also be charitable. Age gives us some perspective. For my generation I see all these young guys in tight pants and I know that when I was young we would have thought any guy dressed like that to be gay. And yet it's not the case and while I wouldn't be caught dead in such pants, I'm not going to let it ruin my day or let it destroy my ability to communicate with someone.