Visiting another church this Sunday once more proved to be a serious disappointment. The congregation was something of a hybrid between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism and yet Sacralist thinking dominated. The pastor continually confused the identity of the Church and the nation and begged the question regarding the Christian call to engage and dominate culture.
The pronoun confusion all too typical in these circles was on
full display. 'Our' culture is in trouble. 'Our' schools are in need of help,
and so forth. One retired man in the congregation was lauded for recently
getting himself voted on to the local school board. I thought of the now much
advertised Right-wing strategy that has focused specifically on school boards
as a means of generating grass roots involvement. From Breitbart to Evangelical
radio, this notion is being pushed aggressively.
Indeed, in many respects while the Bible was open it was not
really engaged with, but the real authority that dominated the meeting – the
proverbial elephant in the room so to speak was FOX news. Frankly for many
Evangelicals these days FOX is the primary epistemological foundation that
dominates everything from ethics to hermeneutics to theology. They have
saturated themselves with its ethos and its pernicious influence is playing out
in all areas of life – a FOX worldview one might say.
The passage was the opening of Matthew 18 and its references
to childlikeness, causing children to stumble, and the woes placed on the one
who brings such offenses. I winced and thought this might take a bad turn –
which it did in short order.
I knew it was going to be 'interesting' when about twenty
seconds into the 'sermon' there were already copious references to Florida
legislation, Disney, and so forth. And indeed that's all the sermon was – a
stream-of-consciousness Tucker Carlson-style discourse on politics and culture
war that never seriously interacted with the text. We can't just 'cede' that
territory we were told, cultural territory that once belonged to us. The
confusion on these points was palpable. It's interesting how it never occurred
to him that maybe that territory wasn't ours (as in the Church's) to begin
with. It was just assumed under the aegis of a grand Christendom-West-America
narrative, the historical and theological fable that dominates today's Church.
Yes, Christ is Lord over all, but the New Testament makes it
clear that his Lordship as Creator and Judge is quite separate from His
Covenant Lordship over His people – His holy Kingdom of which the world is not
a part. Paul said as much in 1 Corinthians 5 when he 'ceded' the outside and
argued that he has no business or interest in judging those who are 'outside'
and that God will judge them. To the sacralist mind and under its assumptions
there is no 'outside'. Everything is 'inside'. Everything is Kingdom and as
such they reject the duality posited by the apostle – one also present in
Romans 12-13.
In the New Testament, where do we find concern regarding what
the kids in the Roman schools were being taught? Even in the Old Testament, was
there a concern over what the children of the Philistines or Egyptians were
being taught in their schools? What about the Babylonian children during the
exile? I'm being a bit facetious but only a little. The sacralist worldview
hermeneutic that seeks to read Scripture through a monistic-dominionist lens
formulates a hybrid-system which is then read back into Scripture. It was on
full display with his handling or really mishandling of Matthew 18. He
completely missed or ignored the context of Christ's words – a Jewish
(covenantal) audience. And further he refers specifically to those who believe
in Him. Now, this could also generate some confusion in theological circles
dominated by Baptistic assumptions as infants and young children are (under
their model) unable to 'believe'. Once again I would argue the context is
covenantal and those 'in' the covenant (in both Old and New orders) are reckoned as believers. Regardless, to
take that passage mutatis mutandis and
simply apply it to the context of American society or the larger world in
general represents a deeply flawed (and yet all too common) hermeneutical
approach. In the case of this pastor, there was no exegesis taking place. It
was a topical sermon with its assumptions eisegetically imposed on the text.
He even mentioned 'sphere sovereignty' and I marveled once
more at how Kuyperian Dominionism has been continually repackaged and
disseminated throughout the larger realm of Evangelicalism. To be honest the
way most use it is more in terms of exerting a political and cultural voice
within your 'circle of influence' as opposed to what Kuyper actually meant by
sphere sovereignty. Kuyper's system of principled pluralism is actually quite a
bit different than what many of the more zealous Dominionists would like to see,
but the sphere concept is easy to grasp and is therefore frequently used – even
if it has no basis in Scripture.
It is instead (in its historical context) a philosophically
rooted answer or reaction to the further dismantling of Christendom in light of
the Industrial Revolution and the political turmoil that swept across the
Western world in the wake of the American and French Revolutions. Kuyper sought
to counter these forces and shape the narrative as indeed many Christians were
(and are) caught up in the ideals of these movements and in many other cases
have effectively baptised them. Kuyper's own confusion on these points is on
full display in his much celebrated 1898 Stone Lectures delivered at Princeton
Seminary.
I was further struck by our afternoon Bible reading at home.
As we worked through John 12, I kept thinking about the sermon earlier in the
day and how the pastor is so given to the Dominionist paradigm that it has
clouded all of his judgments and ethics. The Christian task (as he sees it) is
to embrace strength – which is always wed to wealth. I will admit he has
probably not made the real connection on this point. And yet deliberate or not,
this reality also plays a part in why these circles so faithfully celebrate
capitalism, business, and 'success'.
And yet Christ so poignantly turns the wisdom of the world on
its head, rejects power, repudiates mammon, and takes up the cross. Does He
enter Jerusalem on a war horse, in a chariot, or at the head of an army? No, he
enters as one impoverished, riding the humblest of beasts.
Once again it is the words and deeds of Christ Himself that
become so problematic for the Dominionist. In fact it's such a problem that
some will argue that we're not to emulate Christ at all. His task was unique
they argue, redemptive and not an example for us to follow. Indeed it was
unique and redemptive. Our call is not to take up the cross for the purpose of
substitutionary atonement, spiritual ransom, or in the capacity of Adamic
headship. Rather, we're called to follow in our Master's footsteps, in His
example that we too might testify (through weakness) to the strength and wisdom
of God and the power of the Gospel, that we too might die to the world and live
unto Him and the Kingdom He established. That we too might reject the world and
all that it has to offer, our focus being on the age to come and the holy
eschatological Kingdom, we by our actions and the rejection of their paradigms send
a sign of doom to the lost world – and testify against them. We count our lives
as not our own and our faith erases all fear.
In the John passage, Christ is explicit when he states that he
who hates his life in this world shall keep it unto eternal life. This ethos,
on full display during the triumphal entry turns all Dominionist expectations (as
well as its agenda) on its head. Once again, as strangers and pilgrims,
indifferent to Caesar's coin and the power of Caesar's sword, we live by a very
different set of values, one the world sees as foolishness and madness.
Security and respectability are not sought after and cannot be without fatal compromise.
Christ calls us to lose our lives – for some it will be
martyrdom, for others it will be a life of cross bearing humility – following
his teachings, divorced from power, a life that rejects the service of mammon
and all that it entails. Once again Christ's teaching regarding mammon is
perhaps the most ignored doctrine of the New Testament.
We are told in John 12 that if we would serve Him then we are
to follow Him. And this is said in reference to His pending death on the cross.
It's a clear statement as to what kind of life we're called to, a point
reiterated by the apostles on numerous occasions and in the testimony of their
lives. And the tensions over these questions are by no means new. The Roman
Church had since the time of Constantine and Theodosius embraced power and
forged alliances with it, but this was taken to the next level in the wake of
the Gregorian Reform. Groups like the Waldensians and Franciscans protested
this and were subsequently persecuted and killed. The debate is very much alive
and yet for this Evangelical pastor, Christianity and the Christian life are
inseparable from power. It was clear to me while listening to him that it's all
he thinks about. There was no exegesis. He simply wanted to talk about these political
issues related to children, the public school system, big companies pushing
agendas (which he likes in other circumstances), and the general cultural
decline. A would-be Tucker Carlson, he
had his message and his captive audience. He simply had to find a text he could
use as a springboard and he did so. And yet the message itself had no clear
principles – it was just a rambling and at times incoherent reminiscence about
the good old days and contemporary political struggle. These people can laugh
at Liberation Theology and its politicised gospel all they want – they are not any
different. The only difference is they have aligned with the traditional
centres of power and wealth.
Driving home I reflected on the fact that the whole
experience was sad, yet another case of the blind leading the blind. Things
were not okay back in the 1950's. The social cancers weren't birthed in the
1960's. The roots are much deeper and in many cases this pastor (and those like
him) feed from the same tap roots and ideological foundations of Classical
Liberalism and the economics (and ethics) it spawns – none of which is
Christian and in fact rose in response to the collapse of Christendom,
Christian consensus, and the prevalent epistemology. These too were not
Christian but Liberalism as a secularised reaction to false Christianity – is
even further removed from the equation.
As I've put it before, they're fighting poison with poison,
treating symptoms instead of curing the disease, escaping a ditch only by
digging another. It's a maddening and yet very sad case of hamsters running in
futility on a spinning wheel.
As I was trying to get out the door I was asked what I do for
a living. I revealed the fact that I'm self-employed. This was praised because
'small businesses are the backbone of America'. Smiling (perhaps a bit in
frustration) I replied that I wasn't pursuing this path with American culture
or its economy in mind but simply because it afforded me independence in terms
of time. Let's just say the point was not understood.
He has my phone number and I expect him to follow up in the
days ahead. I pray for wisdom. I'm going to point out that we're looking for a
church that teaches and follows the New Testament. He's going to reply that's
exactly what his church does at which point I will be compelled to counter this
claim. I will bring up the pronoun confusion and the question begging, but
frankly I don't expect it to go anywhere.
While I'm sure he could elaborate every last machination of
the Democrats and the various strategies that need to be employed in order to counter
them and to get this or that piece of legislation or issue sorted out. Indeed
it seemed that he gloried in being a bit of a wonk on these matters of policy
and political strategy. And yet listening to him I would question how much he
understands. I already know he's missed the point of the New Testament but I
don't think he even understands the political and cultural issues he's worked
about. Generally speaking FOX viewers score pretty low on current events and simple
civics tests.
In addition to his non-hermeneutic, when it comes to simple
ecclesiology once again confusion reigns. No surprise, as the Scriptures have
been neglected. Praise and Prayer request time degenerated into story time, a
bit of comedy, women reading passages that moved them and then they elaborated
upon them in the form of a shameful sermonette. No one has any clear idea as to
what they're doing. I asked about the Lord's Supper and it generated confusion.
Yes, they celebrate it I was assured – but there seemed to be no clear notion
as to when. Apparently it just happens from time to time or on an ad hoc basis
like for Easter. The auditorium was laden with Evangelical bric-a-brac, with
wood, porcelain, and plastic crosses everywhere. There were abundant candles, gaudy
1970's-style tapestries of Bible scenes, and the once ubiquitous Sallman
paintings of the Head of Christ, and Christ at Heart's Door.
Presbyterians will contemptuously nod at this and say, 'See
what happens when you don't have an established polity,' and yet such arguments
have no standing as their contrived system isn't Biblical either. They don't
even follow their own Confessional system with any kind of consistency and have
largely abandoned the liturgical principles their forebears established. And
many Reformed (let alone the New Calvinists!) have little problem with these
extra-Scriptural elements and practices. It's simply a matter of taste and
style. Their congregations are governed by the aesthetics of the upper middle
class and the wealthy. For the folks I encountered this last Sunday, it was
working class and the decayed tastes and now outdated aesthetics of Rust Belt
Appalachia.
And in the case of the congregation I visited (and even the
larger Calvinist sphere) what we often see is a desire for a kind of
grandiosity and pomp. For Calvinists, this is often rooted in the stability and
authority associated with institutionalism. For others it is experienced
through decorations – a kind of Mid-West/Appalachia Baroque.
It always strikes me that the simple Christianity of the New
Testament is rejected. The pastor rightly mocked the unbiblical methodologies
of the Barna and Rick Warren types, the fad Christianity, and the market-consumer
mentality of many churches and pastors. And yet, like so many other
Evangelicals there's still the temptation to focus on the building, the
accoutrements and an attempt to create a sanctified atmosphere by means of
props and trinkets. For him it's the 'homey', for a Presbyterian it's often
more of the institutional feel and focus.
And yet how many in seeking this 'right feeling' of what
Church is supposed to be like find both models wanting and drift toward
Canterbury, Wittenberg, Rome, and beyond?
The simple New Testament Christianity which requires baptised
faithful people gathered with and around the Word and its God-ordained
corollaries of bread, wine, and water is just too simple – too much like Christ
on the donkey in humility and simplicity proclaiming a Kingdom that defies the
world. And so consequently we get not just the bric-a-brac, but imposing
buildings, institutions, 'sacred' architecture, various forms of grand (and
spiritually pretentious) music, robes, candles, organs, sound systems,
congregational and denominational bureaucracies, offices with computers and
file cabinets, and in more modern times bank accounts, and entanglements with
insurance companies, architects, code officials, lawyers, and on it goes ad infinitum. Security, respectability,
mammon, and power lead the Church down many foreign roads and it loses its way.
Like the pastor today, many see that something is amiss, and the problem is even
becoming quite acute, but all too often the answer is – more of the same.