The “politics” of the beatitudes

Tod Lindberg, a Fellow of the Hoover Institute, is the latest in a long line of people attempting to explain the politics of Jesus and his “social revolution.” Evangelical Outpost links to an excerpt from Lindberg’s new book, The Political Teachings of Jesus, which appears to be an attempt to create a “sophisticated portrait of Jesus as a teacher of unique insight and perception, one whose political views have transcended time and become essential to the way everyone lives in our society,” says the book's publisher. “In an era when people on both sides of the aisle are prone to using Jesus’s beliefs for their own ends, The Political Teachings of Jesus is a refreshingly clear-eyed take on our shared concepts of government and society—and their common roots between the covers of the New Testament.”

I read the excerpt that Evangelical Outpost pointed to, and I wasn’t impressed. Sinner that I am, even I recognized that Mr. Lindberg just wasn’t getting what Jesus Christ was talking about. If you keep in mind that when Christ walked the earth He was about His Father’s business, the beatitudes make much more sense.

Lindberg writes:

The Beatitudes provide a dizzying commentary designed to turn upside down the political and social world of the Roman Empire of Caesar Augustus and of the Jewish religious elite of Judea and Jerusalem. This is the opening move of a more drastic and fundamental reassessment of political and social affairs, applying not only to its own time but to all future times, down to our day. More still: It points to the increasing fulfillment in this world of the promise of the human condition as such — and of the struggle against vast and daunting but not insurmountable obstacles that such fulfillment will require.

Well, sure--if you think Jesus wasn't at all concerned about our salvation and came merely to start a revolution. Lindberg seems to think that the beatitudes concern a conflict of sorts between the mighty and privileged versus the humble or gentle. He calls it the “Jesusian” political philosophy, whereby people should live by the guidelines Jesus laid out. It’s hard to distill in a few sentences what he says, so you’d have to read the whole thing. But in the end, he really just doesn’t understand. Here’s his conclusion:

In the world, we will always have among us those in mourning and the gentle; we will always have need of those who desire righteousness, of those who are merciful, of those who act out of pure intentions, and of those who seek peace. But if or when the world is organized in accordance with the principles embedded in the lives of those Jesus here deems “blessed,” we will no longer have the persecuted and the unvalued, nor their persecutors and tormentors. The Jesusian political agenda is thus organized around the pursuit of righteousness by those who are able — at potential risk to their own lives — for the sake of a world in which the unvalued (including they themselves when they are persecuted) are at last fully valued as human beings.

How, then, does Jesus envision that the gentle will come to inherit the earth? Because the once-mighty, under pressure of precisely this kind, will die out as a type. They will change their minds about defending their privileges at the expense of others. And the world will be their dying bequest to the gentle.

OK, now, let’s talk about what they really mean. First off, you need to understand that the beatitudes have NOTHING to do with politics and everything to do with getting the sinner—us—right with God. If you think “blessed are the poor” and “blessed are the peacemakers” are political statements, then you are no different than the Jews who sought to crown Jesus king to drive off the Romans and re-establish the kingdom of Israel.

Let’s go through them (Matthew 5):

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” That passage has nothing to do with material want. It is concerned solely with spiritual want. The “poor in spirit” are those who are so crushed by the weight of their sins that they finally are turned to Jesus, and hence to the Father. That keeps with the theme of the rest of the Beatitudes, which concern spiritual matters, not physical or material matters.

“Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.” The mourning is not for their material condition, or grief from death or other kind of earthly loss, as Lindberg thinks it is. It is mourning over sin and the realization that the sinner’s actions have separated him from God. It is mourning over what he has become—and his comforting will come from God, because the sinner has finally turned to God. It is the kind of sorrow that leads to repentance.

“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.” Meek is not “gentle” as Lindberg says: “They walk softly upon the earth, seeking to impose themselves on others as little as possible. They see to their obligations as best they can, but they take nothing from others and ask for nothing from them for themselves. They are satisfied with what they have, however meager it may be. They do not strive, but accept their circumstances.” Well, not quite. Meek is what Jesus was: submitting to the Father while standing upright for truth. And Jesus certainly imposed Himself on others—witness what He did when He twice drove the money-changers from the Temple! A meek man is a man who stands tall for the gospel and kneels before God. A meek man is a man who humbles himself before God. A meek man is the man who would be first by being last. A meek man challenges kings and the powerful with the gospel of truth. He is humble, but no weakling who never makes waves. He is a man who knows that he is filthy and God is holy—and his reward for serving God will be eternal life.

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.” Lindberg thinks Jesus is abruptly switching tracks here and switching from the physical to the metaphysical, and that people are searching for some metaphysical or primordial thing that they themselves can’t quench, so they must seek “something outside themselves.” Lindberg says it’s a universal desire, that everyone seeks it—and only everyone’s desire for righteousness can be satisfied as long as everyone plays nice. Lindberg also claims Jesus makes a distinction that not everyone should thirst for his own righteousness.

What nonsense.

What Jesus was saying is that the sinner is blessed for seeking the righteousness that only comes from Jesus Christ. It is a foreign righteousness that covers our filthy sins and allows us to enter God’s holy presence. This has to do with seeking God, not others. Only those who seek the righteousness of Christ will be filled.

John MacArthur, in The Quest for Character, writes that (p27) “If your heart is dead and spiritually lifeless, you cannot by a sheer act of human will summon an appetite for true righteousness. Scripture says, “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:7-8)

“Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.” This is the only one Lindberg approaches getting right—sort of. However, “don’t kick someone when he’s down,” as Lindberg says, is not quite the point. Rather, it has to do with God’s forgiveness. If you expect forgiveness from God for your sins but you never forgive a contrite heart, then God will not forgive your contrite heart.

“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.” Says Lindberg: “Such people will act out of no bad motive, but always in accordance with the purity of rightness within them. Uncorrupted inwardly, the pure in heart will act toward others without corruption, since it would not occur to such a person to cheat a friend or steal from a stranger or tell a lie.”

Uh…Who are the pure at heart? The beatitudes build upon one another and are completely interconnected. The “pure at heart” can only be those who have been crushed in their spirit, turned to Christ, confessed their sins and accepted/drank from the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Only t hen can we enter into the presence of t he Father. Yes, yes, there are plenty of “good” people throughout the world who don’t lie, cheat or steal. That isn’t the point here. Lindberg’s interpretation, however, is NOT what Jesus meant.

To enter heaven, to enter His holy presence, we have to be pure. And because not one of us is worthy, we have to accept the sacrifice of Jesus, because there is “no other name given under which we might be saved.”

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.” This is not concerned with anti-war, or being peaceful with one another, no matter how much liberals or anyone else wants it to be. The “peacemakers” are ones who have been reformed by the Holy Spirit, are cloaked by the righteousness of Jesus Christ and are at peace with God instead of being in rebellion against Him. That is why they can be called sons of God—and not because they oppose a war or are nice to one another!

Otherwise, “everyone” would be called a son of God.

“Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” Righteousness is not, as Lindberg claims, persecution for doing what is “right.” It is persecution for standing for Jesus Christ. Elsewhere, Jesus says, “the world hates you because it hated me first.” It is being persecuted falsely for standing for Christ’s truths.

Says Lindberg: “Jesus promises possession of “the kingdom of heaven” to those in two of his categories: the poor in spirit and those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness. As for those who run afoul of the overlords because they are following his teaching, he says “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

Really? So people who merely follow his sayings but don’t believe in Him as Lord, Savior and God will inherit the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus actually laid out two categories of people? Where? In Lindberg’s mind? It is not possible for someone to not be poor in spirit according to how Christ means it yet be persecuted for His sake. One cannot exist without the other.

The two categories of people that Jesus Christ really talked about were not according to Lindberg’s “Jesusian political philosophy.” Rather, He said there are wheat and chaff, sheep and goats, believers and unbelievers.

In sum, Lindberg’s political interpretation of the beatitudes is extremely lacking. In attempting to wrest Jesus from political abuses from both ends of the political spectrum, he seems to have managed to leave out the most salient part: that Jesus came not to start a revolution, but to complete a mission. He was about His Father’s business, not revolutionizing a new way of life.

(Note: Luke presents a slightly different version of the beatitudes in his gospel (for example, Luke writes: “blessed are the poor” instead of “blessed are the poor in spirit”), but it is possible that Jesus was speaking on another occasion. John MacArthur writes in his study Bible that more than likely the disparities originate in the differences between in the audiences that Matthew and Luke were writing to, and the differences in the translations of the writing styles of Matthew and Luke into Greek. – note on Luke 6:17-49)

Real intolerance; or, why the offensive gospel must be preached

The world, which is continually hostile to Christ and His message, is currently preaching that all religions are merely different paths to the same God. But Christ’s claim to deity is unique and proven, and Christians need to stand fast under the assault of the evil one who uses the world’s religions to undermine the one true faith. There can never be reconciliation between Christianity and other faiths, because the only way to salvation is through God’s grace by faith in Jesus Christ alone.

But the gospel of Christ, indeed Christ Himself, is exclusive: “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me,” He said. That is the most “intolerant” statement ever made, according to the new definition of tolerance, which, I guess, makes Jesus a totally intolerant God.

And He is, because God, who is holy (e.g., perfect in every way), cannot countenance sin. He cannot tolerate it in His presence, which is why we cannot earn our way into heaven, or bargain our way, or be “good enough” or please God enough to get into heaven. Only Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, the shedding of innocent divine sacrificial blood to atone for the sins of all mankind, makes it possible for us to enter heaven.

The Father sacrificing His only Son in the supreme act of love takes our filthy rags of sin and replaces them with cloaks of righteousness. In other words, our sins are washed away, covered by Christ. This happens only for those who have accepted the sacrifice and repented of our sins and turned toward the only true God. (Yes, Jesus died for all and carried all sins on His shoulders, but only a relative few accept Him as Lord and Savior.)

It is only this heavenly cleansing, this cloaking of a foreign righteousness (Jesus Christ’s) that permits us to enter into God’s holy (perfect) presence in His heavenly kingdom.

So, yes, God is intolerant. So be it.

But step inside many Christian churches today, and you never hear this message. You never hear the exclusive claim of Christ. You never hear “one way” and “the narrow road” proclaimed. Instead, you get “seeker sensitive” messages with a watered-down gospel message designed not to offend people coming in the door for the first time.

And that’s not what God commands us to do. “Preach the word,” Paul wrote to Timothy. When a Christian preacher preaches, he’s supposed to preach Jesus Christ. As Paul writes to Timothy in his second letter to the young man, he first reminds him that “all scripture is God-breathed” (which includes Paul’s letters) and then he says (chapter 4):

Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry. (NIV)

And what is “the word”? The gospel of Jesus Christ!

What is an Apostate?

(Originally published at J’s Café Nette on July 14, 2007)

An Episcopal priest claims to be both Christian and Muslim — but the Bible says she can’t be

What is an apostate? He or she is someone who becomes a Christian by hearing and believing the truth, then ultimately rejects it—but still walks, talks and acts like a Christian.

Identifying and calling out apostates today is not an easy thing to do. You are called intolerant, a “heretic hunter” and worse. Your concern for the truth is dismissed as divisive, and your efforts are not welcome in the “enlightened” church of the 21st century.

It’s nothing new.

I was prompted to write this when I heard about an Episcopal from Seattle named Ann Holmes Redding, who claimed last month that she is now both a Christian priest and a practicing Muslim. She claims that, since becoming Muslim while remaining Christian, “I have been, by my own estimation, a better teacher, a better preacher and a better Christian.”

What she claims is utterly impossible in the eyes of God. She is either an apostate or someone who never had the truth to begin with. But to call her out on her massive error is to invite attacks of “bigot,” “intolerance” and worse.

But first: what is “the truth?” That Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, is the only begotten son of God, and that His sacrifice on the cross was and is sufficient for the total remission of sins for those who believe in Him. The truth is that scripture is unerring and sufficient. The truth is that there are no new “truths” to be discovered in God’s word, and that the message that has already been revealed to us is IT.

But today, if you say that and boldly proclaim it, you’re in a hated minority.

And that, too, is nothing new. During Israel’s kingdom period, the prophet Jeremiah often felt as if he were the last true believer among all the people. And the people themselves ignored the repeated warnings of God’s prophets until it was too late, and they were swept to 70 years of captivity in Babylon. During Christ’s time on earth, the Lord repeatedly told the truth about Himself to the Pharisees, but they were so wrapped in their own religion and their own misunderstanding of what they had been given, that they refused to see the Messiah standing right before them!

All of the authors of the New Testament missives warn of apostates in the newly established churches, but none are so pointed as Jude. Jude was a son of Mary and Joseph, making him, along with James, a half-brother of Jesus in His earthly incarnation. Jude urged Christians to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.”

What does this mean? That people who would pervert Christianity and turn it from the truth are being accepted as Christians, but what they’re preaching is poison—and they have to be stopped. Stopped being accepted as teachers and stopped being listened to. “Marked out for condemnation” means that God Himself will deal with them.

And who are some of these apostates? They are leaders of many mainstream denominations who think that they can change the word of God to mean whatever they want it to mean. They are people who think that what was written 2,000 years ago just isn’t hip enough for today, so the truth of Christ needs to be downplayed, even set aside, lest people get scared away from church. They are people who preach feel-good nonsense about getting rich, who claim to be miracle makers, and who try to conform Christ to popular culture instead of conforming themselves to Christ. These are people who reject authority—God’s authority—but still call themselves Christian. The popular Emerging Church movement definitely has problems with apostasy, because its leadership, especially its founder, throws out all doctrine. That movement has troubles because it essentially boils its message down to “Jesus loves you; isn’t that enough?” No, it isn’t. If it were as simple as that, everyone in the world would be Christian.

If you want to get an understanding of just how bad things are getting, and how apostates can so easily mislead people today, try this: compare a sermon of today from any “mainstream” church to one from the same church 50 or 100 years ago. What’s the topic today? Christ crucified for our sins—or your self esteem? Christ glorified—or being “slain in the spirit?” Christ the redeemer—or the “social gospel” of a political party? Try comparing Jonathan Edwards’ “Sinners in the hands of an angry God” sermon to one by Joel Osteen or one of the other masters of a megachurch. (I don’t know if Osteen is an apostate, but his sermons are light on substance and heavy on fluff.)

Why, then, is doctrine so important? Doesn’t it just limit people? Isn’t there enough Christ to go around for all of us? Doesn’t it cramp the style of a dynamic fresh leader in the church? Don’t ideas from 2,000 years ago just not apply to today? Aren’t they woefully out of date and don’t fit with today’s hip, secularized American culture? Isn’t Christ open to interpretation from one generation to the next? Shouldn’t those concerned with doctrine just lighten up?

Tell that to Paul, Peter, John, James and Jude.

The “lighten up” mentality puts little faith in God. Would not God hand His word down for all time? Would He not give us the means to deal, on a basic level, with all situations? Would He not reveal His entire plan for redemption? To act as if God’s word as handed to us through His scriptures is anything less than adequate for our needs is, frankly, telling God that He isn’t perfect, isn’t adequate, isn’t up to the task, isn’t all-loving, all-knowing and all-providing.
Again, this is nothing new. The means for apostasy may have changed, but the intent hasn’t.

Ultimately, it places man before God. It places the human ego before God.

Thanks for reading.