Culture wars: How to Look Like a Hypocrite

[Point four of Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]

Jered Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to hell because . . ."

4. It is often hypocritical. It is the height of weirdness to expect people who don’t know Jesus to act like they do especially when we can’t get our own house in order. So long as large numbers of Christians continue contributing to the divorce statistics, the porn industry, and more acceptable sins like gluttony and gossip and greed, we have zero business telling the world how to act. Judgment begins at the house of God.

1 Peter 4:17 For it is time for judgment to begin, starting with the house of God. And if it starts with us, what will be the fate of those who are disobedient to the gospel of God?

Read more!

Culture wars: Moralism is the Medium

[Point two of Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]
"
Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to Hell because . . ."

2. Its medium is moralism, not gospel. It makes kingdom militancy about religion, not gospel. It seeks a Christian coercion of others toward better behavior, not an incarnational sharing with others of the better Way.

Read more!

Romans 2:17-29:"True Covenant Membership"

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using the pastor's - in this case Matt Bowen - titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text is:

Read more!

Romans 2:1-5:"Judgment and the Judgmental"

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text is:

(NET) Romans 2:1 Therefore² you are without excuse,³ whoever you are,⁴ when you judge someone else.⁵ For on whatever grounds⁶ you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment is in accordance with truth⁷ against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think,⁸ whoever you are, when you judge⁹ those who practice such things and yet do them yourself,¹⁰ that you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know¹¹ that God’s kindness leads you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness¹² and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed!¹³

Notes:

¹ sn Rom 2:1–29 presents unusual difficulties for the interpreter. There have been several major approaches to the chapter and the group(s) it refers to:

1. Rom 2:14 refers to Gentile Christians, not Gentiles who obey the Jewish law.
2. Paul in Rom 2 is presenting a hypothetical viewpoint: If anyone could obey the law, that person would be justified, but no one can.
3. The reference to “the ones who do the law” in 2:13 are those who “do” the law in the right way, on the basis of faith, not according to Jewish legalism.
4. Rom 2:13 only speaks about Christians being judged in the future, along with such texts as Rom 14:10 and 2 Cor 5:10.
5. Paul’s material in Rom 2 is drawn heavily from Diaspora Judaism, so that the treatment of the law presented here cannot be harmonized with other things Paul says about the law elsewhere (E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 123); another who sees Rom 2 as an example of Paul’s inconsistency in his treatment of the law is H. Räisänen, Paul and the Law [WUNT], 101–9.
6. The list of blessings and curses in Deut 27–30 provide the background for Rom 2; the Gentiles of 2:14 are Gentile Christians, but the condemnation of Jews in 2:17–24 addresses the failure of Jews as a nation to keep the law as a whole (A. Ito, ”Romans 2: A Deuteronomistic Reading,” JSNT 59 [1995]: 21-37).

² tn Some interpreters (e.g., C. K. Barrett, Romans [HNTC], 43) connect the inferential Διό (dio, “therefore”) with 1:32a, treating 1:32b as a parenthetical comment by Paul.

³ tn That is, “you have nothing to say in your own defense” (so translated by TCNT).
⁴ tn Grk “O man.”
⁵ tn Grk “Therefore, you are without excuse, O man, everyone [of you] who judges.”
⁶ tn Grk “in/by (that) which.”
⁷ tn Or “based on truth.”
⁸ tn Grk “do you think this,” referring to the clause in v. 3b.
⁹ tn Grk “O man, the one who judges.”

¹⁰ tn Grk “and do them.” The other words are supplied to bring out the contrast implied in this clause.

¹¹ tn Grk “being unaware.”
¹² tn Grk “hardness.” Concerning this imagery, see Jer 4:4; Ezek 3:7; 1 En. 16:3.
¹³ tn Grk “in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.”

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

My Comments: I almost posted the last message along with this one in the same post. I think it is essential for anyone looking at Romans 1:24-32 to make sure they REALLY focus on this passage. For me, Paul draws the audience into a good "head-nodding" session on all "those" bad people - and then snaps them back to reality with the punchline here: you are "those bad people" so get off your high horse. It is good at this point to remember the verse at the end of the last post as well:

Matthew 7:3 Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? 5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

As opposed to the critic who questioned the authorship (and intellectual depth) of Romans 1:18-2:5; I think this is one of the most important sections of scripture. Here is a review of Paul's argument here - minus the details:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them . . . So people are without excuse. For although they knew God, did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened . . . Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity . . . They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions . . . And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done . . . Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them. Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, when you judge someone else. For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment is in accordance with truth against those who practice such things. And do you think, whoever you are, when you judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape God’s judgment? Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know that God’s kindness leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed!

Carl presents that Paul's points here are:

• that the people who do the things on "vice list" between 26 and 32 are wrong:

  John 8:3 The experts in the law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught committing adultery. They made her stand in front of them 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of adultery. 5 In the law Moses commanded us to stone to death such women. What then do you say?” 6 (Now they were asking this in an attempt to trap him, so that they could bring charges against him.) Jesus bent down and wrote on the ground with his finger. 7 When they persisted in asking him, he stood up straight and replied, “Whoever among you is guiltless may be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Then he bent over again and wrote on the ground. 9 Now when they heard this, they began to drift away one at a time, starting with the older ones, until Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up straight and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 11 She replied, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you either. Go, and from now on do not sin any more.”

  While Jesus, further making the point Paul made, reproved the crowd for judging and condemning the adulteress for her sin - He did not ignore her sin. He let her know it was sin, and that she needed to stop sinning



• those that approve and support those that do such things are worse:

  Luke 17:1 Jesus said to his disciples, “Stumbling blocks are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! 2 It would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. 3 Watch yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him. If he repents, forgive him. 4 Even if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times returns to you saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”

  Approving of folks who sin is indeed causing them to sin further - it is indeed just the kind of "stumbling block" Jesus talked about here. Notice - again - that Jesus does not say to ignore sin. We are to rebuke our brother when they sin, and then forgive them



• those who judge others that do those things (while they do some/any of them themselves) are worst of all. That brings us back once more to:

  Matthew 7:3 Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? 5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Amen!

Appendix: This section is included in a textual issue one reader brought up

Next: 2:6-16 -- "God's Impartial Judgement"

Read more!

Is Moralism Defensible?

Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost writes "In Defense of Moralism"

Before we discard the term, though, we should question why we would abandon such a useful word when there are so few suitable alternatives. Admittedly, moral philosophers also study morals and moral problems. But unless one has a PhD and an office in the Ivory Tower, calling oneself a philosopher is considered pretentious. The same holds true for almost every other subject worthy of study. To say a person is a theologian, bioethicist, or economist implies they are "professionals" with the necessary degrees and vocational credentials. Unless we consider morality a subject unsuitable for "amateurs", why would we want to toss aside such a useful term as moralist?

The obvious answer is that the term has become weighted down with too much baggage. Before we can reclaim the term it is necessary to cut loose some of the predominant misconceptions about the label:

Certainly, go read Joe's post - it is a valiant effort to reclaim the word. What follows after the fold is my comment at that post:

I suppose one could try to resurrect "moralist" as a term applying to one that studies morals - although I am not sure where the professional future of that job lies. In the secular world, ethicist would probably do better. For the follower of Christ, we probably should be looking at how the secular world we are trying to reach views our moral claims and prescriptions.

First, Christ's primary ministry was to the Jews - the religion of His birth and the community His ministry was launched in and directed to. He shared a common moral framework, and indeed a common citizenship in a theocracy - or at least one repressed by the Romans. The group of Pharisees he was most likely railing against were those calling Jews to ultra-holiness, and strict adherance to religious law and custom, in order to stave off the inroads of hellenization; and to keep Roman rule from breaking their faith community. Of course, in about 30 years, that group would combine with Zealots to start the first of three wars with Rome that would destroy Judah. So, Christ warned against the very things our current moralists and legalists attempt to organize: the creation of rules and customs to be strictly adhered to in order to stave off secularization of our religion. Indeed, we find our extremes wishing to legislate those rules and customs into ["Roman"?] law. Christ instead talked about writing these laws on our hearts, and not in stone. In being pure, not acting pure. And criticized those who would lay additional moral and legal burdens on God's people [that they themselves could, or would, not follow].

Paul would do the same as the church formed. He did not expect Pagan society to follow Christian rules - his moral prescriptions focused entirely on internal church life; and, indeed, he made it clear that we must be "all to all" in order to bring people to Christ so that the morality of God even applied to them at all. At the beginnnings of Romans 2, right after those famous verses and homosexuality and more in Romans 1:18-32, we have this chilling warning against trying to take the moral high ground:

1 Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, when you judge someone else. For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment is in accordance with truth against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think, whoever you are, when you judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know that God’s kindness leads you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed!

Can you have the "kindness, forbearance and patience" of God while knowing that only His kindness will lead folks to repentance? Then, indeed be a moralist. Otherwise, I think a better idea is to realize that no one cares what you think about their morality until they know you love them.

Read more!

Everybody is All a Vitter About Hypocrisy

Pastordan at Street Prophets talked about the theologically conservative Christian view of the Vitter scandal. A couple of folks I read a lot have chatted on the subject, and I thought y'all might like to hear what my ilk herd is saying. The first is Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost: "Larry Flynt vs. David Vitter: Examining the Difference Between Hypocrisy and Moral Inconsistency". A couple of points he made that I find interesting:

Indeed, the American Heritage Dictionary defines hypocrisy as "The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness." The British literary critic William Hazlitt once explained, “He is a hypocrite who professes what he does not believe; not he who does not practice all he wishes or approves”

By all appearances Sen. Vitter does indeed believe in such "family values" as marital fidelity. Where he has failed is in behaving in a way that comports with those values; a matter not of hypocrisy but of moral inconsistency. Such consistency is essential--particularly for democratically elected representatives--for establishing and maintaining trust. This is why private behavior has such public implications. The marital infidelity of a legislator, for example, is strong signal that they are untrustworthy: If a man cannot be trusted to keep a sacred vow to an intimate, how can I trust him to keep his word to me, a stranger?

What we desire in a representative is that they be a person of integrity--that their character be a morally consistent whole. A person who is free of contradictory ethical impulses and actions is likely to behave in a manner that is trustworthy. Even if we disagree with their views, we can deduce how they will act and make our judgments about them accordingly.

This is why both Vitter and Flynt agree about the significance of integrity. What separates the two men (besides the fact that Vitter is a man of weak character while Flynt is a despicable pervert) is where they put the emphasis on this trait.

I could post the whole post - but go read it; because the difference he posits between Flynt and Vitter is whether they believe there is anything objectively immoral, or whether all morality is subjective and internal.

The next guy to weigh in is Jeremy Pierce at Parableman with his take on the "Hypocrisy" in this story. There are not particular money quotes in the post, but it to is worthy of a read. He, in talking about moral inconsistency, pointed out a whole 'nother issue brought up by a third place I read: the conservative (ala the law) Volokh Conspiracy quoting Ann Althouse:

I hate seeing people publicly humiliated for the sexual things they do in private. But the government is criminally prosecuting a woman, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, for what it says was a prostitution ring. These are federal charges, and the senator, David Vitter, has some responsibility for the laws that make this prosecution possible.

Vitter situates his misdeed in the realm of religion and private morality: ... "Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling... Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there -- with God and them...." ...

Palfrey can't say God has forgiven her and walk free. In fact, Vitter's statement hurts Palfrey because it strongly implies that Palfrey was doing what she's accused of. Vitter's confession -- intended to move us to mercy -- links him to criminal activity, but only she is facing criminal punishment.... It's not a matter to be resolved within the realm of church and family as long as Palfrey is being prosecuted.

Is there objective immorality, or are morals subjective and internal?

Read more!

Testimony Part I: I started out as a child

I was born into a "christian" home; and attended church regularly until I graduated from high school. I put christian in quotes because the church teaching gave me no grounding in the Bible, theology or doctrine; and my parents dropped the kid's off at church on Sundays so they could be alone - so our home was not really christian based. I was very active as a youth in my church: was a junior deacon; chancel assistant; attended the national church organization's annual convention as a youth representative; and was the youth representative on the committee that selected our new pastor.

Racism, since I can remember, has been wrong to me. Some of this was my mom's lessons - although while I drew anti-racism beliefs from what she taught, my sister's drew the opposite. I take this as gifting from God to me. I grew up in southwest Missouri. Joplin was racially divided: Jasper County was 99% white, all 1% of the blacks lived in Joplin, all in the same geographical area with the only paved road being the one that went through the neighborhood. Luckily for me I always seemed (at least after grade school) to be in the school with the black kids. One of my best friends was black (no thats not a joke). Roland B. and I attended Jr. High and High school together. On weekends during high school, he and I plus John W., a catholic friend of mine, would go out to a 5 acre farm and hang out and have fun. More on Roland in a minute.

The National Council of Community Churches (of which my church was a member) as a whole was about 70% Black (my church 100% white). As a youth representative I was a minority white. There were some interesting experiences in this: cross burnings, black girlfriends (with accompanying threats by my mom), etc. The most important thing for this thread is attending a church conference in Gunnison, CO - and seeing how the minister there had dealt with racism in a mixed church population (fairly rare now, real rare then).

The threads came together to blow me out of my church. Our church needed a new pastor and one of the candidates was that "great pastor" who combated racism in Gunnison. In a close vote, my support for him on the racism issue gave him the job. Back to Roland: John W., Roland and I would come into town on Sunday mornings from the country and hit our respective churches. I didn't have to attend every week; but Roland and John W. did. So I would go to both of their churches sometimes before we went back out to the farm. When it came time for me to serve as junior Deacon, I told my pastor (the anti-racism one) a week in advance that a black friend of mine would be attending. I did this because I did not wish to create a controversy (it would) without the pastor knowing about it in advance.

BOOM!: The pastor begged me not to bring Roland: the church wasn't ready, but would be some day; we needed to have a plan; blah blah blah. I left the church that day telling the pastor that when the church was ready to welcome Roland - they could welcome me too. The church I had attended and been active in for 17 years did not bat an eye on my leaving.

Teenagers are rightfully on high hypocrisy alert; and the lack of Biblical grounding didn't allow me to separate the human teaching and mistakes of christians (and indeed expect them) from the teachings and love of Christ. I had placed my faith in men rather than God and, of course, been let down.

Next Post: It's All Downhill for a Ways

Read more!

Testimony Part II: It's All Downhill for a Ways

Politics

Two themes govern the next part of my life: politics and sex. There was quite a bit of drug use but it was never really a key to my development. I graduated from high school in 1970. My senior year I had won a debate taking the pro-war side of the Vietnam War. By late April 1971, I was in Washington, DC as part of the Mayday Demonstrations. I had rolled far past being a "peacenik" - by this time I was very radical; and was there to "shut down the government" by blocking traffic in Washington after all the nice people had gone home.

By August of 1972, I was demonstrating from the left against both the Republican and Democratic Partys at their conventions in Miami. Of course, I got a floor pass to the Democratic to watch the show; and was part of the group getting tear gassed outside the Republican so that the gas got sucked into the ventilation system and emptied the hall. I put a paper bag over my head and voted for McGovern that year; after demonstrating outside his hotel in Miami because he blocked a gay rights plank in the Democratic Party platform (plus a few other things). It would be a long time until I voted for a person again.

By this time I was becoming a Marxist (Chinese version). I worked in a radical bookstore in California (so I got to read a lot of theory). I left California heading north in spring of 1973; and lodged in Oregon after getting arrested for violating the H. Rap Brown Act for attempting to get to the AIM siege at Wounded Knee, SD. I became active in a group whose primary radical role was running a very left print shop. People in the group had come together from the Black Panthers, Revolutionary Union, and the Patriot Party. My spiritual slide was complete - at least the philosophical part of it. I never called myself an atheist. When asked I said I felt that made God too important still - I called myself an agnostic not because I didn't know, but because I didn't care and thought it an unimportant question to even pursue or think about.

By 1978, for a variety of reasons my political activism was over - but not because of any real disagreement with Marxism. My first marriage, and the responsibilities of four step-children, and the dismal sectarian state of radical political organizations all put an end to it (the left has always been self-destructive: might have something to say about the validity of the politics).

Sex

I was the nerd in school: glasses, "98 lb weakling", good grades, asthma - so no sports. Most of my friends were jocks. I admired guys that had "the pretty women". It was my goal to be able to do that too; and of course I thought they all were "scoring". I dated the same girl on and off from the summer before my sophmore year in high school until the summer before my senior year in high school. She moved to Ohio.

We lost our virginity together in honor of that event. I went off to church conference in Florida; expecting to be able to see her for about a month before her family left for good. Undying love spoken, she had my ring. After I got to Florida, I found out that her parents found out we had sex - and that she had missed her period and might be pregnant. The mature young man I was, ready for a serious relationship, and wanting to be there to support my girlfriend - I cashed in my ticket home and flew to Ohio to "visit" a friend of mine there and to stay close to a girl I met a conference that I was "in love' with now. I hid there about two weeks until the mother on that end called mine - and they escorted me to a bus. Susan wasn't pregnant.

The summer after my senior year showed the transition. I went to church conference for the last time to see the girl I had met the previous summer. The situation with Roland happened that summer. I would head to college that fall and flunk out by Christmas - much too much time drinking to study. Then, I ran into the guy I won the Vietnam War debate against the year before. Let the politics begin. By April I was at Mayday

Growing my hair long improved my looks. I had a string of sexual relationships in Missouri and beyond. There were any number of bad endings. I met my first wife in the movement in Oregon; and we lived together for about a year before we got married. She was Chicana - freaked my mom out a bit but not bad. She was 11 years older, she had four children. We stayed together for 11 years.

I blew that marriage apart by adultery. I became a sexual addict for nude dancers, massage parlors, and prostitution. I got caught, I got divorced. Within six months of the divorce, I met my second wife. In that six months I had had two more sexual relationships. The plunge was complete.

Next Post: The Road Back to God

Read more!