Is it Just Me?
Um, is it just me, or does 2Peter 2:1 pose a problem for limited atonement?
Spiritual and Sexual Abuse in the Church: I Can See Clearly Now
In preparation for the second volume of The Truth About New Calvinism and The Reformation Myth, I am reading a hefty amount of material written by Socrates and Plato. Though Socrates was obviously a very annoying person, reading his writings is a real eye-opener in regard to how the first philosophical academy of the western world shapes our present-day thinking from some twenty-five hundred years ago. His very same bases of thought, attitude, and communication techniques that can be seen today are eerily exact—not just similar—exact.
Volume one of TTANC focused on the roots and doctrine of the present-day New Calvinist movement. In preparation for volume two, I dined with church historian John Immel who pointed me to the fact that New Calvinists hold to true Reformation doctrine. Immel then suggested that I research the connections between the Reformers and Augustine, and then Augustine’s connections to Plato. He also provided some clues as to what he believes the connections are. Immel is not one who desires to put ideas in people’s minds; he is more or less a modern-day herald of the need for people to think for themselves.
Mark that. It’s an element that contributes greatly to spiritual and sexual abuse in the church. People – thinking for themselves = abuse. That’s the first part of the equation, we will add to it later. Lest you think that I am alone in seeing hefty significance and a direct relationship between the Soc./Plato Academy and modern-day behavior, consider what others say. In Harper Magazine’s endorsement of “The Wisdom And Ideas Of Plato” by Eugene Freeman and David Appel, they stated the following: “Now anybody can understand and appreciate the basic thoughts that support our modern life.” Though true, not everybody “appreciate[s]” them. Renowned philosopher Karl Popper blamed 20th century totalitarianism on Plato specifically:
Karl Popper blamed Plato for the rise of totalitarianism in the 20th century, seeing Plato’s philosopher kings, with their dreams of ‘social engineering’ and ‘idealism’, as leading directly to Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler (via Georg Wilhelm, Friedrich Hegel, and Karl Marx). In addition, Ayatollah Khomeini is said to have been inspired by the Platonic vision of the philosopher king while in Qum in the 1920s when he became interested in Islamic mysticism and Plato’s Republic. As such, it has been speculated that he was inspired by Plato’s philosopher king, and subsequently based elements of his Islamic Republic on it (Wikipedia: online source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher_king).
Volume 2 of TTANC will trace New Calvinism from its contemporary birth (the Australian Forum:1970), and back to its Reformed roots. It will also lightly survey the Reformation’s philosophical underpinnings that came from the Soc./Plato Academy. However, The Reformation Myth will address these same things in much deeper detail. Both books will address this from three perspectives: history; doctrine; and character.
Immel’s primary concern is spiritual tyranny, but an understanding of church history is critical to understanding what makes spiritual tyranny tick. In my research for TRM, the subject of abuse has become so entangled in the results that I have decided abuse will dominate the “Character” section of the book. The fact that Plato’s philosopher king concept dominates today’s church is inescapable—with the same results following that have always marked this philosophy’s existence throughout history.
Socrates believed that true knowledge could not be obtained through observation of the material. He also believed that truth was eternal, and immutable, and a higher good than the gods. One could only access truth through the mind, or ideas; ie, the nonmaterial. The mind was the conduit to the realm of truth which in essence was god, and like the real God, cannot be fully known. To Socrates, the first step to wisdom was realizing that definitive truth cannot be known, but yet, man had a duty to orchestrate life by the best truth that could be ascertained from the mind. In other words, truth was already in each person, and true education was a rediscovering of information already known. It is unclear to me at this point whether Socrates believed that truth indwells us all in the fullness of the truth cosmos, or indwells each of us to varying degrees.
The method for discovering the truth that is in us, according to Socratism, is to ask ourselves questions. When Socrates taught, the teaching began with a question concerning life, and through a lengthy dialogue of questions and answers, the best solution was drawn from the mind’s connection to pure truth. This entailed three things: hard, certified work; the recognition that we cannot know anything definitively; the belief that truth cannot be known through observation of solid matter; and the belief that the only measure of moralism was in regard to what best served the masses verses the few. His understudy, Plato, later identified these characteristics as belonging to philosopher kings, and believed such should rule over the masses for the betterment of society’s whole. In regard to the moral fitness (which cannot be definitively ascertained anyway) of the philosopher king, it was irrelevant because his knowledge was essential to the society as a whole and his personal life only affected him—not society. Hence, in societies that function by philosopher kings (knowingly [rare] unwittingly, or by default [most often]), the written law is not much more than a strong suggestion in most cases.
Plato divided the ideal society into three parts: philosopher king, soldier, and producer. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out where this all ends up; the soldiers serve the king, and the producers do not understand the basic fundamentals of truth. All–knowing kings + soldiers = you had better know your place + keep your ideas to yourself because you don’t know that you don’t know.
Now enter St. Augustine. Patron saint of the Catholic Church, father of Reformation philosophy/doctrine, and a follower of Plato. Luther was a member of the Augustinian Order, and Calvin quoted him on every (on average) 2.5 pages of his institutes. Augustine was a dyed in the wool Catholic till the end, and revered as its “Doctor of Grace.” No less credit was given to him among the Reformers. Basic Platonist philosophy drawn from Augustine is really what made the Catholic Church and the Reformation tick, with the same results following. The Reformation was really a spat between Rome and the Reformers about who was going to control the ideas.
For all practical purposes, they were two different camps of philosopher kings at war for control of the producers. The primary crux of the argument, if any, was the idea that the Reformers were moral despot philosopher kings verses the decadence of the popish sort. At any rate, this side of the Reformation, the indifferent attitude towards justice, mercy, and freedom of thought is abundantly evident. By and large in today’s church, we don’t have pastors, we have philosopher kings. They are supposedly so paramount to the wellbeing of the church city-state, that concerns over their outrageous behavior should be overlooked for the Platonist good of the whole. Besides, morals, according to Socrates, are not definitive anyway.
Excellent studies that expound on how Augustine integrated Platonism into theology are not difficult to obtain. To cite just a few examples, Socrates’ “truth” became “gospel “; Plato’s two worlds became Spirit and flesh; and much later, Historicism, which was a product of Platonism, became the hermeneutic for interpretation. But in regard to human carnage, Popper’s complaint has become the same in the church. Whether a philosophy is dressed up in Bible verses or not, the results are the same.
In my mind, nothing else can explain the indifference among church leaders regarding the spiritual and sexual abuse now rampant in the church. And what better example than the ABWE/ Donn Ketchum scandal. The ABWE/GARB brain trust first covered for Ketchum for some twenty years and were part of a massive cover-up. Now the same men who perpetrated the cover-up and were directly responsible for putting additional children in harm’s way are honored continuously in GARB circles. One is being honored via a multi-million dollar athletic center that is being named after him. The infamous Jack Hyles was honored with a Bible college that bears his name. Even the formally laudable John MacArthur Jr. is covering for serial sheep abuser CJ Mahaney.
Why? Because they are the philosopher kings. Their higher knowledge leads us through the maze of what’s best for the church as a whole. After all, thousands of souls would be lost without them; so, best that the sexually abused go away quietly for the sake of the bigger picture. And besides, we are all “sinners saved by grace” anyway. In the Platonist vernacular: we are all those who “neither know nor think that [we] know” (Socrates: The Apology).
I’m convinced that the key to getting rid of sexual/spiritual abuse in the church is to totally rethink the organized church that is the breeding ground for the church’s philosopher kings. What is left that is good about the organized church will not stand up against the philosopher kings posing as pastors; so, who needs them?
And let me remind you of who really makes the organized church possible: the producers. I am confident that eventually the producers are going to figure out that they are paying the salaries of those who expect us to offer up our children to the sexual cravings of the philosopher kings.
I have to believe that the whole, “Who are you to judge? Put your money in the plate, buy our books, and keep your mouth shut” routine cannot go on for much longer.
paul
Challenging the Tsunami of Mindless Christian Truisms
Come now, let’s be honest with ourselves; we think much of the Bible is “in a manner of speaking.” We think God’s word is a book of pithy truisms to live by. We like that because (continuing to write on major themes of the TANC 2012 conference) truisms are easy, thinking is hard. As discussed at the conference, the first gospel wave (1950-1970) focused on getting people save while poo-pooing Christ’s command to “make disciples.” Making disciples is hard and takes lots of thinking and doing. The second gospel wave (1970-present) states the following via New Calvinism: discipleship is hard, but Jesus does it all for you.
This sounded good to the first gospel wave because they could shirk the “easy believeism” rap under the auspices of “orthodox” Reformed theology. The rest is history, along with the clichés to live by propagated by a combined effort of both groups. The biggie one is, “We are all just sinners saved by grace.” “Sinner” is an individual who sins as a lifestyle. Retagging sinners is easy—making disciples is hard. Disciples CHANGE. New Calvinist heretic Michael Horton adds his brilliance to Reformed easy believeism by claiming that those who think hard and work hard in sanctification are trying to “be the gospel rather than proclaiming the gospel.” And, “not our doing, but Christ’s doing and dying.”
Biblically illiterate truisms are deeply rooted in the psyche of contemporary Christians, and the espousing thereof is habitual. Susan and I enjoy challenging each other on them as we consciously reexamine all of our thinking. I pounced on the opportunity to challenge a sanctified truism just the other day when she tossed this one my way for consideration: “We need God’s grace every day.” Susan welcomes these challenges and the discussion lasted throughout the day. We concluded together that this cliché is not biblical—we received all of the “grace” that we needed when we were saved, and do not continue to need it. “Grace” is a justification/salvation concept, and both gospel waves like that truism because only salvation is important, or they believe we need salvation every day.
How about this one: “I didn’t do it, Christ did it through me.” Oh really? This is simply not true. And I remind you, the Holy Spirit sanctifies through truth—not error (John 17:17). This harkens back to John Immel’s brilliant three-part presentation at TANC 2012 regarding our moral responsibility to think and live up to the life that “bears our name.” Ya, why did God invent names? And why are they different? This speaks to the self-esteem issue that John aptly addressed at the conference.
“But Paul, the Bible states that it is God who gives us the will to do His good pleasure.” See, this is what I am talking about. Is this not a prime example of the average Christian’s inability to think? I even had a well-known Reformed elder state this argument to me. But what is a gift? Once we get it, we own it, and are responsible for what we do with it! For crying out loud, because life is a gift, and we didn’t create it ourselves, this means that God doesn’t expect anything? Really? “But Paul, the Bible states specifically that it is God who is doing the work in us.” So, how does that = us not doing anything including critical thinking? The Apostle Paul’s specific argument in Philippians 2:12, 13 is the following: because God works in us, we have no excuse, and that should inspire us to work even harder because God is helping us. This passage states that God works in us; how does that = God does it all? In fact, you should cite this biblical truth to a counselee who states that they “can’t” do something. I like Jay Adams’ answer to that: “You can’t, or you won’t?”
Listen to me, not accepting every Christian truism in this tsunami, but rather rethinking them, has radically changed our home. Christians today don’t even think the Holy Spirit working within can make them good housekeepers: “Well, I have never been a good housekeeper (maintaining a clean and orderly house). That’s just not me.” Right: if the Holy Spirit doesn’t do the housecleaning “through you,” it just doesn’t happen. No wonder that the world isn’t coming to the church for answers to the deep problems of life—we don’t even have sense enough to know that God doesn’t clean the house for us!
What about this one in the next sentence? “God hates the sin, but loves the sinner.” And remember, Christians are also, “sinners” saved by grace. This is soooooo easy. We like this. If we happen to please God, wonderful! But if not—no big deal—He loves us anyway. Besides, depending on which gospel wave influences you most, working hard in spiritual matters is either optional or circumvents what God has already decided to accomplish in your life. If there was any chemical reaction going on in our brains that would evaluate this truism further, we would remember that even if there is truth to this cliché, the results are the same: God ends up sending the lovable “sinner” to hell along with the sin.
And Facebook is a treasure trove of these platitudes. I observed one this morning that instigated this post:
Oh my. Where to even start? Rethinking this poster is going be the subject of our family devotion this afternoon. And comments on it are welcome here.
paul
Recent Movie Theater Massacre Further Reveals Christian Sloth
I begin this post with the following illustration. It is a hypothetical conversation between Mary Mystic (a good Christian woman) and Perry Prosecutor (an unregenerate district attorney) at an auto repair waiting room:
Mary: while reading the discarded newspaper lying on the waiting room table; “Oh my, did you hear about that tragedy?”
Perry: “What tragedy?”
Mary: “The woman who drowned her three children by driving her car into a pond.”
Perry: “Yes, I heard about it, I am the one prosecuting the case.”
Mary: “Oh my! Such a tragedy!”
Perry: “Tragedy?”
Mary: “Yes! The lives of those precious children are cut short, and of course, the poor mother has lost her mind!”
Perry: “Actually, her mind was well with her, and not lost. The scheme was well planned. The only thing that broke the case quickly was the fact that our seasoned detectives have seen the same well planned scheme before.”
Mary: “Oh, I see. But yet, you would have to be crazy to do something like that to your own children!”
Perry: “Why is it only crazy because it was ‘her own children’? Is killing the children of others less crazy?”
Mary: “Uh, well, I see your point, but why in the world would a mother do such a thing?”
Perry: “The answer is quite simple; her newly found boyfriend doesn’t like children, and the children were getting in the way of the relationship.”
Mary: “Oh come now! Surely it is not that simple! No mother is that selfish!”
Perry: “Well, you’re right, it is not entirely that simple; the mother somewhat resented the children because they reminded her of her ex-husband, who she hates.”
Mary: “How can you be so sure about that?”
Perry: “That’s what she told us when she confessed.”
Mary: “Uh, well, uh, really?”
Perry: “Yes, ‘really.’”
Mary: “Well, for the grace of God, there goes us.”
Perry: “Hmmm. So, you’re a Christian?”
Mary: “Oh yes, for sure!”
Perry: “Thanks for telling me that. I now know not to hire any Christians because we wouldn’t solve any cases.”
Such is the case when such “tragedies” surface in American culture from time to time and the recent movie theater massacre in Colorado is no exception. Nobody has answers, especially Christians. While waxing eloquent about how Christ came to save the world from such things, we don’t know why they happen and what can be done to prevent them. Certainly, making people Christians by faith in Christ alone is not the answer because Christians don’t act any different than unbelievers. Statistically, whether divorce, depression, suicide, sexual abuse—you name it—there is no significant difference.
Is this a surprise? If we don’t know why things happen, how can we prevent them? The world doesn’t know why, so stuff happens. Neither do Christians know, so just as much misery accompanies Christianity regardless of the fact that Christ said He came to give us life—and that more abundantly. Present tense. This hypothetical (in the minds of Chrsitians) result suggested by the God-Man should result in another hypothetical result suggested by the Apostle Peter: people see by our lives that we have hope, and come to us when no one is looking to get some answers. But they aren’t asking. Why would they? There is no less human carnage and decadence lying about the landscape in Christianville.
And the reason is Christian sloth, primarily in the area of THINKING. American Christianity has become a flock of lazy thinkers. We like our Christianity easy, and mindless, and are willing to endure the misery that comes with it. Sound bites, clichés, and truisms long ago replaced Christ’s exhortation to seek with all of our heart, soul, and mind. In the recent TANC conference on Gospel Discernment and Spiritual Tyranny, John Immel got it right: “thinking is hard” and “ideas are hard” and Christians are up to neither. This is why we prefer things that are EASY. Thinking is hard. And the Colorado massacre reveals such.
I am not going to cite specific examples, but the Christian articles going viral on the internet are the ones offering the pat answers and borrowing sound bites from the world; for example, calling the massacre a “senseless act.” No it wasn’t. The act was masterfully planned. When the goal of the individual is considered, the act makes perfect sense and again, was very well planned. Like the world, Christians continue to call such well-planned actions “senseless”—because that’s easy and we don’t have to make sense of it—that’s hard.
As John Immel also discussed in the aforementioned conference, we home school our children and shelter them from the world. That is much easier than teaching them to think. Because Christians have lost their will to work hard in the arena of ideas and thinking, we are no match for the world or a cure for them. Therefore, we need to stay separate. Given the circumstances, that’s probably wise. But here is why the world will look to its psychologists for answers rather than us, even though the young man who committed the act was studying to be a psychologist: they at least work hard at trying to figure stuff out. Give them that. Christians don’t do that because it supposedly violates the principle of child-like faith. As Immel aptly pointed out in the same conference, faith is a license to be simpleminded. Figuring stuff out by studying what the Apostle Paul called “the mind of Christ” is pragmatic arrogance.
God is taking care of a mass of different kinds of business in the lives of people through these events. Even with me. Not but two days ago, my son Phillip walked past me with what is known as “alternative music” blaring on some kind of newfangled device. The lyrics of said music is known to espouse its ideas regarding, murder, rape, suicide, authority, virginity, knowledge, and host of other subjects. One such band named “Slipknot,” has hanging one’s self with this device (which strangles the victim slowly rather than the hangman’s noose that breaks the neck and brings a quick death) as their major theme. Has our family sat down to discuss this issue in regard to the mind of Christ? No, because that’s hard. It’s much easier to say, “Well, song lyrics are just words. Certainly, my well-bred child would not be persuaded by such things. Besides, teenagers are focused on the beat, not the words.” That’s easy. What the Scriptures say about thinking isn’t.
In the Great Commission, Christ said to make disciples, not saved people. But we disobey because making disciples is hard—believing in Jesus and signing a card is easy. “Praying about it” is very easy when compared to the very difficult business of CHANGE. And in regard to thinking, the Apostle Paul calls us to a shocking duty: to take EVERY THOUGHT captive and bring it into obedience to Christ. If we think about that, which we don’t, because of the ramifications, we must conclude that our disobedience in this regard can lead to nothing other than unhappiness and ill results. But that’s hard—we want merry mindlessness and a plea of ignorance when things happen that are “difficult questions” that we dare not answer lest we be deemed arrogant know-it-alls. Better that people suffer on the altar of child-like faith. Besides, the unpleasant challenge to vigorously pursue wisdom will be quickly whisked away by the pastor’s pat answers, the caretaker, or a chemical lobotomy if death is stubborn.
The movie was the midnight premier of the most recent Batman trilogy. Just a movie, right? Of course, to give pause and think about all of the craziness surrounding this movie, including its very dark character, would be taking the whole thing too seriously. When people wait in long lines dressed up like the characters to proclaim their “obsession” with everything Batman, such should not give us pause—it’s all just a bunch of fun. But again, the Apostle’s call to hard thinking upsets our merry mindlessness and challenges us to consider these things. In Philippians, chapter 4, Paul exhorts us to “dwell” on what is “true” with the result being “peace.” The Scriptures continually warn of living in a fantasy world and dwelling on untruth. A pastor once shared with me about a certain lady in a midweek Bible study who requested prayer for characters in a daily soap opera that she watched on TV. Her mind was so saturated with the show that the lines between fantasy and reality became blurred.
Hence, while Christians are clueless, I heard solid answers in regard to the massacre from a secular thinker on a morning program. He proposed that three primary elements led to the perpetration of the crime:
1. The individual was taken over by the fantasy and wanted to actually place himself in the narrative (apparently, he was dressed like the Joker and yelled, “I am the Joker” before he started shooting).
2. He may have been overly enamored with the power that the Joker had over other people’s lives and was willing to throw his whole life away, and the lives of others in order to experience that—if even for one hour.
3. He was recently experiencing personal failures and disappointments in his life.
Good points. And there is something for Christians to learn here: we are instructed in Scripture to watch our thinking very carefully, and the Bible addresses thinking in regard to disappointments, attitudes towards others, attitudes towards self, and a myriad of other headings under the topic of thinking. Thinking is hard work, and Christian sloth in regard to thinking is exactly why we are no different than the world.
Bless their hearts, the world works hard at thinking, but they don’t have the answers. We do, but don’t think—our faith is a license for mindlessness. Enough with the softball truisms on this thing. Christians should not be surprised about this event or perplexed about it: uncaptivated, sinful thinking leads us away from guarding the mind which the Bible calls the “wellspring of life.” Sin is powerful, and this event should cause Christians to take pause and reconsider how serious they are concerning the words of the Holy Spirit.
This is not an “isolated incident.” God has knowledge of every person on Earth who has fantasized about doing the same thing (which by the way is depicted in a Batman comic book to a “T”), but didn’t actually act on the fantasy. I seriously doubt that those incidents of sin in the mind are “isolated.” And “isolated” from what exactly? Reality? Good grief.
Paul
40 comments