Christian Freedom in a Postmodern Western World

The Gospel is the basis for freedom of speech.  Islam, which means ‘submission,’ offers the world an inseparable combination of religion and government; with no separation of religion and state, with laws that enforce compliance, with punishments for any who convert to another religion, and with a tax on non-Muslims.  Western governments, on the other hand, have established governance on notions of freedom and equality that protect the individual’s choices and lifestyle and limit government.  Over against Islam’s ‘submission,’ the West has offered ‘freedom.’

Yet the West is now turning against religion or, more particularly, against Christianity.  It is no coincidence that the more the West moves away from its Christian culture, the more it chips away at its own foundations of freedom.  This is because it is moving away from a Christian understanding of ‘freedom.’  In fact, the Postmodern West’s notion of freedom is increasingly similar to Islam’s notion of submission.

The Christian understanding of freedom is grounded in several convictions:

·       The world needs to hear the message of salvation, the ‘Gospel’ (or ‘Good News’): thus there needs to be freedom of speech;

·       Individuals need to respond in faith to the message: thus, there can be no coercion;

·       Obedience to God supersedes obedience to the State: thus, there needs to be separation of religion and State and freedom to practice religion;

·       There is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’: thus, Christian society supports what is right and permits what is wrong if people choose to do wrong, as long as it does not interfere with supporting what is right, including protecting the vulnerable from the wrongs of others.

On this last point, the Postmodern and post-Christian West has jettisoned the notion of absolutes and reduced ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to mere beliefs and cultural practices.  While nobody can consistently believe and practice this (is the Ku-Klux-Klan wrong merely because you or your social group says so, or because it is absolutely wrong?), it has nevertheless used this new understanding of truth to reshape society and culture.  There is, in fact, a new ‘right’ and a new ‘wrong’ being promulgated such that a politically correct (rather than absolute) ‘truth’ is being increasingly enforced. 

The most obvious example of this is in the area of sexuality.  What started in the 1960s as a sexual revolution that removed Judeo-Christian restrictions on sex outside marriage between a man and a woman in favour of free sex, pre-marital sex, living together, no-fault divorce and remarriage, and homosexuality has increasingly become the enforcement, not just permission, of a new sexuality, with repercussions on any who disagree.  The very term ‘LGBTQ’ and other versions of it represent a protected class that is not simply permitted but supported, not simply supported but promoted, not simply promoted but protected, not simply protected but championed through suppression of all dissent.  Those who do not support it are victimized.  ‘Support’ has become a socio-political idea of promotion, protection, and suppression.  It is edging its way to Islam’s rejection of a separation of religion and State and towards a religious-political ‘submission.’

Multiple examples are easy to give, although those who simply get their news from television will likely be largely unaware of the preponderance of cases.[1]  The case of the baker who would not decorate a cake to celebrate a homosexual wedding has gone to the Supreme Court, and so this case is in the news.  Yet many other cases are in the courts in the West as an increasingly anti-Christian society seeks to attack Christian freedom, promote non- and often anti-Christian communities, and require Christians to submit.

For example, the Judicial Conduct Committee recently reprimanded a Kentucky Family Court judge, W. Mitchell Nance, for not hearing cases of adoption by homosexuals on the grounds that this would not be in the interest of children.[2]  From a Christian perspective, the judge’s position is obvious.  It supports Christian values and does not permit a wrong where it is harmful to innocent others—children.  This notion of freedom is, of course, under attack in the post-Christian West, where the promotion of the LGBTQ community is understood to require Christian submission to the new values on pain of judicial censure and punishment.

Another example is pending legislation in the United Kingdom for compulsory sex education that promotes LGBTQ values and suppresses Christian values.  The Welsh Government, for example, intends to sexualize children of all ages and enforce on them a non-Christian ‘ethic’ that encourages free-sexual play and expression and a reporting of others who do not comply, rather reminiscent of totalitarian regimes in the not too distant past:

Preventative and protective, it will also aim to support children and young people’s rights to enjoy equitable, fulfilling, safe and healthy sexual lives and relationships over their life course, including the ability to recognise and understand discrimination, abusive relationships and gender-based and sexual violence, and know how and where to seek support, advice and factual information (e.g. on sex and gender equality/equity, sexual health, LGBTQ+ issues, VAWDASV).[3]

It is rather ironic that the West’s protection of freedom from a now Postmodern worldview increasingly involves opposition to freedom of speech (under the guise of opposing ‘hate speech’), and social coercion and State submission to laws that not only permit but support and promote anti-Christian beliefs and practices, and that punish those who do not comply.

In all this, the Postmodern, post-Christian West has found far more in common with Islam’s Sharia Law than it has with Christianity.  Where this is most easily seen is in the United Kingdom and Canada (which has ever-increasing laws against free speech in order to enforce its fanciful notions about gender and equality), but under-the-radar court cases in the United States are also pressing in this direction. 

What holds the US back from the more radical moves in other Western countries is its First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech.  Europe’s hate speech laws are being used to silence and suppress Christianity, whereas the United States remains constitutionally more permissive.  Even so, legislation in other areas at the local, State, and national levels constantly chip away at and challenge a Christian notion of freedom and place Christians in jeopardy of their participation in society.  Extreme secularists, who tend to float into political, journalistic, and administration of state-sponsored institutions like schools, are hard at work to suppress Christians and their notion of freedom.

The trajectory on which the United States was on under the previous administration was the same as that of the United Kingdom, Canada, and Western Europe.  The current context offers a respite, but the future is forecast in the universities and voting trends of the young.  A religious oppression is well underway in the West.  The irony is that, just as Postmodern values set the foundation for this new concept of freedom that promotes anti-Christian values and the suppression of Christians and the Church, it will, by the latter part of this century, give way in Europe and the United Kingdom to a religion that supports its new view of freedom as support, promotion, submission, and oppression, while destroying the liberal values that it intended to advocate.  This victory will come not by argument but by demographic shifts.

What stands against all this is the same conviction that gave rise to views of freedom in the West: the call to share the Gospel with all nations.  The Good News of Jesus Christ offers true freedom.  It is not coercive but welcoming.  It is not oppressive but frees people from the oppression of sin.  It is not 'hate speech' but tells the story of God’s love for a wayward world that is so strong that He sent His only, beloved Son to die sacrificially in our place to reconcile us to Him.  It promotes His purposes in the world He created rather than our purposes against His will.  It does not enforce submission to Christian teaching because proclamation, Good News, the response of faith, and love cannot be promoted or accomplished through submission.  It does not oppress others, but it does protect the vulnerable from the sinful choices of those who reject the Gospel.

---

[1] See Peter LaBarbera, ‘New 400-Page Report Documents ‘Massive’ Increase in Attacks on Religious Liberty,’ LifeSite (20 September, 2017); online: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/attacks-escalate-on-religious-liberty-in-america-new-report?utm_content=buffer7a3e4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer (accessed 23 September, 2017).  The report by First Liberty Institute is entitled Undeniable: The Survey of Hostility to Religion in America; available after registration at https://firstliberty.org/undeniable/.

[2] See Stoyan Zaimov, ‘Judge Opposed to Gay Adoption Over Concerns for Child Welfare Found Guilty of Misconduct,’ The Christian Post (December 22, 2017); online at https://www.christianpost.com/news/judge-opposed-gay-adoption-concerns-for-child-welfare-found-guilty-misconduct-211125/.

[3] Welsh Government, ‘The Future of the Sex and Relationships Education Curriculum in Wales: Recommendations of the Sex and Relationships Education Expert Panel’ (December 2017), p. 29; online at http://gov.wales/docs/dcells/publications/171212-future-of-the-sex-and-relationships-education-curriculum-in-wales-en.pdf. 

Are All Evangelicals Orthodox?: The Church, Ordination, and Prayer for the Sick

Evangelicalism is not a particular denominational confession or tradition in the Church.  It is a movement—an orthodox, Christian movement in Protestantism that relates to the Reformation and is an extension of German pietism and the great revivals of the 18^th and 19^th centuries.  (By 'orthodox' I simply mean what the Church has typically taught everywhere, always, and by all through the centuries that is grounded in Scripture.  I am not referring to the Orthodox Church in particular.)  It is best described historically, especially if the alternative is a political description.  This historical definition allows a definition in terms of what united different orthodox movements operating within and outside wayward, Protestant denominations over the post-Reformation centuries.  However, has Evangelicalism remained untainted by the Enlightenment’s Deism, secularism, and rationalism—its anti-supernaturalism and denial of miracles?  I think not, and I will seek to illustrate this with reference to teaching in the Church on prayer for healing of the sick.

The Biblical Basis for Praying for Healing

The Biblical basis for praying for healing is canonical, theological, and textual.  Canonically, stories of the miraculous hand of God and of healing are to be found in both the Old and New Testaments.  Theologically, the ministry of Jesus inaugurates the Kingdom of God—the reign of God—and this is connected to the work of the Holy Spirit in Jesus’ ministry and in the ministry of the disciples in the Gospels, as well as the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church.  We have come to speak of the ‘overlap of the ages’: the first and second coming of Jesus place us within an overlap of ‘this age’ with the ‘age to come.’  While this age clearly continues with sin, suffering, and death, the age to come has been inaugurated with Jesus’ redemption of sinners from their sin, his resurrection from the dead, his exaltation over all authorities, and the Father’s sending of the Holy Spirit to the Church.  Textually, we may point to the ministry of healing given by Jesus to the disciples:

Mark 6:13 And they [the twelve disciples] cast out many demons and anointed with oil many who were sick and healed them.

The elders in the churches are to continue this ministry given the disciples:

James 5:14-16 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.  ¹⁵ And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.  ¹⁶ Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.

This ministry is more widely disseminated in the local churches: it is not limited to clergy.  There are those given the gift of the Spirit to works miracles (1 Corinthians 12.10).

The Early Church’s Understanding of a Ministry of Healing by the Clergy and in the Church

As we look at ancient liturgies for ordination and worship, we find the continuing belief in miraculous healing.  Following are several examples and quotations from primary sources to illustrate these points.

Hippolytus (early 3^rd c.) discusses various ways, not only by means of the laying on of hands, someone might be recognized as a presbyter: by having been imprisoned or put in bonds because of confessing Christ, by being a widow for a long time, by being given the book to be a reader without ordination, by showing purpose by remaining a virgin, and by showing appointment by already having the gift of healing (The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus I.10-15).

In the Ethiopic Epitome of Hippolytus, the prayer for the ordinand includes, ‘—that he, being filled with powers of healing and words of teaching in meekness’.[1]  The Ethiopian Orthodox Church’s liturgy includes a number of prayers for the healing of the sick, such as in the Preparatory Service III: ‘For the sick and the diseased we implore that God should heal them and speedily send upon them mercy and compassion.’[2]

The ancient Christian Armenian Church also mentions the spiritual and miraculous work of priests.  The Armenian prayer for the ordination of a priest includes, ‘Grant him, Lord, the apostolic grace to remove and drive away from mankind all evil infirmities and impure spirits by the imposition of his hands and by invoking your most powerful name to help and to heal the infirm.’[3]

The ancient, albeit unorthodox, Nestorian Church’s rite of ordination for bishops includes the following injunction and prayer that agree with more orthodox versions of Christianity:

'Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils; freely ye have received, freely give’ and ‘Clothe him, O LORD, with power from on high, that he may bind and loose both in heaven and on earth; that by the laying on of his hands, the sick may be healed, and miracles be wrought by him in Thy holy name, and to the glory of Thy great Godhead….[4]

In the Liturgy of the Holy Apostles Adai and Mari of the Assyrian Church of the East, the priest prays: ‘For those who are grievously sick, and tried by evil spirits, let us pray….’[5]

The Great Litany of St. John Chrysostom (4^th c.) prescribes prayers for the sick:

For travelers by land, by sea, by air, and by space; for the sick and the suffering, and for captives; and for their salvation, let us pray to the Lord.’[6]  

In the Litany before the Lord’s Supper, Chrysostom directs the priest to pray:

…heal the sick, O You who are the Physician of our souls and bodies.[7]

The Coptic Church (Egyptian) similarly has this prayer by the bishop at the ordination of a priest:

‘Yes Lord hear us, grant him a spirit of wisdom to be filled by healing deeds and doctrinal words to teach Your people meekly and adore You purely.’[8]

Modern Evangelicalism

Evangelicalism is going through a difficult time.  It has historically been defined particularly as a renewal movement within mainline denominations, such as Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Congregationalism, and Methodism. The turn of these denominations in the West in our day to unorthodox teaching has meant a crisis of identity for Evangelicals.  This statement will have to remain a contention in the present essay, perhaps to be taken up at a later date.  To be sure, this is not the only challenge to the meaning of ‘Evangelical’ in our day, but it does seem to be a significant reason for the confusion over the meaning and purpose of Evangelicalism in the 21^st century.  (I say this with the hope that a clearer meaning and purpose will emerge soon as I strongly believe in the importance of an orthodox movement across the differences of various theological traditions.)

In the increasing absence of Evangelicalism defining itself over against the mainline denominations, Evangelicals are being defined by the new denominations that declare themselves ‘Evangelical’ and by the non-denominational, independent churches that continue to proliferate and identify themselves as ‘Evangelical’—what we might call the Western Independent Churches.  The question coming into focus is whether this newer ‘Evangelicalism’ is to be considered orthodox.  The old, mainline denominations claimed to be orthodox, even if there were serious problems within them in the 18^th, 19^th, and 20^th centuries.  Since the mid-20^th century, they have increasingly rejected orthodox teaching and practice.  The assumption seems to be that those who claim the title ‘Evangelical’ in our day are the heirs to orthodoxy, since the mainline denominations clearly are not.  This may be largely true, but it is a claim to be proven as much in the West as in, for example, the African Independent Churches, some of which are orthodox and some decidedly not.

The question, then, is whether any church claiming to be Evangelical must be orthodox as well, or whether there are some Evangelical churches and denominations that are not actually orthodox in some area of theology or practice.  This essay is not about how some so-called ‘Evangelicals’ in the West have claimed that they can also be proponents of same-sex marriage—a decidedly unorthodox and unbiblical contention.  Yet that example does seem to add a significant exhibit to the case for questioning whether all Evangelicals are orthodox in Christian faith.

This essay rather has in focus the ancient Christian belief in the miraculous and in the practice of prayer for the sick associated with the clergy and others in the church.  On the positive side, the newly established Anglican Church of North America’s ordination of a bishop includes this charge: ‘Be to the flock of Christ a shepherd, not a wolf; feed them, do not devour them; hold up the weak, heal the sick, bind up the broken, bring back the lapsed, seek the lost.’[9]  We have here the continuation of the ancient church’s belief in miracles and its understanding of ordination to a ministry that includes healing ministry.

Somewhat surprisingly, however, the Westminster Catechism of the mid-17^th century asks no question about healing, although in its many Scripture references for other questions it does provide Biblical passages that mention healing.  The somewhat new, ‘Evangelical’ Reformed denomination, the Presbyterian Church of America’s ‘Pastoral Letter Concerning the Experience of the Holy Spirit in the Church Today’ addresses speaking in tongues, working miracles, and healing.  It claims that these gifts have been given ‘undue prominence’ in our day, and the general tone of the pastoral letter is to downplay these gifts.  Its comments on speaking in tongues are only about wrong views to hold and nothing about what might be said positively about this gift.  It allows that miracles and healing ‘cannot be limited,’ but the letter’s concern is to speak against an ‘obsession’ with these gifts.  One gets the impression that these gifts are more problematic than anything else to an otherwise fairly rational expression of Christian faith.

Also of interest is that the Roman Catholic Church lacks a reference to healing the sick for ordinands—only comfort for the sick by deacons.[10]  It is, as an ancient Church, a Church that, of course, does believe in the miraculous and in healing.  The liberal Evangelical Lutheran Church (‘Evangelical’ in the denomination’s name has nothing to do with ‘Evangelicalism’) lacks specific prayer for healing in its liturgy.  Rather, it calls for prayer for ‘the poor, the persecuted, the sick, the lonely, the forgotten, and all who suffer….’[11]  Perhaps this is not prayer for deliverance to a God who hears and answers prayer in miraculous ways but more of a statement of concern for those who suffer by a caring community.  We regularly see older denominations retain some of the teaching and practices of the earlier Church while not believing it and redefining it in some way.

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church (this time, ‘Evangelical’ is linked to ‘Evangelicalism’) lacks any reference to ministry to the sick by those being ordained, let alone a reference to a ministry of healing.[12]  Some of the EPC’s churches are charismatic, however, and the denomination will pray for healing of the sick.  Yet the ancient linking of ordination to a ministry of healing the sick is lacking.

There is, however, a rationalistic, Enlightenment understanding of the Christian faith in certain groups and denominations that claim to be Evangelical.  ‘Cessationism’ is the term given to those who believe that the miraculous (speaking in tongues, prophecy, and miracles in particular) has ceased.  A stark example of this is the doctrinal statement of John MacArthur’s The Master’s Seminary in Los Angeles, California.  It includes the following statement about speaking in tongues and miracles:

We teach, in this respect, that God the Holy Spirit is sovereign in the bestowing of all His gifts for the perfecting of the saints today and that speaking in tongues and the working of sign miracles in the beginning days of the church were for the purpose of pointing to and authenticating the apostles as revealers of divine truth, and were never intended to be characteristic of the lives of believers (1 Corinthians 12:4-11; 13:8-10; 2 Corinthians 12:12; Ephesians 4:7-12; Hebrews 2:1-4).[13]

 How the Scripture passages cited here could possibly relate to this rationalist contention is beyond me, and how such a statement ends up in a doctrinal statement is disturbing at several levels.  Are we now confessing what we do not believe?  Are we confessing things with no Biblical warrant?  And, as this article is concerned to explore, are we confessing things that do not relate to the historic, orthodox Church?  In other words, is ‘Evangelical’ necessarily orthodox?

I would suggest that ‘Evangelical’ is necessarily orthodox in theology and practice.  If so, Enlightenment Evangelicals who deny miracles, understand ‘faith’ as merely a set of dogmatic propositions, and who do not pray for the sick cannot actually be considered ‘Evangelical.’  We may do well to state as well that the Prosperity Gospel is equally outside orthodox, Evangelical faith.  Yet there are no grounds on which to exclude the latter while denying the miracle-working power of God in doctrine and prayer for the sick.  On the contrary, we should rejoice in the testimonies of persons among us who have experienced the miracle-working power of God in their lives in salvation, healing, miracles, and the transformation of sinful desires to desiring God and His righteousness.  As we face the task of defining ‘Evangelical’ for the 21^st century rather than jettisoning the term for all the challenges the term poses in our day, we need to retain the connection between ‘Evangelical’ and ‘orthodox Christianity.’  If we Evangelicals are not Biblical and orthodox in faith and practice, we are nothing at all.[14]

---

[1] Cf. http://www.agape-biblia.org/literatura/Burton_Scott_Easton_-_The_Apostolic_Tradition_of_Hippolytus_(1934).pdf; accessed 15 December, 2017.

[2] Cf. http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english/church/englishethiopianliturgy.pdf; accessed 15 December, 2017.

[3] Cf. https://www.stnersess.edu/resources---the-armenian-sacrament-of-ordination-to-the-holy-priesthood.html; accessed 15 December, 2017.

[4] Cf. George Percy Badger, The Nestorians and their Rituals: With the Narrative of a Mission to Mesopotamia and Coordistan in 1842-1844 and a Late Visit to Those Countries in 1850; also Researches into the Present Condition of the Syrian Jacobites, Papal Syrians, and Chaldeans, and an Inquiry into the Religious Tenets of the Yezeedees, Vol. II (London: Joseph Masters, 1852), pp. 344, 345; online at https://books.google.com/books?id=8FUZV3_VSqMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=George+Percy+Badger,+The+Nestorians+and+their+Rituals&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik8aaAsI3YAhUNYt8KHZQZAYkQ6AEINTAC#v=onepage&q=Badger&f=false; accessed 15 December, 2017.

[5] Cf. The Liturgy of the Holy Apostles Adai and Mari Together with Two Additional Liturgies to be Said on Certain Feasts and Other Days: and the Order of Baptism (Typis Missionis Archiepiscopi Cantuariensis, 1890); https://books.google.com/books?id=K1Q1AQAAMAAJ&pg=PP183&lpg=PP183&dq=takhsa&source=bl&ots=LY44QHzpV8&sig=x5BCOHup5f1Wfeup5jW32EP-sUA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUy4DYj43YAhUkkeAKHS20CpwQ6AEIVzAJ#v=onepage&q=sick&f=false; accessed 15 December, 2017.

[6] As quoted in Fr. Joseph Irvin, The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom: Orthodox Service Books—Number 1 (Lulu Press, 2017), n.p.; online https://books.google.com/books?id=PY4tDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false; accessed 15 December, 2017.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Cf. http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/7_priesthood.html; accessed 15 December, 2017.

[9] Cf. the ‘Ordinal’ at http://anglicanchurch.net/?/main/texts_for_common_prayer.

[10] Cf. http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jmjoncas/LiturgicalStudiesInternetLinks/ChristianWorship/Texts/Centuries/Texts_1900_2000CE/RCWorshipTexts1900_2000CE/Rite_of_Ordination_of_a_Deacon.htm.  The service of ordination for priests does not mention healing or ministry to the sick: see http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/40-the-sacrament-of-holy-orders-rite-of-priestly-ordination.html.

[11] Cf. download.elca.org/.../Evangelical_Lutheran_Worship_Ordination.rtf.

[12] Cf. https://www.epc.org/file/main-menu/resources/download-epc-forms/service-form-ordination-and-installation-of-a-minister.pdf.

[13] See p. 77; online at https://www.tms.edu/about-the-seminary/doctrinal-statement/; accessed 15 December, 2017.

[14] Some Evangelicals try to define ‘orthodox’ narrowly, such as by what is affirmed in the Nicene Creed.  The Creeds contribute to an understanding of ‘orthodoxy,’ but they are decidedly not limited to what the term means.  The Creeds define in whom we believe, as my colleague, Dr. Donald Fairbairn, argues, and are not definitive by themselves for either orthodox beliefs or practices.

Jesus Christ, No 'Great Man' of History but the 'Middle of Time' Itself

Napoleon Bonaparte’s spectre no doubt still hung over Europe in 1940, when Thomas Carlyle wrote his ‘On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History.’  Yet he built his case that great men create history with reference not only to Napoleon but also to Oliver Cromwell, to the Norse hero, Odin, to Mohammed, Dante, Shakespeare, Luther, Knox, and to men of letters like Johnson, Rousseau, and Burns.  Wrote he,

For, as I take it, Universal History, the history of what man has accomplished in this world, is at bottom the History of the Great Men who have worked here. They were the leaders of men, these great ones; the modellers, patterns, and in a wide sense creators, of whatsoever the general mass of men contrived to do or to attain; all things that we see standing accomplished in the world are properly the outer material result, the practical realization and embodiment, of Thoughts that dwelt in the Great Men sent into the world: the soul of the whole world's history, it may justly be considered, were the history of these.^[1]

Carlyle’s theory remains, even if we might prefer an alternative roster of heroes and villains to make the point.  Intriguingly, he mentions ‘Mahomet’ 106 times and Jesus not once.  Yet, I should happily add my list to his of persons who created history, whether for good or ill, and so support his view, albeit not without demur by argument’s end.  So, for the present, let us add the names of some who, by virtue of who they were themselves, were the shapers of history in the twentieth century, whether those who sent countless to their deaths and wreaked havoc upon the lives of millions, such as Stalin, Hitler, Musellini, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot,  Karadžić, and  Milošević, or those who stayed the hand of terror, such as Winston Churchill.

Let us accept Carlyle’s theory: great men make history.  Still, we would be wrong to suggest that history is not also made by others and in other ways.  We might point to policies that project a people along a predictable trajectory, no matter who leads when events unravel.  While key figures wielding power make foolish decisions and so help matters along, there are times when a great horror, such as the First World War, cannot simply be laid at the feet of a single individual or two.  Moreover, the threads of a culture’s intricate weave will also often incubate historical events more than the person of a single leader.  Is this not the case with Empires or the clash of cultures or the wars of religions?  Of a certainty, great men make history, but so do policies, cultures, religions, and the narratives of the nations.

So, we return to Carlyle’s omission of Jesus in his argument.  His oblique reference to Him suggests something far less than taught by Christians, as though Jesus was the embodiment of an eternal and great principle, a hero worthy, as all heroes are, so he argues, of worship in some degree:

The greatest of all Heroes is One—whom we do not name here! Let sacred silence meditate that sacred matter; you will find it the ultimate perfection of a principle extant throughout man's whole history on earth.[2]

Such was the mind of a 19th-century European intellectual, were he or she not otherwise swayed by the atheism of a Voltaire.  Let Jesus be honoured, the likes of Carlyle might say, as a hero, a great teacher, the embodiment of grand principles that a culture might worship in some reduced sense of the word; but leave off the unenlightened notion of the Church that He was more than this, God made man come to tabernacle among us that we, through Him, might be restored to fellowship with Him.

Yet Carlyle was right to keep Jesus from his list of men who made history because Jesus did not make history by being another great man.  He was ‘Immanuel,’ God with us, the Saviour of the world.  And he was right to omit Jesus because it was not by human greatness that Jesus stood among us.  Just here is a greater truth than Carlyle’s thesis on history and greatness: the Son of God came in humble circumstance, was derided and despised, and ended his days upon a cruel cross of torture and shame. 

Average humans standing outside the circle of divine revelation would mock his beginning as that of a bastard birth rather than the miracle of divine doing that it was, the virgin birth.  They would frown upon his being born not in a palace but in a stable, for there was not even space in the spare room of the house where his parents boarded.  Driven first as refugees to Egypt, his parents later found a home in a minor town of a lesser district, in Nazareth of Galilee.  Excluded by those with whom he grew up—almost killed on charges of blasphemy—he found acceptance in a small fishing village in the border region of Galilee.  He wandered the hills, where the poor, sick, and demon-possessed found him--the 'untouchables' of a society that confused holiness with separation from those in need of mercy.  His disciples were no schooled rabbis but fishermen, corrupt tax collectors, filthy prostitutes, and untouchable lepers whose lives were radically transformed by His grace, power, and teaching, and eventually by His atoning death.

His challenge to every man was to see in Him one who, despite all appearances, was the Son of God sent by God the Father.  Here was no Great Man of history but the Lamb of God who, by His sacrificial death, would take away the sins of the whole world.  Here was He who, beaten, spat upon, hanging upon a cross and bleeding, would bear our guilt and shame, remove our sins, and restore us to God Most Holy, cleansed, washed, and made righteous if only we believe in Him.  Here was no Great Man, for He was, as Isaiah prophesied (Isaiah 53), despised and rejected, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.  Here was one who carried our sorrows, even though we regarded Him to be stricken and afflicted by God.  Yet He was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities, and upon Him fell the chastisement that brought us peace. Here was He who came not to be served but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10.45).  Here was no Great Man of history, for he was purposely neither great in human eyes nor was He just another figure who influenced history.  Rather, He was, as one scholar has put it, the middle of time itself--the purpose and fulfillment of history.[3].

---

[1] Thomas Carlyle, On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History, (1840); online at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1091/1091-h/1091-h.htm.  Accessed 11 December, 2017.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Hans Conzelmann, Der Mitte der Zeit: Studien zur Theologie des Lukas (Tübingen, 1954).  To be sure, Conzelmann had a rather particular argument about Luke's Gospel with the phrase, 'middle of time.'  My purpose is only to borrow the phrase.

Some Christian Thoughts on the Culture’s Recent Outrage Over Sexual Harassment, Impropriety, and Abuse

All eyes are now focussed on a serious issue in our society: what seems a pandemic of sexual harassment, impropriety, and abuse.  While the latest iteration of this is mostly focussed on politicians, the issue in one form or another has often been in the news: the Hollywood culture, the Catholic Church’s pedophile priests, workplace sexual harassment, and so forth.  How does or should a Christian assess the news?  Several Biblical answers are worth keeping in perspective.

1.    The fundamental problem is not simply acts of wrongdoing but a wicked heart, sin against God, and human depravity: The following passage might be an epitaph for any number of the persons guilty of sexual sin now in the news:

Psalm 36:1-4 Transgression speaks to the wicked deep in his heart; there is no fear of God before his eyes.  ² For he flatters himself in his own eyes that his iniquity cannot be found out and hated.  ³ The words of his mouth are trouble and deceit; he has ceased to act wisely and do good.  ⁴ He plots trouble while on his bed; he sets himself in a way that is not good; he does not reject evil.

The pervasiveness of sin is the human plight; it does not rest on the shoulders of only a few among us.  Quoting the Old Testament, Paul says,

Romans 3:10-18 "None is righteous, no, not one;  ¹¹ no one understands; no one seeks for God.  ¹² All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."  ¹³ "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips."  ¹⁴ "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."  ¹⁵ "Their feet are swift to shed blood;  ¹⁶ in their paths are ruin and misery,  ¹⁷ and the way of peace they have not known."  ¹⁸ "There is no fear of God before their eyes."

Sin is not only the condition of every person who sins; it is also the condition of humanity because we live in a sinful world:

Romans 5:12 … sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin….

Moreover, sin against others is also sin against God.  As King David says,

Psalm 51:4 Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.

The #Metoo tweeting by persons accusing someone of sexual abuse is helpful insofar as it undermines the power of persons who thought themselves too powerful to fall.  There is strength in numbers.  Yet there might also be a #Metoo tweeting by us all that we, too, have sinned.  As Jesus taught us to pray,

Matthew 6:12 … forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

2.     The solution to the human plight comes from God Himself: While no one is righteous before God and, instead, deserves death for sin, God has provided salvation through Christ Jesus.  As Paul says,

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

David, too, knew that only God could help the human plight.  No sinful person can satisfy God’s standard of righteousness.  David said,

Psalm 32:1-2 Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.  ² Blessed is the man against whom the LORD counts no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit.

Some religions hope that humans might do enough good to find approval from God.  Some teach ways to try to climb up to God.  But Christianity speaks of how God came to us, for only salvation from God will save us from our plight of sin.  Paul says,

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,  ⁹ not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

3.   Selective moral views in the culture: From a Christian standpoint, a focus on sexual harassment, groping, and rape is a positive aspect in an otherwise increasingly post-Christian culture.  Just when we thought the leaders of postmodern culture would have us reject any absolute and just when they were winning the population to the view that morality is merely a subjective preference instead of an equally plausible alternative, most everyone is now affirming that some behaviours are categorically wrong.  At least not all moral issues upheld by the Church have been jettisoned.

Unfortunately, only sexual ethics involving ‘freedom’ are condemned: one person doing to another what the other does not wish.  Biblical sexual ethics is not based on freedom but on the conviction that only sex within marriage between a man and a woman is ‘undefiled’ (Hebrews 13.4).  We view the affirmation of—even advocacy for—homosexuality and transgenderism in the culture as equally immoral.  Casual sex, premarital sex, couples living together before marriage, adultery, divorce in order to marry another are all common within our culture.  They are all condemned as sin within Scripture.  Pornography and filthy speech are very much a part of Western culture, where freedom rather than accountability and responsibility is supreme.  For Christians, the sexualisation and promiscuousness of Western culture is far worse than simply the selective sexual perversions now in the news.

4.   A Path to restitution: One thing that stands out in the current news is the lack of a Christian pathway to restitution for sinners.  We might begin by noting that this is somewhat understandable in a post-Christian culture.  Perhaps only one of the persons recently accused of sexual harassment claims to be a Christian, and he denies the charges.  Yet it is ever so sad to witness cultural outrage towards some people who may have sinned years ago and the only ‘moral’ response is condemnation and calls for their resignation.  Missing is the call to repentance, the person’s request for forgiveness, the hope of God’s absolution of sin, restitution to right relationships with God and others, and transformation by the renewing of depraved minds (Romans 1.28; 12.2).  It is as though the only choices are denial or dismissal.

Take the example of King David.  He used his power as king to have a man, Uriah, placed at the front lines of battle so that he would die in order that he, David, could marry Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba, with whom he had already committed adultery (2 Samuel 11).  Now, there’s a scandal that might even make Washington shake!  Yet, King David is remembered also for his repentance, famously captured in Psalm 51: ‘Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin!’ (vv. 1-2).  The people of God can attest to God’s loving character and forgiveness of all who repent for they themselves have been forgiven by God:

Psalm 103:11-12 For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him;  ¹² as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us.

5.    Hypocrisy: Christians are aware that ‘all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’ (Romans 3.23).  They know by heart the words, ‘If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness’ (1 John 1.8-9).  To deny that we have sinned is to deny the need for the cross of Jesus, for Jesus died for our sins.  As Peter says, ‘For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God (1 Peter 3.18). When Jesus said, ‘Judge not, that you be not judged’ (Matthew 7.1), he was not saying, as most people erroneously believe, that Christians should not judge sin.  He was saying, as the rest of Jesus’ words clearly show, that we should not be hypocrites.  Jesus declares the humble, repentant tax collector justified and the self-exalting, self-righteous Pharisee not (Luke 18.9-14). 

What is worrying about the present focus in a selection of sexual sins in the news is the probability that there is a lot of hypocrisy going around.  This is not to say that judgement is wrong, but it is to add wonderment regarding the immense amount of hypocrisy as accusations fly.  Paul charged self-righteous Jews of his day with hypocrisy:

Romans 2:17-23 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God  ¹⁸ and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law;  ¹⁹ and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness,  ²⁰ an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth-  ²¹ you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal?  ²² You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?  ²³ You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law.

Perhaps the starkest example of the culture’s hypocrisy over sexual impropriety comes from Hollywood.  An industry that consistently teaches immorality through its narratives in both its movies and the sordid lives of many of its stars is hardly in a position to be outraged over sexual impropriety.  The Hollywood culture is based on and dependent on sexual impropriety.

6.  The Church is called to a far higher standard of righteousness than the world: Christians have little reason to hope for righteousness from those who reject God.  Their focus is not firstly the sins of our culture.  Their focus should be on their own calling to live holy and blameless lives in love (Ephesians 1.4).  We are to ‘cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed’ (1 Corinthians 5.7).  We are not a club for recalcitrant sinners but are to ‘Purge the evil person from among you’ (1 Corinthians 5.13).

In sum, Christians are aware of more kinds of sexual improprieties that the selection of several in the news, understand them as ‘sins’ because they are also offenses against God and His commandments, and warn that, while judgement is important, we should beware of hypocrisy. 

They are aware that humanity as a whole is under the grip of sin: we all need to repent and receive forgiveness from God through Jesus’ substitutionary death on our behalf.  None of us can hope that our good outweighs our bad.  Christians also have far more to offer than accusation and punishment.  The Church offers a communal life in Christ that includes repentance, forgiveness, absolution, restoration, and transformation to sinners.  It is also to look to itself in living to a higher standard of righteousness than the world.  Indeed, Jesus Christ ‘is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption’ (1 Corinthians 1.30).

The Christian Wedding Cake Maker and the Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court today heard arguments in the case of a Christian wedding cake maker sued for not baking a wedding cake for a homosexual couple’s wedding ceremony.  

American, public ethics is often considered on the slenderest of criteria and typically by trying to determine how the virtue of ‘freedom’ should be understood and applied in various cases.  While this line of argument has seen good results in some cases, it often proves to be inadequate for many ethical issues.  At times, there is a conflict of freedom: whose freedom wins over someone else’s freedom?  At other times, it is inadequate as a test to decide a moral issue.  Parental authority, punishment of criminals, decisions about war, and so forth are not considered on the basis of, or merely on the basis of freedom.  Indeed, as the ancient Greeks realised, there are many virtues to consider, not just one or two, and even the cardinal virtues for them totaled four—and they did not include freedom!  (They were: wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice.)  Neither law nor ethics can be wholly established on a single virtue.

Of course, the key question for the Supreme Court is how to interpret the Constitution of the United States, not first what the right ethical decision is.  Yet the Court will be engaged in the unenviable task of trying to apply a Constitution to a matter of ethics in this case.  It will wrestle with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and equality under the Law.  It will consider in this case the extension of or limitation of its 5 to 4 vote last year to recognise same-sex ‘marriage’ as equal to heterosexual marriage.  Those hoping our Constitution allows us to follow our convictions and live freely will want the Court to release the Christian wedding cake maker to set his own standards for how he makes wedding cakes, lest we all fall under the heavy hand of a State that directs our affairs.

Perhaps the Supreme Court should, as it often does, not only consider the consequences of its interpretation of the law in other, similar cases but also evaluate the various considerations facing analogous but different situations in life.  The following analogies and considerations may be helpful.  

Should the law require:

Considerations	Service Provider	Reasoning
Professional Considerations	A doctor to treat any patient?	Yes, if the patient needs treatment.  No, if the patient does not need treatment.  The doctor has authority to determine what the patient needs, not what the patient wants.
Necessity Considerations	Grocers to sell food to every purchaser?	Yes, because food is either a necessity or, to a lesser extent, is a commodity everyone consumes (including milkshakes). Yet the grocer may insist that customers conduct themselves in ways that will not hurt business (such as wearing shirts and shoes).
Availability Considerations	An electrician to service everyone who asks for service?	In general, ‘yes,’ since electricity is important for everyday life.  But not if the customer has requires of one electrician what another could more easily provide—such as when the distance to service is less for another electrician.
Company Considerations	A publisher to publish any book?	No.  The publisher chooses what to publish based on external considerations (such as costs vs. profit) and internal considerations (such as reputation of the publisher for certain types of literature).
Freedom of Speech vs. Assisting Other Speech Considerations	A photocopy store to print any material?	No.  Freedom of speech does not extend to helping someone say something that one disagrees with as this would restrict one’s own freedom of speech.
Artistic Considerations	An artist offering services for pay to paint anything a customer commissions?	No.  An artist’s work is not a necessity, such as food.  An artist is valued for his/her free expression of his/her artistic abilities.
Religious Considerations	A butcher to provide kosher or halal meat?	No, not in a pluralistic society.  If the butcher were in a strictly religious society, he/she would not stay in business if he did not cater to the religious restrictions on meat.  In a pluralistic society, he would be offering one service for one clientele while another butcher might offer another service (kosher or hallel) to another clientele.
State Authority Considerations	A farmer to grow a certain type of crop?	No, unless the life of the community is in danger.  Farmers should be free to grow whatever they wish without the interference of the State’s authority.  The State’s authority, in a free society, should be limited to matters of life.
Conscience and Consequences Considerations	A vendor to sell to all persons, without discrimination against a particular group?	Normally, no.  The goal of vendors is to make sales.  The law is normally needed to restrict their activities (what they sell to whom) rather than to coerce them.  A compelling interest to coerce sales cannot be articulated in terms of freedom; it would be a matter of social concerns, such as intolerable consequences, that outweigh individual freedom and conscience.  The State does not exist to force bad people to do good things but to keep bad people from doing bad things.
	An artisan to make something for particular persons or groups?	Normally, no.  Artisans are more than vendors in that they produce, not just sell, items and are skilled workers more akin to artists.  If their services are not essential, if they have concerns of conscience or consequences, they ought not be coerced to do things against their consciences.
Multiple Considerations	A Christian wedding cake maker be forced to produce a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding celebration?	No, for professional, necessity, availability, company, freedom not to assist others’ freedom against one’s own, artistry, state authority, conscience, and religious considerations all apply: the Christian baker should not be compelled to bake a wedding cake for these many reasons which we see in other cases.

Perhaps the Christian wedding cake maker’s case is such an interesting case because to force him, as an artisan and artist, to prepare a wedding cake against his religious conscience fails for so many reasons, not just one. He offered to sell anything in his shop to the homosexual couple, and in so doing offered to function as a vendor of goods.  The life of the community is not at stake as cake is not an essential food…  His goods and services are not harmful.  Thus, the State has no compelling reason to interfere.  Other bakers and cake artists are a available to provide their services.  Moreover, religious convictions are not the same as any convictions, as the Constitution recognizes, and the State has a responsibility to defend religious convictions against its own interests and not to coerce practices against those convictions.