The Pharisaical Practice of Comparing People, Especially Yourself, to Other People

In the Sermon on the Mount, in part as an antidote for a heinous, diseased practice of the Pharisees to compare themselves with others, Jesus said (Matthew 5:48):

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

The Apostle Paul later wrote (2 Corinthians 10:12):

For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

People aren't the standard, so what is it, that people want to compare themselves with people?  It's never good to compare one's self or someone else with another person, whether it is someone apparently either worse or better.  Both ways, there are pitfalls.  I want to focus one direction, because the Pharisees thought they were better than other people.  There is a common tendency to compare to people "worse."

One of the ways of comparison to "worse people" related to suffering.  Someone suffered because he was worse than me, and whatever blessings I'm getting are because I'm better than that other person.  In Luke 13, Jesus said, no, everyone is going to suffer if they don't repent.  Job wasn't suffering because he was worse.  The message of the rich man and Lazarus was, look, the worse one is in heaven and the better one opens his eyes in Hell.  We could keep going.

As a whole, the Jews developed the idea that they were better than other people, so they were entitled to some special blessing.  The Gentiles were uncircumcised, unlike them.  They were chosen people and the others were not.  Dietary restrictions didn't make Israel better than other nations, but they acted like it did.  Peter didn't want to be seen eating what Gentiles ate, even though it was permitted by God.

"Legalism" comes up as a subject against others by evangelicals all the time.  Legalism is salvation by works.  Evangelicals use the term legalism in a broader sense, where if someone practices in a different or more strict way than them, they claim the standard or scruple is being added to scripture.  Usually it relates to application of scripture.  The Pharisees, however, were the prototypical legalists.  Their face should be next to legalism in the dictionary, and what did the Pharisees do?

The Pharisees would add to the law their own traditions, it's true.  They also would rank laws and keep only the ones that they ranked the highest.  Usually the harder things were eliminated.  They did this because they couldn't keep the law on their own.  Okay.  What I'm focusing on with this post is that the Pharisees compared themselves with others.  A classic explanation of a Pharisee comes from Luke 18:11:

The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

This is why Jesus said what He did in the Sermon on the Mount, to be perfect as the Father in heaven is perfect.  The comparison should be with God.  God and His Word are the standard.

No one is good because he is better than someone else.  No one else is the standard.  You can say that you know this, but it is still used on a regular basis by professing Christians, just like the Pharisees.  This is a chief Pharisee behavior.  It is Pharisaical.  In that sense, it is legalistic.  The Pharisees were legalists.  It is another form of left-winged legalism.

People who want to do what they want to do will compare themselves with others.  People who want to justify themselves will do it by saying that they aren't as bad as someone else.  Twice in the last month, separate conversations with two different evangelicals, and I was talking to each about the disobedience of someone I love.  They weren't so concerned, because this person was not as bad as each of them were when they were his age.  Someone can be good if he's not as bad as someone else.

God is good.  We judge goodness by God.  He's the standard.  We can't reach that standard, but that doesn't change the standard.  The standard is enabled by the gospel.  The new covenant is that God changes a person so that he can keep the standard.  Even when he doesn't keep it, he's justified by faith, but he's also sanctified, saved from the power of sin.

Someone can't find out if he has the power to live the Christian life if the standards for the Christian life are lowered to the standard of someone else's example.  You can always be better than someone else, even if you're not better than someone else.

With the two men with whom I spoke, they were accepting bad behavior because it was better than their bad behavior.  Instead of keeping the standard under the grace of God with the power of God, the standard is changed, conformed to comparison with someone else.  This isn't the power of God.  This isn't grace.  This isn't the gospel.  This is man's ability.  Man gets the glory.  God isn't honored.

A lot of long term damage occurs through the Pharisaical comparison that I'm describing.  A new wrong practice is established as the new standard with the elevation of a comparison.  Something that isn't God's will is accepted.  With it being accepted, even though it isn't scriptural, it is then compared to another even worse example, to lower the standard even further.

This path is the trajectory of apostasy.  Rather than the Bible being the authority, it becomes conventional thinking or a societal norm.  None of it pleases God, because His standard didn't change.  And it isn't the grace of God.  God isn't empowering or enabling any of this.  It is a false system set up for the pleasure of man, and yet it is called Christian and "of God."  Scripture is rejected in this system.  If it is offered, it is rejected for "I'm better than this other guy."  He continues in his disobedience, but getting the credit of the "righteousness that is better than someone else."  Christianity is shaped into this monstrosity.

Adult Children, pt. 4

Part One, Part Two, Part Three

Some parents, after having poured heart and soul into children for eighteen to twenty-two years, especially now see them falter as adults.  They are told by many, if not most, close to all, that nothing can be done about it.  They should negotiate a surrender where maybe they can split differences and straddle the huge gap that exists.  These are after all, adults.  Furthermore, part of good negotiation with adults is to allow them to make their own choices, because if you do, the consequential good will might entitle you to some select bouts of instruction to nudge both sides closer.   Problem:  this strategy isn't in the Bible.

Parents of adult children can let the non-scriptural belief and practice go.  That's okay.  It's something Christians can and should do with anyone.  Adult children can be released from the non-scriptural requirements of their childhood.  However, unscriptural positions and behavior can't be tolerated, shouldn't be.

Scripture does guide toward "letting things go". . . . for unbelievers.  Jesus talked about the dusting of one's feet of an unbelieving village.  He said not to sow pearls before swine.  Swine are not believers in that picture.  Jesus began speaking in parables so that unbelievers would not be further hardened.  That is a method of letting an unbeliever go.  I agree in a stopping point of preaching to an unbeliever.  In most instances, I give an unbeliever one shot and then I move on.  The unbeliever makes this clear.  "Stop talking to me."  If he could put it another way:  "I don't want to hear the truth anymore, because I'm settled in my lifestyle or life's path."  At that point in time a parent would be judging himself to have an unsaved adult child.

When I let go of an unbeliever, that's not a good moment for the unbeliever.  At the moment he's being let go, that might be finality for him.  He's done for.  His next stop might be hell, likely is.  People who want to be let go probably don't know what they're asking for, and I wish they knew.

God calls the letting people go, "turning them over."  At the time to the unbeliever, it feels like a privilege, something to rationalize as a good thing.  Adult children may think things have gotten better for them with their parents, because they don't feel their parents looking over their shoulder and the relationship has improved, when in fact it's just that the parents have put adult children into the unbeliever category, and turned them over.  Their delight unfettered in fleshly lust is actually a parent who has given up on them like God does with unbelievers.  Friends and sometimes relatives celebrate with and for this child.  It's a hellish, nightmarish moment, viewed as splendid.

I was talking to a sibling of the adult child of a very prominent, godly pastor.  His church is well known.  His son is an atheist.  I understand not confronting that child any more on a regular basis.  I wouldn't give up, but attempts at reconciliation would be diminished exponentially.

As long as there is the indication that one is dealing with a believing adult child, the truth should be told.  Believers respond favorably to the truth.  They don't say, stop telling me that.  Even if they don't want it at the moment, the truth will work to a desired end.  Telling the truth is what Jesus did.  It is what all the epistles teach, the position of the apostles.  If one stops telling someone the truth, he is admitting that he's probably got an unbeliever now on his hands.  It isn't loving to stop telling someone the truth if he is a believer.  Jesus said the truth is the basis for sanctification (John 17:17) and it is what sets someone free from what is nasty in his life (John 8:32).

The conflict in the short term with an adult child is worth it.  I'm saying that based upon scripture.  The battle, the clash, and the tension are painful.  "Endure hardness as a good soldier," Paul reminded.  Spiritual warfare is warfare.  No one says war is pretty.  The northern general, William Tecumseh Sherman, said, "War is hell."

Noah's Adult Children

When Noah and his family exited the ark, they met complete devastation, billions of deaths and a world physically torn to bits.  As life started in the aftermath of that, God points out what was significant to Him.  Not much material is included from the beginning of the post-flood era in which we still live today, but all of what God could address, He accosted an adult sons' treatment of his father.

In Genesis 9, Noah got drunk and naked in a shameful way.  The passage focuses on two disparate reactions from one son and then the other two in verses 22-23:

22  Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.

"Saw," the original use of that term, implies that Ham gazed on his father without his modesty or without dignity, without the covering that provides a boundary for fallen human relationships, with some measure of delight.  He found some pleasure, some delight in his father's shame and in his father's dishonor.  This is the attitude of a rebellious son, something of glee and satisfaction because somebody respected and revered and honored falls.

The passage doesn't explain Ham's problem with his dad, but as one works one's way through scripture, backed then also by personal experience, Bible students would know that sons can develop resentment toward fathers for varied reasons.  A father restricts his son, says "no," doesn't allow him to have his way.   Ham was cooped up with his dad in a small space.  For years, he had been overseen in building the ark in the first place, hard labor with parental scrutiny.  Noah was a righteous man, not sinlessly perfect, but righteous.  Ham would have been about 100 years old at the time of this post-flood event.

When Noah got drunk and then took his clothes off in an uninhibited way in fitting with the influence of alcohol, Genesis doesn't record his having taken responsibility for the deed.  It doesn't mean that he didn't.  The emphasis of the passage is the deed of Ham, his disrespect, and then the punishment skipping to the unbelieving grandson, which would have been harsh chastisement for Ham, to see what he lost and to live with that regret.

Noah's example didn't take away responsibility from Ham.  Children aren't going to see perfection from their parents and this doesn't excuse their own negative emotions.  They don't inherit the victim card and embrace entitlement, whether real or imagined.  I would assess most to be imagined.  It's easy for anyone to feel sorry for his first world problems, essentially his feelings hurt because he was confronted for a wrong doing.  He slouched in his chair and dad told him to sit up in front of his friends.  He can't let it go, and now he justifies continued childish or boorish behavior because of his experience.  Children often take a myopic view of their lives, shrinking the world down to the inside of a barrel, so that everything looks like the barrel.

As a further insult, Ham went outside and told his two brothers, which is the ugly sin of ridicule or the further sin of disrespect. He should have covered his father, protecting him, but instead, he recruited his other brothers to join in the ridicule. This was an attitude of disdain, an unloving attitude in contrast to love covering.  Disdain or bitterness or animosity exposes it.  Love doesn't want to think evil or bear evil tales. Resentment does. Ham had resentment for his father, which is a serious breach of the later fifth commandment, honor your father and your mother.

One commentator says that Ham desecrated a natural and sacred barrier. His going out to tell his brothers about it and without covering his dad aggravated the act, because of this breach of propriety.  Men care about honoring their father.  Ham dishonored his father, and God then brought shame into his family.

This is placed in sharp contrast to the other sons, as seen in verse 23.  They had an appropriate sense of shame. They would find no pleasure in their father's indiscretion. This shows what kind of sons they were.  They loved their father and they showed respect for him. They put a garment over their shoulders and they backed in, covered him, and refused to be a part of Ham's disrespect.  They rebuke Ham by their behavior.

How serious was the disrespect of Ham to God?  God cursed his son, Canaan, and we know what that meant?  The Canaanites were annihilated from the earth.  The people reading Genesis first were preparing to enter the land and they would obey God by killing the Canaanites.  The Old Testament traces the demise and destruction of Canaan.  Hid descendants were obliterated and it is tied into this event.  This provides a requirement for an adult son toward his father and offers a loving warning from God.

The story reminds me of the Old Testament proverb (Proverbs 30:17):

The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it.

God prohibits mockery of parents by a child and as we see in the case of Ham, this includes especially adult children.  Ham was a saved son.  The implication was, and many commentators agree, that Canaan was not a believer.  The demise of Ham's descendants, their annihilation related to his disrespect of his dad, even when his dad wasn't behaving in one of his better moments.  A responsibility lies on the son.  He's held responsible.  Whatever Noah did at the moment wasn't an excuse for Ham.

The interaction in the story in Genesis 9 is between an adult son with his father.  Hear the next few verses:

24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

Noah takes charge with his adult sons.  He doesn't "let it go."  There isn't a pattern of letting things go, especially with a believing son like Ham.  Noah could have just blamed himself and did nothing.  He did wrong, but that didn't excuse his son from wrong.  Noah still stepped in.  Parents have to do that with their adult children.  That is the pattern through all of scripture.

Noah punishes one child and deals in a blessed way with the others.  The comparison is stark.  He made it known that not everyone would get the same treatment.  He wasn't concerned that Ham could become jealous.  This was a just judgment by Noah.  Just judgment is the way of God.  If Ham couldn't accept it, then he wasn't repentant and a far worse outcome awaited him.  This is akin, although not identical, to Paul teaching the Corinthians church to turning someone over to the devil that he might be saved.  Being saved, the long term result, is far better than short term niceties for the sake of getting along.

The story in Genesis 9 is pivotal.  It is monumental.  This event was cherry picked from hundreds of years.  This is what God wanted us to know.  It is ignored at our own peril.

Late (post AD 70) dates for the Gospels: The Evidence Examined

College students at secular universities are frequently informed that the accounts of Jesus Christ in the Gospels are late compositions that are a result of a significant period of evolutionary development.  This is the standard anti-supernaturalist attempt to explain away the portrait of Christ as the Divine Son of God.  The synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are said to originate between A. D. 70-100 (the position, for example, taken by Shabir Ally in my debate with him, as he was following standard theological liberal argumentation).

I have provided below every known ancient historical source from the first 1,000 years after the death and resurrection of Christ that provide these sorts of late dates for the Gospels:

In case you missed them, I will provide the comprehensive list of all the extant ancient historical sources that provide post A. D. 70 dates for the synoptic Gospels one more time:

So if there are no ancient historical sources at all that affirm these late dates--a fact kept hidden from impressionable students at secular universities--why do advocates of theological liberalism affirm them?  They do so because of their bias against the supernatural.  Matthew, Mark and Luke all record Christ's plain prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, a prediction which was fulfilled in A. D. 70:


And when [Christ] was come near, he beheld the city [Jerusalem, Luke 19:28], and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation. . . . And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass? . . .  But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom . . . And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. (Luke 19:41-44; 21:1-24; cf. Matthew 24; Mark 13; Daniel 9:24-27)

Anti-supernaturalists assume predictive prophecy is impossible, so Christ's statements could (allegedly) not really have been spoken by Him, much less written down in the Gospels, prior to A. D. 70.  Such an assumption among anti-supernaturalists is widespread enough that “Adolf von Harnack . . . the leading liberal scholar of his day” (Stanley E. Porter and Jason C. Robinson, Hermeneutics: An Introduction to Interpretive Theory [Grand Rapids, MI:  Eerdmans, 2011] 216) could write:  “The critics of our days . . . are practically unanimous in assigning . . . [the] gospel, to the time after the destruction of Jerusalem. The majority of them do not even think that they are in these days called upon to take any special trouble to prove this point” (Adolf von Harnack, New Testament Studies: The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels, trans. J. R. Wilkinson, vol. 4, Crown Theological Library [New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1911] 117).  Indeed, “there are no other reasons for a later [post A. D. 70] date . . . [than] a vatinicium post eventum” (ibid, 121, 124); nothing but the assumption that predictive prophecy is impossible impels a late date.   No evidence is allegedly needed, and all contrary evidence can be ignored—predictive prophecy must be impossible, so the Gospels must post-date A. D. 70.

The actual extant ancient historical evidence, as I demonstrate in my study on archaeological and historical evidence for the New Testament, indicates that Matthew was written c. A. D. 40, Mark c. A. D. 42, Luke c. A. D. 48, and John c. A. D. 50-65.  No evidence at all exists for dating the synoptic Gospels after A. D. 70--nothing favors a late date other than anti-supernaturalist presuppositions that predictive prophecy is impossible.  Late dates are held despite the ancient evidence, not because of it.

-TDR

Adult Children, pt. 3

Part One, Part Two

Even those with a casual knowledge of scripture very often know Romans 1.  Beginning in verse 18 to the end of that chapter, the content follows that men sin as a lifestyle, not because they lack in knowledge, but because of rebellion against that knowledge of God.  They know God, but they choose their lust.  God judges them by turning them over to their own desires, and they are in the end worthy of His wrath.  They choose not to retain God in their knowledge and God turns them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1:28).  Paul lists the characteristic things that they do, things which are not proper, not fitting with God's expectations for the world and for the humanity that He created.

Get this.  The end of the description of the lifestyle of those who do not retain God in their knowledge, who are turned over to a reprobate mind, says (Romans 1:32):  "they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."  Please pay attention.  "They which commit" is present tense, committing as a lifestyle or commit as a habit.  However, those who choose to keep committing these things "are worthy of death."  It is not just those who do these things as a lifestyle, but those who have pleasure in those who do them.  Someone doesn't even have to do them, just have pleasure in others who do them.

Since this series is about "adult children," I will talk about just one of the characteristics, but this is one of them, and in verse 30, "disobedient to parents."  This isn't talking about children disobeying their parents.  These are people who choose not retain God in their knowledge.  That isn't describing children.  These are people who have settled in this.

The Greek word "disobedient" in Romans 1:30 is apeithes, which means literally, "not be persuaded by."  The portrayal here is an adult child, who has been taught scripture by his parents, and willfully rejects what they are teaching.  Some adult children act, and with the agreement of other adults, like this is part of what it means to be an adult, to depart from what your parents taught you as a child.

The same Greek word is used in John 3:36 and translated in the King James Version, "believeth not," as in "believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."  The Greek work conveys obstinate rejection of the will of God.  Disobedience is equated with unbelief.  Haldane in his Exposition on Romans on this particular characteristic writes:

Obedience to parents is here considered as a duty taught by the light of nature, the breach of which condemns the heathens, who had not the fifth commandment written in words. It is a part of the law originally inscribed on the heart, the traces of which are still to be found in the natural love of children to their parents. When the heathens, then, disregarded this duty, they departed from the original constitution of their nature, and disregarded the voice of God in their hearts. 

Barclay in His commentary on Romans writes:

Both Jews and Romans set obedience to parents very high in the scale of virtues. It was one of the Ten Commandments that parents should be honored. In the early days of the Roman Republic, the patria potestas, the father’s power, was so absolute that he had the power of life and death over his family. The reason for including this sin here is that, once the bonds of the family are loosened, wholesale degeneracy must necessarily follow.

Albert Barnes in his commentary on Romans writes:

This expresses the idea that they did not show to parents that honor, respect, and attention which was due. This has been a crime of paganism in every age; and though among the Romans the duty of honoring parents was enjoined by the laws, yet it is not improbable that the duty was often violated, and that parents were treated with great neglect and even contempt. “Disobedience to parents was punished by the Jewish Law with death, and with the Hindus it is attended with the loss of the child‘s inheritance. The ancient Greeks considered the neglect of it to be extremely impious, and attended with the most certain effects of divine vengeance. Solon ordered all persons who refused to make due provision for their parents to be punished with infamy, and the same penalty was incurred for personal violence toward them.” Kent‘s Commentaries on American Law, vol. ii. p. 207; compare Virg. AEniad, ix. 283. The feelings of pride and haughtiness would lead to disregard of parents. It might also be felt that to provide for them when aged and infirm was a burden; and hence, there would arise disregard for their wants, and probably open opposition to their wishes, as being the demands of petulance and age. It has been one characteristic of paganism every where, that it leaves children to treat their parents with neglect. Among the Sandwich islanders it was customary, when a parent was old, infirm, and sick beyond the hope of recovery, for his own children to bury him alive; and it has been the common custom in India for children to leave their aged parents to perish on the banks of the Ganges.

"Disobedience to parents" is no incidental thing.  Paul writes that the person who chooses this deserves death.  Later Paul writes in 2 Timothy 3:2 the exact same expression to describe apostates in last days, "disobedient to parents."  It is the same Greek words.  Concerning these in 2 Timothy 3:4, Paul writes:

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Whatever godliness they have is just a form of godliness, and the right thing to do with this person or these people is to turn away from them.

For a moment, take the teaching about "disobedience to parents" into consideration.  While an adult child disobeys his parents, that is, he rejects the scriptural teaching of His parents, turns away from their instruction from the Bible, he is accepting something else.  What is it?  What is so attractive in the world that would have him do this?  2 Timothy 3:6 says they are "led away with divers lusts."  This is not worshiping the Creator, but worshiping the creature (Romans 1:25).

The God, the one and only true God, Who created the world, designed and created parents, and in the natural order of God is for a child to follow in his parents' teachings.  In this, I'm not proposing that children disobey scripture, but to follow in the scriptural instruction of his parents.  It must be some clear, plain actual disobedience to scripture that would contradict the instruction of the parents.  When children have been taught the way they should go, when they are adult children, they should not depart from it, that is, they should not be "disobedient to parents."

More to Come

On Father and Son from Jordan Peterson in His 12 Rules for Life

I'm stepping on my Monday post with this, so I implore you read that one, and the one I posted Saturday night both.  Don't miss those to get to this one.

This Thursday night, my wife and I will be going with two others to see and hear Jordan Peterson in San Francisco.  It is an event sponsored by the Independent Institute.  In preparation and anticipation of that event, I have been reading Peterson's 12 Rules For Life:  An Antidote to Chaos.  I've brought up Peterson's name to various ones in recent days, and some will say something like, 'oh yes, I really like Peterson,' even though they don't like rules.  Peterson's book is 12 rules.  Rules.  Some of the same ones would say 'no on rules'.

I've heard or watched Peterson in podcasts, interviews, and videos, and I have a pretty good handle on a lot of what he thinks, and I'm saying the following quote comes from a pivotal part of his thinking within his book.  In that very important part of his book, Peterson writes this paragraph about a father and a son in their relationship.  I'm typing this whole paragraph verbatim (p. 192):

If a father disciplines his son properly, he obviously interferes with his freedom, particularly in the here-and-now.  He puts limits on the voluntary expression of his son's Being* (look below for Peterson's definition of "Being"), forcing him to take his place as a socialized member of the world.  Such a father requires that all that childish potential be funneled down a single pathway (italics mine, not Peterson's).  In placing such limitations on his son, he might be considered a destructive force, acting as he does to replace the miraculous plurality of childhood with a single narrow actuality.  But if the father does not take such action, he merely lets his son remain Peter Pan, the eternal Boy, King of the Lost Boys, Ruler of the non-existent Neverland.  That is not a morally acceptable alternative.

*From earlier footnote from Peterson:  "I use the term Being (with a capital "B") in part because of my exposure to the ideas of the 20th century German philosopher Martin Heidegger.  Heidegger tried to distinguish between reality, as conceived objectively, and the totality of human experience (which is his "Being").  Being (with a capital "B") is what each of us experiences, subjectively, personally and individually, as well as what we each experience jointly with others."

What Is "Freedom in Christ"?

I'm for freedom.  I'm a capitalist.  I believe in a democratic republic, a free country.  I preach salvation by grace through faith alone and not by works.  There is no greater freedom than that in Christ.  If I wasn't writing this in a coffee shop, I might jump and down right now with freedom. I have the freedom to do that.

Christ freed me from sin.  I couldn't do that.  I was helpless under the Mosaic Covenant.  I couldn't stop sinning, but with the new covenant, Christ freed me to live righteous.  Even then, I sin, but He frees me from the punishment of sin.  I have power over sin, because of the freedom in Christ.  I praise God through Christ has set me free.  Amen!

I'm not getting to heaven by works, unless we're talking about the work, the finished work of Christ, which produces good works in me.  I can do good works.  Paul exclaims at the end of Romans 7, thank God for the victory through the Lord Jesus Christ.  If I was stuck with only the law of sin in my members, I could never do good, but through His workmanship, I can both will and do of his good pleasure.

Someone emailed this week and said the following, "We DO have freedom in Christ. Kent mocks that idea" (caps written by original author).  Kent is me.  So, according to this statement, I mock the idea that we have freedom in Christ.  It's a strange statement to read about myself, because I've preached for freedom in Christ on many occasions, really mention and preach it every week if not every day of my life (probably more than my critic), and could show notes from those sermons as evidence.

I did a search on my blog to see if I had written on it.  In 2016, I wrote a two part series (part one, part two) on "The Truth Shall Make You Free."  I have written about Christian liberty and also its perversions by evangelicals (here, here, here, here).  As a brief aside, I don't believe they very often have or want freedom.   I'm not sure they would even like the kingdom of God, because they would have to submit to Christ.  I have never mocked freedom in Christ and I would be glad to read the occasions that I have.  Many people who have listened to me have been opened up to Christian liberty, who have never heard it, and I've been told that many times.  I look out at a congregation of free people at Bethel Baptist Church.

Since then, I talked to the person who wrote the email to get a better understanding of the false accusation.  Almost by any definition, the statement is false, unless someone were defining "freedom in Christ" in a very narrow way that belies all teaching on freedom in Christ for the entire history of Christianity.  What I found through direct contact was that I mock the idea that we do have freedom in Christ, because I oppose the drinking of alcohol.  At least I found out what he meant.

The argument as it would relate to freedom in Christ seemed like the following.  People today take different positions on drinking alcohol, some prohibit it and some permit it.  Since there is more than one position taken, there is this dispute on the matter between Christians, those who prohibit it should allow liberty to those who permit it, and not judge them in this matter.  Those who judge it as sin, like me, mock freedom in Christ.  Okay.

It's true that I don't believe Christians have freedom to drink alcohol.  However, that doesn't mean that I don't believe Christians don't have freedom or liberty.  All activities can be divided into three categories:  scriptural, unscriptural, and non-scriptural.  I believe and would defend Christian liberty in the first and the third.  On the second, I believe we have freedom from unscriptural behavior, not freedom unto unscriptural actions.  "What shall we sin that grace may abound?  God forbid."

"In Christ" is a sphere or a position.  Christ is holy.  Our position "in Christ" isn't freedom to sin.  It isn't freedom even to do what we want.  It is freedom to do what Christ wants us to do, which is what it means to be "in Christ."  If someone doesn't want to do what Christ wants Him to do, why would He be interested in that position or sphere?  When someone looks at the classic Christian liberty passage in the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 6-10, one can see that the point of the liberty is Jesus Christ, not himself.

We don't have liberty in unscriptural activities.  I believe drinking alcohol is unscriptural.  Unscriptural activities are sin.  The gospel of Christ, His freedom, gives a believer freedom not to drink alcohol.  He is delivered from drinking alcohol, because that is sin.  I'm saying drinking alcohol is bondage, not freedom.  I'm not mocking freedom in Christ.  I love it.  I don't have to drink alcohol, because of what Christ has done for me.  If I love Him, I keep His commandments, and they are not burdensome to me.  Sin no longer has dominion over me, because I'm under grace.

The discussion is really not about freedom in Christ.  It is about whether drinking alcohol is sin or not.  I believe it is a violation of scripture to drink alcohol.

In 2013, I wrote an article, "Everybody Draws Lines (It Really Is All About Why)."  Sin is transgression of the law.  Grace, liberty, freedom is not about transgressing the law.  I say transgressing, and that is crossing over a boundary, or a line.  In James 2:10, James writes that if we even cross over one line, we've broken the whole law.  Jesus said that the greatest in His kingdom is the one who keeps the least of His commandments, that is, crosses over the least of those lines.

Crossing God's boundaries isn't good.  It isn't freedom.  It is bondage.  It hurts the person who does it.  Even if everyone didn't want to cross a line, he would be helpless not to do that, except it be by the grace of God.  Until he is saved by the grace of God, he can't help himself.  I'm not saying he's the worst he could be, but he is still going to keep transgressing the law, except by the liberty by which Christ sets us free.

Drinking alcohol is not liberty or freedom.  Saying that you can do that doesn't mean you are more free than someone else.  This is what I call left wing legalism, people who think that because they have less regulations, they are more free.  Rather than say, God's grace enables me to do everything he wants me to do, they shrink the list down to a manageable number and call that freedom.  This is actually what the Pharisees did.  They eliminated the "weightier things," which are the harder things to do, and opted for the easy things.

Grace or liberty is not about shrinking the number of regulations.  It's not adding either, but God said not either to add or take away.  Modern evangelical reductionism isn't freedom.

What we see happening is the list of certain things shrinking in evangelicalism and the list of uncertainty growing.  Almost nothing can be judged because almost nothing is wrong anymore.  What especially becomes uncertain are numerous carnal lusts, inventing an unholy, worldly placebo of Christianity that isn't the grace of God and wouldn't require it.  The freedom is lasciviousness that denies the Lord Jesus Christ.  There's almost nothing different from the world in it.  This perversion is exposed in 2 Peter and Jude among other places.

I watched the 1988 vice presidential debate between Lloyd Benson and Dan Quayle.  There is a whole Wikipedia article to the famous quote of Benson.

Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy. 

I know freedom in Christ.  And the modern evangelical "freedom in Christ" is no freedom in Christ.  I don't mock freedom in Christ.  I don't even mock the counterfeit.

Two Bad Reactions When the Truth Hits Target: Shoot the Messenger or Doctor Shopping

When someone hears something from someone, let's say right from scripture, perhaps an exposition of a passage, so this is from God, His Word, the right response is to listen, acquiesce, humble one's self and obey.  So that's what people do, right?  Nope.  Read through the gospels and see what people do with Jesus.  He tells them the truth, then what do they do?  They attack Him.  He's from Nazareth.  He's Beelzebub.  He's born out of wedlock.  What authority does He have?  None of it has started dealing with what He actually said.  It's going after Him.

Let's say that I'm listening to someone who is telling me the truth.  It's an accurate representation of scripture.  I may not like everything about the person, but what is the right response to hearing the truth?  James 1:19 gives a nice little outline:  swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.  The truth should be taken to heart and someone should change.

When I tell someone the truth, and then the person attacks me, I know something from that.  The truth itself still stands.  He isn't dealing with what I've said, because it has hit target.

If what I've said is wrong, it's easy.  Tell me how it is wrong.  Go to the passage I've used or referred to or exposed, and show how it's wrong.  Tell me what it really does say.  Humility would give in to scriptural teaching.  That is humbling one's self.  If it relates to the application of the passage, indicate how the application is not following from the passage.  I'm actually happy about that kind of interaction with scripture.  It's basically, let's talk about the Bible.  I'm good with that.  I would expect the person to have done some work, the kind of drilling down that should be expected, not just a superficial opinion or even just what someone else said.

Here's what happens though.  Someone just doesn't like what the passage says.  He doesn't want to change.  Or he just doesn't like being judged by anyone based on a passage.  That doesn't alter the meaning of the passage.  It also doesn't mean that he's not going to be judged by God.

Alright, if someone hears the truth, he can agree.  It doesn't have to be a pound of flesh.  Someone doesn't need to blubber with tears down his face.  "You're right."  And then change.  Stop doing what you're doing.  But here's what happens instead.

Shooting the Messenger

Instead of hearing his message, people shoot the messenger.  In Acts, the authorities throw Peter and John in prison.  They kill Stephen.  It's normal.  With the Apostle Paul, 2 Corinthians and Galatians provide the types of personal attacks people take.  I'm not going to go through all of them, but they often get into his motives, judging him to have said what he did for bad reasons.  They're still not dealing with what he actually says.  It's a kind of deflection out of rebellion.  It's a person who doesn't want to listen or follow through with what he says.

I don't like getting shot as a messenger, but it is to be expected, especially with biblical truth.  There is no light that gets a more harsh reaction than giving people what the Bible says.  The attacks are brutal.  I did not receive them until I started preaching.  Before that I was popular, liked by many.  As long as I didn't tell the truth, I was fine---no opposition, just everyone friends or friendly.

Since becoming a pastor, I get bad treatment all the time.  I've never been treated worse.  I get it from all over.  Jesus said this would be normal.  Read through every gospel, but especially in His instructions to the apostles in places like Matthew 10, Luke 10, and John 14-16.  Men love darkness.  They don't like being exposed.  They want to keep living like they want.  They want to be their own boss.  They are walking after lust and so they, as we see in 2 Peter 3, scoff.  People scoff to protect their own lust.

Jesus says people get it from family too.  Sometimes they're the most harsh and Jesus warns of this too.  During His ministry, He got it from his brothers.  Suffering from family is warned in the gospels by Jesus, but also by Peter in his first epistle.  Jesus said that when they "shoot you," they very often will treat it like they're doing a good deed.  They might think they are.

When I wrote the post published last Wednesday, I got some instant personal attack over it.  I got almost no interaction with the truth. What I wrote was just the truth.  It was important truth, but what did I hear?  Understand that this wasn't in the comment section, but that it was in emails.  He isn't humble.  His tone isn't any good.  He doesn't believe at all in freedom in Christ.  People hate him.  People roll their eyes at him when they see him coming.  He drives people away.  He doesn't have compassion, humility, or love.  He just loves to argue.  He isn't happy unless he's in a fight.  He isn't guiltless himself.  He comes across as sanctimonious.  He's been thrown off multiple blogs.  He himself doesn't show almost any fruit of the Spirit.  I got all those and many more. What about what I wrote?  Almost nothing.

What does all this personal attack, shooting the messenger mean from these people who one would expect are great examples of love themselves?  They would have tremendous tone too!  When someone doesn't deal with the truth, that means that it has hit target.  The attack should be expected.  It is very sad, but it should be expected.  It will happen.  Jesus said it would.

Just as an aside, shooting the messenger is proud.  It is not humble.  Humility is a biblical concept and it relates to a response to God.  People who don't like what God says and shoot the messenger are really not humbling themselves before God.  Go ahead.  You can shoot now.  It's what you do.

I believe the truth doesn't return void back to God.  It always works.  If it is teaching from scripture, it is powerful.  Part of operating by faith is not judging by appearance.  Like God said to Jeremiah, don't be afraid of their faces.  This is par for the course.  I've found it for thirty to forty years now. 

For myself, even if it is from someone that I don't think is completely squared away, if it is the truth, I think I should listen to it.  I'm still going to stand before God based on what His Word says.  That's not going to be the normal reaction to the truth.  Most of the time, they shoot the messenger.

Doctor Shopping

I'll call this spiritual doctor shopping.  Doctor shopping is where someone doesn't hear what he wants from his doctor, so he finds a doctor who will tell him what he wants to hear.  He keeps shopping for a doctor who will tell what he wants until he finds one.  If I go to a doctor, and he tells me what I've got or what he's going to give me in medication, what I want is the truth from him.  I understand not liking what I hear or what I get, but if it's the truth, I can solve whatever the malady is.

I can tell someone the truth from scripture, but someone will look for a preacher that says something different, or at least says that multiple possibilities exist and he can still do what he wants.  In the real world, if someone has the disease, he has the disease.  He can hear something else, but that's not going to change that.  People don't think the same today about scripture, the truth of God's Word.  They think they can choose whatever option they want, but that's not true.  They'll find out someday and it will be worse than any bad decision about a doctor.

Doctor shopping is akin to someone looking for his own counselor.  He "got counsel."  That's something he's supposed to do, right?  But that isn't counsel.  Counsel isn't shopping around until someone hears what he wants.  Counsel includes the opposite of what one wants to hear.  In scripture, the doctor shopping I'm describing is what Rehoboam did when he listened to younger men instead of the wise men.  This action split the entire nation and resulted in numerous deaths and spiritual apostasy.

I know many people who doctor shop.  They love their new doctors.  I tell someone the truth and he goes to someone else who says something different, that he wants to hear, and that's now the truth.  Is this based on exposition or the right means of understanding scripture?  No.  It's based on his own lust.  He bows to whoever tells him the spiritual position he wants to hear.  That doesn't change the truth and it won't work with God in the end.

Someone should want a doctor who gives the correct diagnosis based on the truth.  As a "doctor," I don't respect at all someone who shops for another doctor once I've told him the truth.  He's not getting the truth, I don't care if the other "doctor" is telling him he is. He's just shopping for whatever he wants to hear.  It's despicable.

Christian Mutual Funds With Great Rate of Return

Eventide, the family of mutual funds with Christian values that I have reviewed on my website and written about at What is Truth previously (here and here) has, I am pleased to report, won awards for having some of the highest rates of return within their mutual fund categories.  Investor's Business Daily named the Eventide Gilead Fund one of the 2019 Best Mutual Funds:

The Eventide Gilead Fund (NASDAQ: ETGLX) was named one of the 2019 Best Mutual Funds by the investment publication Investor’s Business Daily. The annual award list recognizes the funds in each equity category that have outperformed the S&P 500 Total Return Index in each of the 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year periods as of the prior year-end. The Eventide Gilead Fund was one of 108 funds to achieve this result in the Growth Stock Funds category out of 439 funds, one of 111 funds to achieve this result in the U.S. Diversified Equity Funds category out of 1076 funds, and one of 10 funds to achieve this result in the Midcap Funds category out of 210 funds. For award consideration, funds were required to have at least $100 million in assets under management.

The Eventide Funds are managed by Eventide Asset Management, LLC, a Boston-based registered investment adviser practicing investing that makes the world rejoice.^®

Furthermore, the Wall Street Journal has identified both the Eventide Gilead Fund and the Eventide Healthcare and Life Sciences Fund as "category kings" because of their great rates of return:

The Eventide Gilead Fund and the Eventide Healthcare & Life Sciences Fund were both named as "Category Kings" by The Wall Street Journal for the one-year period ending March 31, 2019. The Category King award recognizes the top 10 performing funds in each equity category for trailing one-year total return. The Eventide Gilead Fund (NASDAQ: ETILX) ranked #4 in the Midcap Growth category out of 401 funds, and the Eventide Healthcare & Life Sciences Fund (NASDAQ: ETIHX) ranked #1 in the Health & Biotech category out of 97 funds.

The Eventide Funds are guided by an approach that seeks to deliver market outperformance to investors by investing in companies whose products and practices help create a better world. Eventide CIO Finny Kuruvilla, MD, PhD, commented on the approach: "Investing, for all its seeming sophistication, is simply the act of owning companies. What sets Eventide investors apart is a desire to invest in companies that are serving society and human flourishing. It is so gratifying to be able to work on behalf of those who want their use of money to follow and express their values and commitments." 

The Eventide Funds are managed by Eventide Asset Management, a Boston-based registered investment adviser practicing investing that makes the world rejoice.®

Even if they achieved an inferior rate of return, I would still recommend Eventide because they are clean and God-honoring in their investment philosophy, and it is not right for Christians to be part-owners of companies that support abortion, alcohol, tobacco, etc. by owning mutual funds that contain such stocks.  However, through investing in Eventide--which can be done directly through them or without purchase or sales fees through brokers such as Fidelity, Schwab, Merrill Edge, etc., it has been possible to get a fantastic rate of return on one's investment while still honoring the infinitely holy God.

Of course, past performance is never a guarantee of future results. The only thing certain here is not what happens to your money but that Jesus Christ will hold you accountable for what you did with it.

For more on Eventide, or for a complementary moral audit of your investments, please see the review on my website.

-TDR