Revisionist arguments and the deficiency of modernity

The newly re-launched Stand Firm website is off to a good start with this piece from Matt Kennedy on how revisionist activists creep into orthodox Christian bodies and subvert their witness and ministry. The pattern should be easily discernible but, unfortunately, it goes unidentified for far too long in most cases.

1. A small group of revisionist activists embrace an unbiblical but culturally popular idea.

2. Orthodox leaders respond by reasserting the Faith.

3. Those styling themselves “moderate” (who often don’t quite grasp the theological issues at stake) emphasize the need for unity and patience. Three of the most common moderate templates are: an appeal to the “Gamaliel model” from Acts 5; an attempt to re-cast the conflict as adiaphora—a dispute over “non-essential” issues; and/or an argument from Jesus’ command not to “judge”.

4. The theological liberals congratulate and fawn over “moderates” for their “open-mindedness”, feeding the moderates’ need to be liked/admired.

5. At some point the secular media (perhaps alerted by the revisionist activists) is attracted to the conflict and various outlets report on the “growing controversy”. The media portrays orthodox leaders as stodgy reactionaries. Theological liberals are showcased as cutting edge enlightened thinkers, courageously challenging the powers-that-be on behalf of the downtrodden. “Moderates” who hold traditional views but counsel “dialog” are featured as the “voices of reason” in the troubled denomination.

6. What had been a tiny group of relatively harmless revisionists now begins to gain steam as members of the denomination uninformed and unprepared for the controversy are exposed to revisionist arguments for the first time via the media alongside gentle calls for moderation, patience and open-mindedness.

7. Well-meaning, conflict-averse orthodox pastors hope to shield their flock by “focusing on mission” and avoiding the topic.

8. Having leveraged the moderates and the press, the tiny group of revisionist activists now has the political clout to influence the direction of the entire denomination. They “put facts on the ground” and initiate legislative action.

9. Many otherwise orthodox leaders do not speak forcefully against these measures because those who have already done so have been successfully characterized as “angry zealots”, “fundementalists” and “rabble rousers.”

At this point it is generally only a matter of time before “facts on the ground” become legislative facts and the denomination begins to crumble. Traditional-minded members quietly leave for other churches. Others hole up in “safe” ghettos hoping to ride out the storm. The vast majority seek desperately to continue on as if nothing has happened. But as traditionalists leave the revisionists gain power and a vicious cycle picks up steam.

Kennedy suggests some practical steps to combat the advance of theological liberalism, but I would suggest the first necessary step is what he has already done, namely, identify the process by which revisionists gain a foothold in churches. By the time the "moderates" start spouting their pabulum (step 3), it is probably already too late. The encroachment needs to be stopped at the very beginning, but that takes wisdom and courage on the part of battle tested church leaders who are willing to confront modernity head-on before its flawed, deficient, and ultimately counter-productive presuppositions poison the thinking of average church-goers who are more concerned with being viewed in a positive light by outsiders than with living under the light of the Gospel. Ben Stevens, writing today at First Things, defines the parameters of modernity and how the aggressive movement for the legitimization of homosexual behavior (the quintessential "unbiblical but culturally popular idea") has created an environment of intolerance and bigotry by the very persons who rail against the same.

To the extent that a society becomes “modern,” then, it will be packed with people who hold to widely divergent beliefs and values, any of which may be questioned. And the glue of this system is not that we all agree with one another but that we make a commitment to not always equate disagreement, or even disapproval, with bigotry.

At present, this model of society is being rejected by the LGBT movement. And it is being rejected not to the extent that the movement simply disagrees with, and disapproves of, its detractors, but to the extent that it equates all disagreement and disapproval of itself with bigotry, and seeks to classify any question about the tenets of its own orthodoxy as hate speech.

A truly modern movement will, by definition, expect to be questioned. Being questioned about one’s beliefs, as Berger explains, is a necessary consequence of living in a diverse, pluralistic society. Christians are required to answer every conceivable kind of question about their beliefs, and they can expect their convictions to be tested both formally, in university settings, and at the popular level, in TV specials about Jesus’ “real” identity. No one expects this kind of thing to stop, and in fact many find Christians find that the pressure to defend their views in the face of such dissent actually makes them more articulate regarding those views.

In light of that understanding of modernity, consider the “if you disagree with us, we’ll convince everyone you’re backwards” tactic the LGBT movement has been pursuing in its rise to prominence. Does it embrace and adapt to a world in which it must cordially and sympathetically re-articulate itself as one belief among many? Does it expect to be questioned? That is, is it a truly modern movement? I do not see how.

More evidence that the United Nations is a big, international joke

. . . but no one should be laughing. This item from israel today is posted without comment, except the headline.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) decided last week to relabel as an Islamic mosque the tomb of Rachel, one of Israel’s matriarchs, and demanded that Israel remove the site from its National Heritage list.

UNESCO also said Israel had no right to add the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, where most of the rest of Israel’s patriarchs and matriarchs are buried, to the National Heritage list.

Israel responded on Wednesday by suspending all cooperation with UNESCO. Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said the suspension will remain in place until UNESCO reverses its decision. 

In a statement released last week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office decried the ludicrous nature of the UNESCO decision:

“The attempt to detach the Nation of Israel from its heritage is absurd. If the nearly 4,000-year-old burial sites of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs of the Jewish Nation – Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah – are not part of its culture and tradition, then what is a national cultural site?”

Sites such as the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb (which sits on the edge of Bethlehem) present an inconvenient truth for the pro-Palestine movement and its supporters, who want to claim that the Jews have no historic ties to this land.

Once again, the UN has shown itself to be anything but an impartial broker by ignoring historical evidence and embracing Muslim revisionism.

Revisionists at Their Most Annoying

Liberal revisionists are at their most annoying when they project their own weaknesses onto perceived opponents. This is a common tactic for any party whose argument lacks substance and relies instead on sophistry. It is also, from a theological perspective, a sign of spiritual immaturity and, from a psychoanalytical perspective, symptomatic of a massive inferiority complex. If you need proof positive of the accuracy of the preceding sentence, simply read it to a few random revisionists and watch them launch into an indignant, apoplectic, and perfectly predictable rhetorical tirade.

There is perhaps no more obvious example of revisionists projecting their weaknesses onto others than their constant refrain that traditionalists have a "simplistic" worldview; that those who take biblical truth at face value cast everything in terms of "black and white" with no shades of gray. In the revisionists' world, they are the "enlightened" ones. Traditional-minded folk are ignorant, wilfully uninformed, and just plain stupid. In the real world, however, the revisionists are a benighted lot who, in a manner worthy of the most hypocritical Pharisee, must cut others down in order to build themselves up. It is the revisionists who pray thus about themselves, "Thank you, God, that I am not like other people."

Traditionalists, while not always the most enlightened in every facet of life and faith, are for the most part, believers who seek to discern God's truth and live it out on a daily basis with utmost humility and integrity. The first essential truth we all must learn is the truth about ourselves. We are sinners, deserving God's justice but pleading for his mercy. Tragically illustrative of their benighted state, revisionists never seem to tire of couching their demands for "tolerance" and "acceptance" of homosexual behavior and other sins in the language of "justice," blissfully unaware of the implications of that for which they ask.

The flawed premise at the heart of every revisionist argument is that anyone who disagrees with their views on homosexuality, abortion, and other pet causes is motivated by hatred, fear, and bigotry. Just who is it that is casting everything in terms of "black and white" here? Revisionists are repulsed by any argument which begins along the lines of "Thus says the Lord," claiming that such an "absolutist" claim shuts off any hope for "dialogue." But what basis is there for "dialogue" in the first place when the revisionists themselves have already made up their minds that anyone who opposes them is a hateful, fear-mongering bigot? Here, again, is an example of revisionists projecting their weaknesses--especially their own hatred, fear, and bigotry--onto their opponents.

Back by Popular Demand: Judgment Day for "Me-ology"

Theological revisionism would rob the Christian faith of its uniqueness in many ways. The most obvious are those which get the most attention: the confession of Jesus Christ as the one and only Savior of the world, the authority of the Scriptures in matters of faith and life, and the traditional teachings on human sexuality. But there is another aspect of the faith which is undermined by revisionism which doesn't receive as much notice, but may rank right alongside the Person of Christ himself as the most important.

The church is, first and foremost, the Body of Christ, a community of faith, living in covenant with God, all members living out that covenant faithfully through mutual accountability to one another. The idea of the church being a collection of individual believers is an innovation borne of the radical individualism of some of the later Reformers and carried to its logical extreme with the advent of Enlightenment-era rationalism. Today, revisionists are playing out the tragic end game of this error. Eschewing the mutual accountability of the covenant community, they indulge their own individual passions in vainglorious pursuits of "new truth." Although they carefully couch their language in traditional-sounding terms such as "the trajectory of Scripture" and "the intent of Jesus and the Holy Spirit," the end result is an accommodation to the popular culture that is naive and utterly devoid of theological and intellectual depth.

Betraying their own futile attempt to co-opt the traditional language of the faith, revisionists never seem to tire of using three particular words: I, me, and my. From their perspective, individual conclusions trump 2,000 years of community consensus. When revisionists speak, for instance, about the "emotional" issue of homosexuality, they love to invoke tear-jerking sentiments through such statements as "I am hurting for our church." While this may come across to the casual listener as an expression of selfless concern for the whole Body of Christ, a careful analysis reveals a more selfish motivation.

Revisionists believe that, on issues such as homosexuality, the church has been "wrong" for 2,000 years. But when they try to impose their opinion on the community, they are met with resistance and rebuke. The church simply cannot abandon a 2,000-year consensus based on one person's individual conclusions. When it rejects such individual overtures, it is merely acting the way a covenant community should act, holding one of its own accountable when that one strays into error, hoping that, through love, that person may be restored to the fellowship.

To revisionists who care nothing for the overall good of the community but only for their advancement within it, the church's loving rebuke is taken as a personal insult. Rather than receiving it in the same loving spirit it was intended, revisionists break down and pout, saying, "I am hurting for our church," meaning, "My feelings are hurt because my church won't accept me." Such emotionalism tugs at the heart strings of the rest of the community, causing some of weaker faith to question the church's motives, rather than recognize such cynical manipulation for what it truly is. Therein lies the real danger of revisionism. It undermines the covenant nature of the church by exploiting the emotions of individual members.

"Theology" is too kind a word for this revisionist ploy. A more appropriate term is "me-ology." The revisionists have fallen victim to a dangerous deception and now seek to draw the rest of the church into the same deadly web. They will fail, of course, because the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the church. But pity the poor revisionists who scorn the community's loving rebuke. Their Judgment Day draws nigh.