Consistent Conservatism
While I've often appreciated his history on Judaism, I've never claimed that I agree with N. T. Wright on various social issues. In fact, I don't. I disagree with Wright on women's ordination and other issues. I acknowledge his views on certain topics to reflect theological liberalism. Wright also embraces the dangers of Darwinian Evolution.
But theological liberalism goes far beyond women's ordination. It is a sickening plague that has brought down the lives of many throughout the West. It needs to be stamped out lest it continue spreading as the wildfire that it is.
It is often common in some Evangelical and fundamentalist circles to think of conservative thought as being against women preachers and homosexuality and emphasizing preaching on Hell and Heaven. Technically, all of this is conservative, but doing these things alone does not make one conservative.
Many Independent Baptists are not conservative. Peter Ruckman did not life believe that life began at conception. While he is somewhat of a fringe of the movement, many of them embrace the rejection of head coverings for women (1 Corinthians 11) and embrace the sin of adultery, which they called ''remarriage'' (1 Corinthians 7). Just because someone wears a suit, has a 1950s haircut, and reads from an early modern English Bible, this does not mean that they are conservative.
John Piper embraces oral sex between husband and wife as morally acceptable. Traditionally, Christians called this sodomy. This runs contrary to many passages in Scripture which teach that a Biblical understanding of sex is a natural union between a man and woman in many places (
John Macarthur embraces the idea that women's hair is their head coverings (which is contrary to 1 Corinthians 11). Perhaps worse still, Macarthur embraces birth control, adultery (which he calls ''remarriage''), and ''Christian'' having no moral obligation not to send their children to public school*1. Macarthur also embraces the sin of birth control*2, which no Christian did before the 1930s. Is he, or his followers so arrogant to think he that he knows more than everyone in Christian history? And Macarthur does not even believe in limits for birth control, or for certain reasons. He is a true liberal.
Macarthur accuses Beth Moore of being a liberal. But what makes him a conservative? Because he may not be as liberal as her. If one's standard of liberalism is only women preachers and homosexuality, one has found a definition of liberalism nowhere based on Scripture. Heresy is any contradiction of the orthodox Christian faith as it has been passed down for centuries...and above all, as taught by Holy Scripture.
Is Macarthur right in the eyes of his supporters because he says he is? Is he right because many Evangelicals follow his word without ever questioning his views by the authority of Scripture? Absolutely not. His views are damnable and heretical and we can only pray that he repents and that his followers are illuminated to the truth.
While Macarthur is busy bashing Roman Catholics and other Christians, he says little about those headed to hell in his congregation. It's easy for people like him to find Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox to be the evil boogeyman so that he is never held responsible for preaching the truth about subjects that would offend people in his congregation---most notably, the sins of adultery and birth control.
Macarthur and his supporters are guilty of gaslighting. They deflect from their own sins by only emphasizing their opposition to women preachers, crazy charismatics, and homosexuality It keeps the focus off of them. It adds to their self-righteousness as they now feel good about themselves, and never have to address the damnable sins that they are guilty of.
It's truly tragic that many professing Christians across Christendom have given into evil. Some, though, have persisted to conservative morals.
R. C. Sproul (Presbyterian) was a true conservative in many respects. He promoted head coverings as taught in Scripture, (1 Corinthians 11) and promoted homeschooling. Scott Hahn (Roman Catholic) is also a good example of a Catholic father, who homeschooled all six of his children and is against contraception. Ironically, Sproul and Hahn had different theological opinions on many areas from justification to the papacy, etc. Nevertheless, both men were both morally conservative and that is commendable.
While I do see Sproul as theologically liberal in some areas (as his denial of the Eucharist being the literal Body and Blood of Christ), theological error is still a typical error sin than is a moral sin. Being wrong on the Eucharist could possibly mean one does so out of ignorance. It's hard to tell whether or not someone is believing something heretical out of ignorance, as only God knows this. However, 2 Corinthians 3: 1-6 teaches that the laws of God is written on our hearts, which means we all have knowledge of sin. In this regard, Macarthur is worse to accept the sin of adultery than Wright is to embrace women's ordination, as the latter is a theological issue, while the former is a moral one.
Furthermore, Wright does appeal to Scripture to justify women's ordination by referring to Junia in Romans 16: 7. That's fine if we disagree with his interpretation. But it still comes down to interpretation. Wright is appealing to Scripture. Macarthur, on the other hand, has absolutely no Scripture at all to justify his modern heretical view that people living in ''remarriage'' can still go to Heaven. Certainly, Macarthur sees fornicators and homosexuals who live in their sin as going to Hell, but not for adulterers. Thus, Macarthur makes himself a total hypocrite.
Liberalism extended outside of Morales, though. Rejecting the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ is a liberal view. It's also liberal to say that women shouldn't wear head coverings. It's also liberal to say that women can be bishops in the church. Although, if we are consistent, we will not deny head coverings but then reject women's ordination. If we believe that we should follow the first-century church in all that it practiced, then married women are bound to cover their heads (1 Corinthians 11) and women should not be ordained as priests (1 Timothy 3).
Another hypocrisy of Macarthur is that he claims women's hair is their head covering. If this were the case according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, then when Paul says for men not to have their heads covered, then this means that every man should actually be bald. Read the context, however. It is not speaking of a woman's head covering as her hair. And for the record, not a single church father or anyone in the ancient church claimed Macarthur's absurd interpretation on the matter.
I'm not saying for people to not read from Macarthur, Piper, or Wright. I think we can learn from people who are dead wrong on certain subjects. Rather, I am making the point that these men are fallible and Macarthur diverting from the authority of Scripture and historic Christian teachings, is a dangerous zone that no one should venture into.
True conservatism is not returning to a 1950s world, but following what the Catholic faith has always taught. Luther sought to do this. It's why he rejected abuse in the Roman Church. Many of today's Evangelicals, though, see twenty-first Christianity as separated from its last two thousand years.
Denominations that hold to Sola Scriptura are not necessarily conservative. Most Southern Baptists embrace the sin of ''adultery'' which they call ''remarriage.'' In 2 Thessalonians 2: 15, Paul teaches that some traditions of the church were not passed down by Scripture, but by oral tradition. He calls upon the church to uphold these non-Scriptural traditions.
It is theologically dangerous to say that liberalism is just acceptance of homosexuality and women's ordination. Indeed, so are adultery (''remarriage''), birth control, abortion, and rejection of women wearing head coverings. So is the rejection of the Eucharist as the literal Body and Blood of Christ.
Southern Baptists of the 1970s claimed Sola Scriptura and many of their leading theologians denied Biblical inerancy. Is this conservative? Contrary to what the followers of John MacArthur have been told, women preachers and homosexuality are the not the only forms of liberalism. So is the acceptance of ''remarried'' people receiving the Eucharist and the acceptance of youth programs---the latter of which, was unknown until the 1900s.
People forget that sin comes in steps. Acceptance of evolution, let to questioning of Biblical miracles. Acceptance of divorce and ''remarriage,'' in the mainline churches led to them embracing homoexuality. The same is happening for Evangelicals now. Once upon a time, they accepted divorce and ''remarriage,'' and now more of them, embrace homosexuality. Christian evangelical Paul Washer believes that evangelicals will eventually embrace homosexuality.
Saying I only accept ''divorce and remarriage'' is actually simply affirming one step towards homosexuality. Why? Because both are contrary to Ephesians 5 and Romans 1, that all sexual, all romantic desires and marriage are exclusively one for one man and one woman in lifelong marriage to one another. It's extremely hypocritical to say that fornicators and homosexuals aren't invited to the Eucharistic table, but adulterers are.
If the church is to clean itself from all sin as is the Bride of Christ in Revelation 19, she needs to fully embrace all that Scripture teaches. The fact that some scholars may teach one way or the other, means nothing if what they say contradicts Scripture. No theologian interpreted Scripture as allowing ''remarriage'' as Macarthur's followers do...absolutely no one until modern church history. His view stands in contrast to Holy Scripture, the church fathers, and every Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant theologian until recent years. A church that is more worried about offending adulterers than offering God, needs to recall its priorities according to Scripture.
Finally, do Evangelicals even hold to Sola Scriptura? Many of them deny the plain teachings of Scripture that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 11), that baptism is regenerative (Mark 16), and the episcopal form of government (Titis 1, Acts 15). They then add their own traditions such as business meetings, Sunday school, and Bible Studies---none of which are mentioned in Scripture. Luther---a man that many of them claim to revere, would not recognize them as true Protestants. Indeed, Luther wouldn't even shake Zwinglie's hand for the latter's rejection of belief in a literal Eucharistic presence.
Modern Evangelicalism has largely broken from Luther's thought. They are not consistent to Scripture, to Luther, or even to themselves. They are not consistent conservatives.
The heresy of modernism is about stepping further and further away from God: birth control, adultery, homosexuality, fornication, lying, gossip, stealing, coveting, taking other things before God, replacing God with the worship of an image, blaspheming God's name, etc. All sins are an offense against God because our Lord is pure and true. The Father loves us, He wants what is best for us. But what is best for us is not sinning against Him. While many Americans today profess to be conservative, they embrace ideas contrary to God's justice.
Surrounding yourself with a pastor or people who tickle your ears and give you the answer that you want to hear, is not Biblical. It's also not Biblical to read into Scripture an interpretation that we know makes our sin either to be no sin at all or a sin that is not so bad. If we love the Lord, we will follow the teachings of Scripture and seek to correct ourselves of all our errors. We will be open to what Scripture truly teaches, no what we hope it says.
It's easy to say that one is conservative who says that homosexuals and fornicators are headed to hell, but denies that adulterers are going to hell. The standard of true conservatism, however, is not based on being more conservative than the left, but on returning to truly conservative thought...to biblical conservative Christianity...to what Christianity was known among those who walked with the Apostles...to the orthodox Christianity that everyone believed for a thousand years.
Notes:
*2-https://www.gty.org/library/questions/QA114/what-does-the-bible-teach-about-birth-control
Thanks for your thoughts!
ReplyDelete