We Object, Your Honor 2/2
As I said in the previous blog, I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I thought it would be enlightening to pretend that we are in an actual court of law. If the author of this anonymous note had to defend himself it might not have gone as he had planned. So, we are going to continue our examination of the claims he made in secret to see if they can withstand the test of scrutiny.
In order for the author to demonstrate his case against the progressive church he/she must 1) demonstrate that the progressive congregation has a belief or practice that is contrary to orthodox christianity and 2) he must provide the chapter and verse that unequivocally applies to their heresy. A failure to do either one or both of these is a failure to prove his point.
In the previous blog the court decided that his first two claims did not meet the requirements of proof and were dismissed by the judge.
On God and Law – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word as god.” John 1:1
On relationships – “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Leviticus 18:22
Let’s continue!
Judge: This court is back in session, Bailiff, please read the next accusation. (Bailiff reads…)
On government – Romans 13:4-5 “for the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.”
Defense Attorney: To understand the original meaning of this verse we need to examine why Paul felt the need to instruct the church in Rome obey Roman law. We submit as supporting evidence, the writings of New Testament Scholar Dr. Bard Ehrman. According to Dr. Ehrman, as christianity began to expand to parts of the Roman Empire, “many pagans viewed Christians as politically dangerous, socially disruptive, and flagrantly immoral. Christians had to defend themselves against these charges by showing they were obedient members of the state, socially coherent and conservative, and the most moral beings on the planet.”
These verses from Romans 13 are a perfect example of Paul urging early Christians to follow pagan laws. In the first century these exhortations by Paul were written to protect Christians from unnecessary persecution by having them follow the laws of their communities. However, Your Honor, 21st century evangelicals have changed the original meaning of these verses. Here’s an example.
Thomas Jacobson, formerly with Focus on the Family was quoted as saying, “It is not pleasing to God if a country rebels against His authority, and it is therefore rebellious, even dangerous to the country, for its citizens to question their leader when he is exercising his God-given authority.”
It is important, Your Honor, to realize that when Jacobson made this quote someone else was occupying the Oval Office. “Their leader” who was “exercising his God-given authority” was our former president. It is hard to imagine that Mr. Jacobson would say the same thing about the Obama administration. And you’ll notice, Your Honor, that according to Jacobson, it’s not for the protection of Christians, as was originally intended by Paul. Now it is for the protection of the country. It’s hard to imagine that the apostle Paul would write, “Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the Roman authorities, not only because of possible punishment but more importantly rebellion is dangerous to the Roman Empire.”
The use of these verses from Romans, has been used by conservative christians to ensure that their evangelical base did not question the former President, which ultimately led to the events of January 6th. Many laws of our land were broken during those dark days following the 2020 election. Many of which were committed by our former President and his followers.
Judge: I must remind you, Counselor, that the former President is not on trial here.
Defense Attorney: We understand, Your Honor. The point we are trying to make is that adherence to these verses in Romans varies according to what political party is in power. For evangelicals, such as the plaintiff, these verses only apply when their political party is in power. We must remember that when Mr. Jacobson made his quote a man of questionable morals occupied the oval office. We doubt that Mr. Jacobson would have called on evangelicals to unquestionably follow Obama’s God-given authority or Biden’s. When their party is in control, christians fiercely adhere to these verses, but when the other party is in control, they defiantly ignore Romans 13:4-5 and actively resist their authority.
Judge: Your point, Counselor?
Defense Attorney: Since these verses are not applicable to all political situations, they cannot be considered a directive from God. The use of these verses here is therefore flawed and should not be allowed.
Judge: The court agrees that citizens should follow the laws of our land, but also acknowledges that unquestioned obedience to any leader is a danger to our Republic. It should be noted that the government is bringing punishment to many of the “wrongdoers” of January 6th. This accusation will be stricken.
On government – Romans 13:4-5 for the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
Defense Attorney: Thank you, Your Honor.
Judge: Bailiff, please read the next accusation. (Bailiff reads…)
On Jesus is God – “I and the Father are one.” John 10:30
Defense Attorney: We must point out, Your Honor, that there is a deeper meaning to the use of this verse other than a defense of the Trinity. In support of the LGBTQ community, some people have noted that it is not recorded anywhere in the gospels that Jesus ever condemned homosexuality. The reason the plaintiff used this verse was to point out that according to the teachings of the Trinity, Jesus was fully God and thus fully supported all Jewish law including Leviticus 18:22. One christian blogger named Alan Shelmon wrote this…
“Since Jesus and the Holy Spirit co-exist in the Godhead and are in perfect communion through all eternity, we can be confident that Jesus agrees with the Holy Spirit about what He’s inspired to be written in Scripture.”
Defense Attorney: Mr. Shelmon makes a rather compelling 7-point defense of why the four gospels don’t include any instance of Jesus speaking out against homosexuality. We are prepared to dispute each point in question if the court wishes.
Judge: That won’t be necessary, Counselor. This court understands the reasoning behind the plaintiff’s use of this verse. What Jesus didn’t say is of no value in this court of law. The accusation will be stricken.
On Jesus is God – “I and the Father are one.” John 10:30
Defense Attorney: Thank you, Your Honor.
Judge: Bailiff, please read the next accusation. (Bailiff reads…)
REPENT AND BELIEVE “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” – Mark 1:15
Defense Attorney: Your Honor, it should be noted in the court records that REPENT AND BELIEVE is all in caps, so it must be of some importance to the plaintiff.
Judge: So noted.
Defense Attorney: We’d like to remind the court that the plaintiff must demonstrate two items for his accusation to be valid. First, he must demonstrate that the progressive congregation has a belief or practice that is contrary to orthodox christianity and second, he must provide the chapter and verse that directly applies to their unorthodoxy. And a failure to do either one or both of these is a failure to prove his point.
Judge: The court remembers. Proceed.
Defense Attorney: We’d like to focus on the credence of the verse used. The first part of the verse says, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand;” It’s common knowledge among New Testament scholars that this verse was most likely penned in the middle or later part of the first century. Yet, here we are, 21 centuries later and it hasn’t happened. Yet Christians undauntedly are still using this verse as a warning that non-believers need to repent now “before it’s too late”.
Even more Your Honor, Jesus’ disciples were told (supposedly by Jesus) that the Kingdom would come in their life time. (I tell you truly, there are some of those standing here, who shall not taste death until they see the Kingdom of God.) It did not take place, yet modern day christians still believe that it will happen in theirs. We have our doubts that it will, Your Honor.
Judge: Agreed. Please continue.
Defense Attorney: The second part of that verse says, “repent and believe in the gospel.” So, let’s compare the orthodox view of the gospel with the progressive view of the gospel to see where the plaintiff thinks the progressives are in error.
These are the elements of the orthodox view of the gospel.
The gospel involves Jesus’ death on the cross as the sin offering to fulfill the Law’s righteous requirement. The gospel also involves Jesus’ resurrection on the third day. The gospel is the good news that “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” This definition comes from a website called “Got Questions?”
These are the elements of the progressive view of the Gospel
Progressive: We are a progressive, Christ-centered church, founded on the life, teachings, death, resurrection, and eventual return of Jesus Christ. We believe that we belong to God long before, or even if we never believe in God. God’s love is eternal, always welcoming, and does not require any transaction on our part.
Defense Attorney: The only difference we can see is that the progressive congregation mentions a loving God, while the orthodox view of the gospel does not. However, it seems clear, Your Honor, that according to the progressive congregation’s mission statement they already believe in the gospel. So, we’re left with the question, what does the plaintiff actually want them to repent from? The only thing we have been able to ascertain from his letter is that he objects to the progressive’s inclusion of the LGBTQ community which we have already covered.
So, Your Honor, since, 1st there is no evidence that after 2000 years the “time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is (finally) at hand” and, 2nd there is evidence that the progressive congregation does indeed already “believe in the gospel”, this accusation is invalid and should be stricken as well.
Judge: The Court agrees, it shall be stricken.
REPENT AND BELIEVE (All in caps) “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” – Mark 1:15
Defense Attorney: Thank you, Your Honor.
Judge: Is that all Counselor?
Defense Attorney: Yes, Your Honor that is the end of the message. I’d like to add that if we ever learn the identity of the author of this note, it might be helpful to have him/her present.
Judge: Agreed. This court is adjourned.
If you are the author of this note, we would love to talk with you.
You can contact us at mt.toll@comcast.net.
Coming next:
What’s love got to do with it?
God is Love. At least that’s what Christians say, but is that what they really teach? We’ll be taking a look at the mission statements of Evangelical Churches to see just how important Love, and particularly God’s Love, really is. You might be surprised by what we found or didn’t find.
From Where I Stand
Dale Crum
mt.toll@comcast.net