Christian Love, Progressive Style

While Progressive “Christian” churches boast that they include all, Evangelicals – those who are Bible-centered – are consistently bashed. While they talk about their brotherhood with Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists, they have nothing but disdain for Evangelicals. Sometimes, this yuck-word is left unspoken, but the message is clearly and consistently an Evangelical head-hunting orgy. One Episcopal rector disguised his attack like this:

• Christian faith is not about submission to dogma [doctrine, teachings]… We walk by faith and not by doctrinal certainty.

This is an unmistakable portrait of Evangelicalism, which has always been Scripture and doctrine-centered. As such, we try to live as Jesus instructed:

• “He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.” (John 14:21)

Oddly, for someone who declared that the Christian faith is not about doctrine, the rector’s sermon was all about doctrine. He insisted that Jesus was “ultimate love” – a love that receives everyone without any qualifications regarding their beliefs or lifestyles (not like those pharisaical Evangelicals).

The Progressives have cast us into the role of the judgmental, narrow-minded Pharisees. They excluded people, especially the marginalized, just as those Evangelicals do. Meanwhile, the Progressives liken themselves to Jesus Himself who included everyone, or did He?

If Jesus is “ultimate love,” was He all-inclusive as the Progressives insist? Did He receive everyone without concern for their doctrine and lifestyle? Certainly not! He set the bar high for His followers:

• But Jesus said to him, “No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:62)

They not only had to grab hold of His plow; they had to keep their hand on it:

• Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Mat. 16:24-26)

Was Jesus all-inclusive? Was He against the use of all power and coercion? No! In fact, He spoke the first word on excommunication:

• “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.  But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector” [and separate from them]. (Mat. 18:15-17)

While Jesus did receive everyone who was willing to truly follow Him, there were also qualifications. They had to repent of their sins:

• And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:2-5)

For Jesus, repentance wasn’t merely a quality-of-life issue. It was salvation itself, as He taught in His commission to His Apostles:

• Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:46-47)

What then is love? Is it merely a matter of receiving everyone – (as long as they are not Evangelicals) - regardless of their sins? Instead, if we care, we will warn and point to the only Source of hope. Meanwhile, in the minds of the Progressive “Christians,” the Evangelical is a Pharisee, because, faithful to Scripture, he insists on repentance.

Also, in their zeal to demonstrate that they are truly the ones who love as Jesus did, the Progressives eliminate any doctrinal requirements. Doesn’t removing these artificial barriers between people prove that they love as Jesus did? It depends on what Jesus taught. Did He teach, “It doesn’t matter what your believe as long as you are following me.” Certainly not! He taught that His disciples had to abide in Him by abiding in His teachings:

• “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will[b] ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you… If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love… You are My friends if you do whatever I command you.” (John 15:5-14)

Keeping Jesus’ commandments aren’t optional, and to keep them, we first need to believe and understand them. Nor is it optional what we think about Him. He warned the Pharisees:

• “I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.” (John 8:24)

This again raises that contentious question, “What is love.” Is love a superficial “making nice,” or is love a matter of being devoted to the ultimate welfare of the other? And isn’t this welfare a matter of eternal salvation! Is it therefore pharisaical to point to salvation through Jesus alone? Certainly not!

At this point, you find that the Progressive “Christian” jumps ship. It is here that you will discover that what is most holy for the progressive is not Jesus’ teachings or Scripture. Instead, it is they! Instead of Scripture judging them, they are sitting in judgment over Scripture. They are the ultimate authority. Sometimes, they will admit that they pick-and-choose those verses that support their own worldview. However, Jesus would never approve of such a thing. Quoting Deuteronomy 8 against the Devil, He stated:

• Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” (Mat. 4:4)

According to Jesus, we are not free to stand in judgment over the Word but must submit to “every word” as He did. It is therefore a gross charade, when the Progressive churches will read Scripture and then claim that this is “The Word of God.”

Progressive ministers also use Scripture in their sermons. Of course, they expect you to regard their selected verses as authoritative – as the final word and proof to settle any question. However, these hypocrites discard everything else in Scripture that they find unappealing. They choose to maintain a façade of Christian love as they conform their modernized religion to the values of the day. Meanwhile, they disparage those who take the Bible seriously, falsely claiming that doctrinal confidence has never been the focus of Christianity.

Is it unloving to call these deceivers, “hypocrites,” or is this something they need to hear? If Jesus is our model of “ultimate love,” then we have to observe how He talked to others:

• “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.” (Mat. 23:13-15)

We are all undeserving sinners. Without the Lord’s light, we’d all be hypocrites and worse. However, this is not the question. Instead, the question remains, “What is love?” Clearly, sometimes love requires shaking. Jesus loved the Pharisees, so He shook them so that some light would enter through the newly formed cracks.

Progressivism is a modern form of liberalism and skepticism – a gross perversion of the Christian faith. Shouldn’t we shake it until the ugliness of its hypocrisy is exposed!

The Assassination of Theology: The Case of Union Theological Seminary

There is a growing disdain for theology, even in many seminaries. The last past-president of Union Theological Seminary, Joseph Hough, Jr. provides a good example. In an interview with the New York Times, 1/12/2002, The Times writes that Hough “has been calling in recent speeches for Christians to adopt a new theological approach to others, one that goes considerably beyond simple tolerance.”

           

What is Hough calling for?—that Christians surrender their claims that they are right and others are wrong:

“Religion, our rituals, our music, even our theology is a human attempt to express what we have experienced…Therefore, we want to be careful about claiming that one religious form is the only one that is authentic or real.”

Because our theologies are merely human, we shouldn’t be dogmatic about them, certainly not to the point where we claim that we’re right and the Buddhist or Muslim is wrong. But Hough isn’t simply concerned about Christians being “careful” about asserting that Christ is the “way, truth, and life” or about asserting any other exclusive claim. He later clarifies that the Christian has absolutely no legitimate right to make such a claim at all.

“The fear that openness to other religious traditions will destabilize our Christian faith has led many to resist full recognition of the adequacy of other religions to transform human beings with hope and promise.”

According to Hough, other religions are fully adequate. The “adequacy” that he’s referring to isn’t just some form of psychological adequacy, but an adequacy before God, an adequacy that sidesteps the need for the Savior.

“I believe that there is ample evidence in the best of the world’s religions, including our own, that God’s work is effective. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and others have been and are being transformed by a powerful vision of God that redeems them with hope.”

It’s no longer the Savior that transforms but a vision or philosophy of the many religions. What is this “vision of God?” Many Buddhists don’t have a God; many are avowedly atheistic. Some have impersonal gods, while others have gods who are continually at war with one another. Of what does this “powerful vision” consist in view of their differing “visions” of God? Hough’s wording suggests that they share a common transforming vision but what exactly do these religions hold in common in terms of a belief in God?

Putting aside these incoherencies, it’s not easy to contend against Dr. Hough. I can easily envision a debate scenario. I’m being scorned as narrow and judgmental. The accusing fingers point in my face. It’s my absolute beliefs that lie at the root of pograms, persecutions, and genocide, as Hough insinuates.

“The fomenting of religious conflict has been and still is a theological problem for Christians, because we have made our claim to God’s revelation exclusively ours…we have killed each other and members of other religions in defending that exclusive claim.”

According to Hough, we Christians are judgmental, thereby causing strife. However, Hough is equally judgmental! He refers to the “best of the world religions.” How can he stand in judgment over the religions that aren’t the “best” after he forbade the Church from doing this very thing? While claiming that historical Christianity is intolerant, he displays the same intolerance of Christ’s exclusive claims: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). He subsequently adds,

“Wherever there is peace and movement toward peace, where there is justice and movement towards justice, God is present and working.”

According to his criterion, when Hough fails to see such a “movement,” he deems that God is absent. That’s quite judgmental! What makes Hough’s judgments valid while, according to him, other religious judgments are invalid? Why should he alone possess the luxury of making value judgments that he denies to everyone else?

Furthermore, if it is our exclusive judgments that cause intolerance and bloodshed, why is it that Hough’s exclusive judgments about what is “best” won’t cause this? Won’t those religions that fail to make the grade of “best” resent such a judgment, especially from one who derides judgmentalness?

Everyone draws a line somewhere, and Hough is no exception. Everyone has a religion or worldview from which he or she judges other worldviews, whether consciously or unconsciously. This is inevitable. Hough also has a religion – we call it “religious pluralism” - by which he critiques the rest, although his standards might be different. Nevertheless, he too is passing judgment and is dismissive of other religions. He too is claiming, although not overtly, that he is right and everyone else is wrong. In fact, all of “best” world religions are wrong in holding their own exclusive claims while Hough is right!

One might wonder at this point how it is that Hough is the president of a “Christian” Seminary and why he continues to identify himself as a Christian. He says that,

“Religion is something that we human beings put together in an effort to give some cultural form to our faith.”

From this perspective, the Bible is just another human effort. We therefore have to cull from it the good stuff and leave behind what offends. For Hough this would include the exclusive sayings of Jesus. This leaves us with a reconstructed, postmodern Jesus! Instead of God’s Word standing in judgment over us, it is we who exercise dominion over His Word. The result – an entirely different faith!

If we did possess such discernment, what need would we have of the Bible, let alone of Christ Himself? What need would we have of seminary, learning, even of Christianity? Also, if it’s all the same, is there anything to learn about? Why study about our own religion or even other religions? Why not just leave the ivory tower and live the life? But what life?

The belief that the Bible is “God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16) is central to Christian faith. Although this is a doctrine that others have a right to contest, Hough instantly dismisses it without an argument. How can he consistently preach tolerance and non-judgmentalness in view of his own dogmatism?

IS HOUGH’S “RELIGION OF PEACE AND JUSTICE” THE CORRECT RELIGION?

Christianity has always placed a high priority upon peace and justice. However, Christianity looks beyond the superficial. It recognizes that the motives of the heart are at least as important as behaviors. Jesus often criticized Pharisaic externalism. They often did the right thing but for the wrong motives (Mat. 6). Although they looked spotless on the outside, Jesus declared that they were filled with filth (Mat. 23-- something that could be said of the entire human race). They were more concerned with the opinions of man than the opinion of God (John 5:44).

At first glance this might seem to lack ethical significance. What difference do our motivations make as long as we’re acting morally? The Bible recognizes that peace and justice can’t be maintained without the proper underpinning. The communists talked a lot about justice but had a twisted human heart. Consequently, this twisted heart twisted everything they touched, albeit sincerely and idealistically, with serious consequences – the slaughter of 100,000,000!

It’s not enough to look at an outward show of peace and justice and then to conclude that God is present. The way we think and believe is foundational and must not be discounted. The book of Proverbs assents to this: “For as he thinks in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7).  If this is true, we can’t divorce behavior from religion and its teachings. It’s the belief that Christ has died for me, one so utterly unworthy, that impels me to love and protect others, even those who disagree with me and hurt me. It’s this belief that prepares me to lay down my life for others even in light of my repeated failures to live up to this standard.

.

What is justice? Declaring all forms of sexual misconduct as protected human rights? The Bible defines justice differently: “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs 17:15).

Peace and justice must rest upon moral standards and accurate data. But is this possible when the “Religion of Peace and Justice” forbids anyone to say that they have the exclusive truth because religion is merely a human creation? If all religion and ethical standards are merely human attempts to understand God’s truth, it follows that no one can make an absolute truth claim.

We all need standards by which to measure behaviors and the various claims of what constitutes peace and justice. We need our law books that coherently define what constitutes a crime. We also need religion upon which the law rests. Without the authority that comes from above, law is arbitrary, dictatorial, and fails to command conscience.

Upon what principles does Hough’s system rest? It’s not enough to say “peace and justice.” In the USA, it’s easy to use these terms and to get away with it. Since our society has been so thoroughly Christianized (and so too great portions of the world), we lose sight of the fact that there are many other conceptions of justice. There was the “law of suttee” which directed widows to throw themselves upon their deceased husbands’ funeral pyres to join them in death. There are female circumcisions and honor killings that constitute justice in other parts of the world.

I’m confident that Dr. Hough would protest against these practices. However, what criteria would he base his judgments upon? If justice and peace are the bottom line, there is no underpinning to determine what is just. If “religion is something that we human being put together,” then to what body of truth can we appeal to justify our conceptions of justice? Hough has made the connection between man and God tenuous by relativizing religious truth claims. What does he substitute for them?

Hough claims that he’s found evidence of justice and peace “in the best of the world’s religions.” He then goes on to mention the major five. Of course, his assessment demonstrates a pragmatic wisdom. These five along with the “others” probably include about 95% of the world’s population. On the surface, this seems very noble. However, each religion, by its very nature, is intolerant of others. Many Buddhists and Hindus cannot countenance the idea that anyone who eats meats will enter into Nirvana, while many religious Jews believe that Jews are ontologically different from other peoples, the Goyim, while Muslims believe that no one who rejects Mohammed can enter into the Garden.

What does his endorsement of these “best” religions entail? Mustn’t he too discriminate regarding their teachings? He must and does! However, what makes his standards any better than others? According to Hough, his religion is also man-made. Perhaps he would appeal to his conscience, but they too have a conscience, which instructs them differently. Who’s to decide?

IS THERE ANY HOPE THAT HOUGH’S RELIGION MIGHT BE FRUITFUL?

Hough’s religion is based upon a discredited assumption: sameness will remove any basis for hatred. If we’d merely shed our exclusive truth claims in favor of a “God” in general, would love and peace prevail? The communist experiment was built upon a similar assumption: removing class distinctions would usher in a utopia. Instead, the world has witnessed the “utopia” of genocide and oppression.

History has taught us that distinctions and competing truth claims are here to stay. It’s unrealistic to expect to cleanse humankind’s religions of their distinctive dogmatic claims. Instead, maturity demands that we learn to love despite the competing truth claims. There are always going to be differences in any meaningful relationship. It’s therefore unrealistic to demand that love be predicated upon sameness or at least an absence of dogmatism.

Dogmatism and exclusivity aren’t necessarily evils. I want my wife to be dogmatic - dogmatic in her faithfulness to me. I also want her to exercise “exclusivity” in her regards towards me, and it seems to work.

Likewise, the Christian should be dogmatic about love, determined to always reflect Christ to this broken world. However, this dogmatism is insupportable apart from a dogmatic belief in Jesus Christ and His Self-sacrifice. Yes, we can resolutely determine to act this way despite the erosion of the “exclusive” Christian beliefs. However, without this underpinning, this determination will soon erode.

Nazi Germany and its belief in Aryan superiority didn’t occur in a vacuum. It followed on the heals of several generations of unrelenting liberal attacks against the Bible led by the German seminaries and universities. Consequently, the Church was rendered ineffective in its struggle against Nazism. Foreseeing what lay ahead, the German poet Heinrich Heine wrote in 1832,

“It is to the great merit of Christianity that it has somewhat attenuated the brutal German lust for battle. But it could not destroy it entirely. And should ever that taming talisman—the Cross—break, then will come roaring back the wild madness of the ancient warriors, with all their insane Berserker rage, of whom our Nordic poets speak and sing. That talisman is now already crumbling, and the day is not far off when it shall break apart entirely. On that day, the old stone gods will rise from their long forgotten wreckage and rub from their eyes the dust of a thousand years’ sleep. At long last leaping to life, Thor with his giant hammer will crush the gothic cathedrals…For thought goes before deed as lightening before thunder. There will be played in Germany a play compared to which the French revolution was but an innocent idyll.”

Instead of promoting love, Hough’s belief that the Bible is just a human attempt to understand God will bear the same fruits as it did in Germany through the contributions of “higher” criticism. Ironically, it’s the exclusive Christian conviction that Christ died for our sins, the Righteous for the unrighteous, that fuels our love. Once that is taken away, there is nothing to prevent the “old stone gods” of lust, anger, and rage from “roaring back.”

True Religion must be Inclusive: Christ according to Doug Pagitt

My friend brought me to visit an artist in her studio. He assured me, based on a prior conversation with her, that she was interested in dialoguing about Christ. However, point-blank, she told us that she wasn’t interested in such a conversation: “Christianity is just too exclusive for me!”

What did she mean by this? Christianity demands belief in the Gospel, and any who don’t believe, who are unable to accept this revelation, are excluded.

This requirement opposes what people are looking for today. They want a religion that will unite all people, uphold our common humanity and eliminate any “us-them” distinctions. Emergent Church pastor, speaker and writer, Doug Pagitt, puts it this way:

• We are connected to each other as well. Christians like to talk about community, yet the dualistic [us-them] assumptions surrounding our theology make it almost impossible for us to experience true community. As long as we hold on to “us” and “them” categories of seeing the world, we live behind a barricade that prevents us from joining in with God and others in real and meaningful ways. And it doesn’t really matter who we decide “them” is – the non-Christians, the sinners, the liberals, the conservatives, the Jews, the Catholics, that weird church on the other side of town. Division is division, no matter how righteous we want to make it sound. (A Christianity Worth Believing, 91-92)

According to Pagitt, a Christianity that makes distinctions and excludes is not the true Christianity. Therefore, say “goodbye” to the initiation rite of baptism, church discipline, and  even confronting others about their sins – whether they be rape, infanticide, or domestic violence. (Following this logic, the Catholic Church was correct to not distinguish between the pedophile priests and the faithful ones!) Surrender distinctions between the just and the unjust, the resurrection of the righteous and the resurrection of the unrighteous, and the saved and unsaved! Perhaps also we will soon be required to foreswear such distinctions as “my wife” and “his wife,” “my son” and “my daughter,” and even “my son” and “my father!”

However, we must continue to make distinctions. If we believe in any truth, we have to distinguish it from what is not true. If we believe in justice, we have to oppose injustice and those who commit it. If we believe that God is love, we have to oppose those who teach that He is not love.

Truth, therefore, is exclusive. It excludes those ideas that are not truth. Goodness is also exclusive. It excludes those behaviors that tear people down.

Any conversation is impossible without making distinctions. Pagitt certainly engages in his own “dualistic assumptions,” even as he denies it. He opposes dualism with his own brand of dualism. He is very ready to distinguish his Emergent thinking from that of the traditional church. This too is dualistic!

Even his language implies those verbotten distinctions. He contrasts “true community” with community which is not true and makes those unacceptable distinctions – just as he is doing. There are those who “live behind a barricade” of judgmentalism and those who don’t. There are those who cause “division” and those who don’t, namely Pagitt and the Emergent Church.

How do we cause division? Pagitt cites this example:

• She’d been taught that unless her theology was right, unless her life and belief conformed to a model that would appease the unmovable God, she was a failure as a Christian. (107)

This is a gross misrepresentation. Instead, each of us is “a failure as a Christian.” That’s why we must live by confession and repentance. Consequently, we depend upon His mercy in everything!

But isn’t it a bit imperialistic, unreasonable and arbitrary of the Bible to insist that our “theology [be] right” for everyone else? Okay, we need to make distinctions, but it seems so unfair and unjust that God would require us to believe a certain way and then damn us to hell if we don’t or can’t.

Pagitt hits at the core of what he sees as the unreasonable exclusiveness of the Christian message:

• I’m not sure I would have been interested in the Christian faith if the story on the stage had been about a removed God who needed to be placated with a blood offering before he was willing to cross the chasm and participate with humanity. (98)

Clearly, Pagitt has little taste for the heart of the Gospel – sacrificial atonement. Therefore, he has affirmed a more popular brand of Jesus:

• Jesus was not sent as the selected one to appease the anger of the Greek blood god [his pejorative description of the God of the Bible]. Jesus was sent to fulfill the promise of the Hebrew love God by ending human hostility. It was not the anger of God that Jesus came to end but the anger of people. (194)

Interestingly, Pagitt’s new-found faith not only violates the New Testament but also the Old, from which he claims support. Even in the Old, our Lord always required a redemption or payment for sin (Psalm 130:8), even a human payment:

• But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all…and he will bear their iniquities. (Isaiah 53:5-11)

Besides, we have to ask, “What does Pagitt’s god look like? One who does not require a pay-back for sin? Is humanity best served by a permissive god, one who does not guarantee ultimate justice, the just payment for man’s inhumanity to man?”

Pagitt claims that “It was not the anger of God that Jesus came to end but the anger of people.” However, if God is not angered by our inhumanity towards our fellow human, why then should we be? Isn’t God supposed to be our role model? If God is permissive towards sin, why should not we also be so!

Instead, we cannot separate God’s zeal for justice from our own. If God is above punishing, why then shouldn’t we be above it? Unless they go together, any coherent legal or moral system falters. Instead, perhaps we should tear down the prison walls?

However, we have to return to another question: “Is the requirement of faith in such a God an arbitrary and unjust requirement, especially if educated and thoughtful people are unable to believe it? Doesn’t this requirement also establish an unacceptable “us-them” distinction that illegitimately divides humanity?”

There is a pervasive misunderstanding about the nature of Biblical faith. It is often assumed that faith represents a blind leap into the darkness, one without any evidential support. However, if this is the case, God cannot blame anyone for not having such a faith. The world is filled with various belief systems – Hindu, Islamic, Secular… If there is no evidence or reason to choose one faith over the other, then there can be no blame assigned to someone who chooses the wrong faith. Besides, Biblically speaking, ignorance is an adequate defense (John 15:22, 24).

However, we are not ignorant. Instead, in many ways, we are wired to believe in God and His truths (Rom. 2:14-15). Besides this, the world has been designed in such a way that we can’t plead ignorance. It bears such a profound divine imprint that we are without any excuse (Rom. 1:18-20).

This particular revelation is not a New Testament invention. We find this very same message revealed throughout the landscape of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Proverbs tell us that God’s truths are so ubiquitous that it’s as if they are even crying out to us in the crowded and noisy marketplace:

• Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of the noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech. (Proverbs 1:20-21)

The truths about God are ubiquitous – found even in the streets and public squares. Consequently, we are without excuse if we fail to believe.

If this is so, why then don’t people hear wisdom’s voice? It is not a matter of their inability to conjure up enough faith. Instead, they don’t want to hear this persistent voice:

• "How long will you simple ones love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge? If you had responded to my rebuke, I would have poured out my heart to you and made my thoughts known to you. But since you rejected me when I called and no one gave heed when I stretched out my hand, since you ignored all my advice and would not accept my rebuke, I in turn will laugh at your disaster.” (Prov. 1:22-24)

Why are people unwilling to hear the Gospel? It is not that we are unable to hear. Instead, we delight in things contrary to God’s revelation. We therefore reject Him and His voice. There is also another reason. “We would not accept [His] rebuke.”

What is His rebuke? His indictment of us – our denials, justifications, and rationalizations! All wisdom must begin with the instrument - us. Seeing micro-organisms requires a microscope with a clean lens. Seeing other galaxies requires a telescope with a clean lens. Similarly, knowledge and wisdom must begin by exposing and addressing the filth on our lens.

Jesus explained our blindness in terms of a log in our eye (Mat. 7:1-5). The log blinds us and must be removed before we can see clearly.

Wisdom must first point the finger at us to expose our blindness and sinfulness. It is only after we see these and confess them that we can see others. However, wisdom is painful. It unmasks our self-presumptions. Therefore, we hate it:

• Since they hated knowledge and did not choose to fear the Lord, since they would not accept my advice and spurned my rebuke, they will eat the fruit of their ways and be filled with the fruit of their schemes. For the waywardness of the simple will kill them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them. (Prov. 1:29-32)

Faith is not something that requires a blind leap of faith. Instead, it asks us to open our blinds to the light, which He has made so apparent – that we are sinners who need a Savior.

This is so abundantly obvious, not only from the Scriptures but also from our lives. We know that something is the matter with us. Our shame and guilt speak persuasively about this fact. Whenever we are accused of wrongdoing, we immediately attempt to justify ourselves.

In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis observed that even the atheists who don’t believe in any absolute laws, react as if they exist. Instead of merely responding, “Who cares about your non-existent moral laws,” he will respond by defending himself. He intuitively knows that he has violated a moral law, and knows that he has sinned. Nevertheless, he will suppress this knowledge and try to justify himself. He knows that he is morally culpable to the God in whom he does not believe.

Consequently, we always have to be right (Prov. 21:2), and we convince ourselves that we are right (Prov. 16:2; 24:12). I too had convinced myself that my conflicts were always the fault of the other. Consequently, my wife and I could never resolve any of our disagreements. However, in our beloved darkness, we stumble and fail to come to any reconciliation – either with man or with God. “The complacency of fools will destroy them” (Prov. 1:32).

Countless surveys and psychological experiments have confirmed this same finding – that we love the darkness of self-delusion rather than the light (John 3:19-21). We have the truth but hate and reject it.

Entire volumes have been written to demonstrate this fact. Psychologist Shelley Taylor writes:

• The evaluations people offer of themselves are also typically more favorable than judgments made by others about them. For example, when people’s descriptions are contrasted with the descriptions of them offered by their friends or acquaintances, the self-descriptions tend to be more positive. Typically, we see ourselves in more flattering terms than we are seen by others. (Positive Illusions, 11).

To demonstrate the ubiquity of this hatred of self-truth, she offers many other examples throughout her book:

• When two people have written a book together and are asked to estimate how much of the book they are personally responsible for, the estimates added together will typically exceed 100%. The same feature characterizes more mundane tasks. Asked to estimate how much of a contribution they make to the housework, adding together husbands’ and wives’ estimates of their own efforts produces a total that greatly exceeds 100 percent. (18)

We are willfully blind in the direction of self-promotion. We do not want to see our sins and failures and have assembled a variety of “self-protective” mechanisms.

Some have even attempted to defend self-delusion as a necessary psychological tool. The late novelist, Andre Gide remarked:

• Each one of us has his own way of deceiving himself. The important thing is to believe in one’s own importance.

However, believing in our self-importance requires that we filter out the counter-evidence. Nevertheless, we need to believe in something. Generally, it is in ourselves and our mastery over our lives. However, we cannot believe in ourselves and, at the same time, acknowledge that we are damnable sinners who need a Savior. Only one set of beliefs can reign.

However, the suppressed awareness of our inadequacy festers at the core of our being.

Consequently, our lives revolve around the futile and ongoing attempt to prove that we are okay. However, we find that we are never able to. However much money, success or approval we have accumulated, we remain dissatisfied. Why? Because these vain efforts fail to address the deeper problem – our alienation from God and self! Consequently, in order to gain some temporary relief from deep-seated shame and guilt, we may even attempt to punish and maim ourselves.

Intuitively, we know that a price must be paid for our sin. Intuitively, we demand punitive justice for not only others but also for ourselves. Not believing in the Savior, we attempt to pay justice’s price with our own lives.

For this perspective, faith isn’t an act of blindness but of courage to face the painful truth. It’s not a running from evidence, but a willingness to engage it!

In contrast, Pagitt denies that God’s has a holy character – one that He has also wired within us - that must be satisfied - propitiated. Instead, he has re-created Him in his own image to be tolerant of everything. Pagitt refuses to acknowledge the Creator-creation, the Sanctifier – sinner, distinction. In doing so, he refuses to acknowledge that our sins have alienated us from our God and that we must be reconciled through the sacrifice of the Messiah.

It is because of this distinction that the entire Old Testament cries out to Israel to confess their sins so that they can come to God and receive His mercy:

• And if you call out for insight and cry aloud for understanding, and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure, then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God. (Proverbs 2:3-5)

The Gospel – the knowledge of God – is there for the taking. It is available to all who sincerely seek. The Gospel is inclusive of everyone (John 3:16), but not in every way or of everything. Our God has His standards, and we also have them.

In fact, the notion that God accepts everything and every idea is an absurdity. I am not free to treat others in any way I please. When I am invited to their home, I must respect their household rules. Why then should we expect that God is so vacuous, flat and insipid that any relational overture is okay with Him?

For years, I had been interested in God, but I demanded that He fit into my specifications. For one thing, since I am ethnically Jewish, He couldn’t have anything to do with Jesus Christ. Consequently, I wasn’t making contact. It never occurred to me that if God is God, the Creator and Sustainer of this universe, He might have something to say about the grounds for our relationship.

In fact, He has a lot to say about it. I was calling-the-shots. I failed to see myself as the beggar. This beggar was in effect saying, “I only receive 20 dollar bills.” The hubris! The hubris of the assumption that we can come to God in any manner we so choose! Instead, Jesus taught that we had to come to our Father as needy little children, willing to accept His grace in the form He offers it.

However, no one seeks for a cure who feels he lacks a disease. Pagitt doesn’t acknowledge his disease and consequently thinks that he can call-the-shots.

More seriously, we reject the idea of a holy and righteous God. Instead, according to our modern perversion, the marketplace now demands a god who will not only accept everyone but also everything – every excuse, denial, rationalization and every behavior, no matter how lethal.