Jerry Falwell Jr, John Piper, Self-Defense, and Guns

Jerry Falwell Jr. of Liberty University has started a debate when he announced during chapel that Christians should arm themselves. John Piper has weighed in against him. Although he has presented numerous arguments against gun ownership and self-defense I will address only one of them. (Actually, it is unclear what Piper is arguing against. On the one hand, he claims that he is only arguing against the attitude that a gun-carrier might cop, but he also seems to be arguing against self-defense.) Piper argues that:

• “The apostle Peter teaches us that Christians will often find themselves in societies where we should expect and accept unjust mistreatment without retaliation.”

Certainly, we should not retaliate or seek revenge. However, Piper argues that our calling to suffer for Christ argues against self-defense and offers these verses in support:

• This is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. (1 Peter 2:19)

• When you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. (2:20)

• Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless. (3:9)

• If you suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. (3:14)

While it is true that we must suffer for Christ’s sake, this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t alleviate suffering in others or even in ourselves. We correctly ask others to pray for us and even go to doctors. If we take steps to remedy suffering in this way, why shouldn’t we also try to remedy rape and murder by carrying a gun?

However, 1 Peter 3:9 instructs us to “not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but … bless.” Nevertheless, this should not rule out reporting a crime to the authorities and seeking prosecution. Doing this certainly is not a matter of evil. Instead, it is a matter of seeking justice:

• Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent-- the LORD detests them both. (Proverbs 17:15)

It is a mistake to conclude that seeking justice is somehow in contradiction to blessing and loving our enemy. In fact, Piper’s first argument recognizes this fact. He cites Romans 12:14-21 (loving our enemies) followed by Romans 13:1-4 (leaving room for the governing authorities to exercise God’s vengeance). By doing this, he acknowledges that we can bless and also bring criminal charges at the same time. (However, based upon this distinction, Piper argues that we should not have to resort to using a gun in self-defense. However, when an assailant breaks into our home, we do not have a chance to call the police. The Hebrew Scriptures also recognize this critical exception – Exodus 22:2)

Certainly, the New Testament isn’t adverse to punitive measures. It contains many teachings about church discipline and its “harsh” treatment of the unrepentant. Even the One who instructed us to turn-the-other-cheek instituted excommunication:

• If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. (Matthew 18:17)  

Clearly, loving the offender is not contrary to church punishment, as Paul indicates:

• When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 5:4-5)

Paul’s reasoning would go like this: If we love we may have to discipline.

• Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme. (1 Timothy 1:19-20)

Excommunication might seem harsh, but it is also loving, not only for the church but also for the unrepentant. The health of the church depended on it:

• I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. (Romans 16:17; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14; 2 John 10-11)

It is therefore understandable that some would want to safeguard the church by carrying firearms, especially in view of Islamic threats to kill Christians.

Billy Graham and “Easy-Believism”

Billy Graham insists that a new life in Christ must be a changed life:

• As I approached my 95th birthday, I was burdened to write a book that addressed the epidemic of "easy believism." There is a mindset today that if people believe in God and do good works they are going to Heaven. But there are many questions that must be answered. There are two basic needs that all people have: the need for hope and the need for salvation. It should not be surprising if people believe easily in a God who makes no demands, but this is not the God of the Bible. Satan has cleverly misled people by whispering that they can believe in Jesus Christ without being changed, but this is the Devil's lie. To those who say you can have Christ without giving anything up, Satan is deceiving you.

The Christian life must be characterized by a changed life. It is not optional:

• The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. (1 John 2:4)

• “You are my friends if you do what I command.” (John 15:14)

• “He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.” (John 15:2)

• "Then they [who didn’t visit me in prison] will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew 25:46; Also, many others - Matthew 5:20; Hebrews 12:14; James 2:18-24…)

However, many other verses assert that faith/belief is enough! Requiring any more than faith denies the central tenant of salvation – that it is a “free gift, not of works, lest any should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9)! But doesn’t this deny the various verses that insist that repentance – not just faith - is necessary to be saved:

·        "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

·        “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you--even Jesus.” (Acts 3:19-20)

• Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death. (2 Cor. 7:10)

While the great majority of verses assert that faith is the key for salvation, many other verses cite repentance. Is this a contradiction? Not if faith and repentance are essentially the same thing – opposite sides of the same coin! They certainly seem to be so! When we turn to God in faith, inherent in this same turn is a turn away from our former life (repentance). We cannot turn to God without turning from something. Embracing the new life in faith entails a rejection (repentance) of the old life of sin. They also both entail the very same change of heart.

Let’s try to illustrate the inseparability of faith and repentance in another way. If someone says to me:

• Pastor, I really believe in Jesus and want to be baptized. However, I am having an extra-marital affair and I refuse to repent of it.

I would have to answer:

• If you refuse to repent, then you don’t trust in Christ. If you did trust Christ, you would follow Him. Your faith is like the Devil’s faith. He too believes in Jesus, but His faith isn’t a saving faith (James 2:19). A saving faith is one that turns to Jesus, entrusting our lives into His hands. If I baptized you, extending to you the right hand of fellowship, I would then have to withdraw it to bring church disciplinary charges against you and eventually to expel you, if you still aren’t repentant. Don’t you see that a refusal to repent and faith are in contradiction to one another?

A real faith must entail a real willingness to follow Jesus! Of course, none of us come close to sinlessness in this life. However, this is not essential, because we can be in right standing with our Savior without sinlessness. He gives us the assurance that if we confess our sins – and of course this entails a willingness to repent – we are given the assurance that our Savior will forgive and cleanse us of all of our moral filth (1 John 1:9). However, forgiveness depends on confession/repentance – the very thing that this adulterer is unwilling to do!

The necessity of repentance is also taught by the verses that cite repentance as a prerequisite for salvation without any mention of faith:

·             He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:46-47)

·             Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord. (Acts 3:19)

·             In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. (Acts 17:30)

This suggests that faith and repentance are so inseparable that these terms can be used interchangeably! Other verses point to the equivalency of faith and repentance in another way. Both are given as a gift from God. This fact further suggests that they are merely opposite sides of the same coin:

·        Acts 5:31 God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel.

·        Acts 11:18 When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."

·        And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth. (2 Tim. 2:24-25)

If repentance is a gift, then it is not a meritorious work and not a basis for boasting. This is supported by the distinction between repentance and the works that arise out of a changed, repentant heart. Paul made this distinction:

• “First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.” (Acts 26:20)

“Deeds” and “repentance” are not synonymous. Instead, deeds are the result of repentance. In the same way, faith and deeds are also distinguishable. While faith and repentance represent a change of heart, deeds represent the fruit arising from this changed heart. Therefore, because faith/repentance are together a gift of a renewed heart, they should not become the basis for boasting and arrogance.

Consequently, when we expel the unrepentant from the church, we are warning them that, without repentance, their sins are still “bound” (Mat. 16:16-19; Mat 18: 17-18; John 20:21-23) – their salvation is, at best, in question. This is a graphic reminder that repentance must accompany a true faith. If it doesn’t, that “faith” becomes questionable.

Alan Chambers, Exodus, and Making Judgments

I think it’s always important to revisit our understanding of salvation in light of the biblical teaching. There are just too many appealing counterfeits!

Just recently, Alan Manning Chambers, the president of Exodus International, a ministry designed to help gays exit that lifestyle announced that it would close its doors. He apologized to the gay community for whatever offense Exodus might have caused, saying:

·         “From a Judeo-Christian perspective, gay, straight or otherwise, we’re all prodigal sons and daughters. Exodus International is the prodigal’s older brother, trying to impose its will on God’s promises, and make judgments on who’s worthy of His Kingdom. God is calling us to be the Father – to welcome everyone, to love unhindered.”

Yes, we are all prodigals. We had all rejected God, slamming our door in His face (Rom. 3:10-18). Therefore, none of us deserve anything good from Him. Consequently, we all stand naked before Him in need of His mercy.

However, Chambers insists that “Exodus International is the prodigal’s older brother, trying to…make judgments on who’s worthy of His Kingdom.” Of course, none of us are worthy of the Kingdom. We all agree that inclusion must be a matter of His grace.

But does this mean that the church is never to “make [any] judgments?” Clearly, Jesus taught that the church must make judgments about sin, however distasteful this teaching has become today:

·         “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. Truly I tell you, whatever [sins] you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mat.18:15-18)

There are several judgments involved here. The offended party judges that a wrong has been done. He then confronts the alleged transgressor with his sin. Finally, the church will exercise the ultimate judgment of dis-fellowship if the offender remains unrepentant. If the offender refuses to repent (“listen”), the church will bind his sin. This communicates to the unrepentant that he is still in his sin before God, who has given the church the authority to express His own judgment.

After the risen Lord visited His fearful disciples locked behind closed doors, He commissioned them to make judgments:

·         “If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (John 20:23)

Although I don’t think that God has given us the power to forgive sins – only He can forgive sins – He has given the church the authority to declare when sins are forgiven and when they are retained – to make judgments. Jesus has also given the church the authority to restore the repentant sinner:

·         “If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them.  Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come back to you saying ‘I repent,’ you must forgive them.” (Luke 17:3-4)

Following the example of our Lord, we must pray for the unrepentant. However, we should not receive him back into fellowship unless he first repents. This is a matter of making judgments.

In contrast, Chambers declared:

·         We’re not going to tell them how they should live…you are not the Holy Spirit. [Instead] We are called upon to proclaim the truth of who God is.

Clearly, “we are called upon to proclaim the truth of who God is.” However, in contrast with Chambers’ position, this includes an understanding of what God thinks about sin, confession and repentance. And rather than leaving these concerns to the Holy Spirit, we are required to be His ambassadors, bearing His message of reconciliation – a message that includes the requirement of repentance.

Chambers had previously stated that he doesn’t believe that repentance is a necessary condition for either salvation or fellowship. Instead, he believes that the church must “welcome everyone” into fellowship, regardless of whether or not they are repentant. For Chambers, setting aside this requirement represents “love unhindered.” Love, therefore, is a matter of accepting the unrepentant gay into the household of God, even if they refuse to repent of their lifestyle. Also, his stance against “making judgments” represents a complete rejection of any church discipline. (Ironically, Chambers was very critical of the church and also what Exodus had become!)

Well, isn’t it unloving to require the sinner to repent? Shouldn’t the church instead practice unconditional love by removing any barrier to salvation and fellowship? Not according to the Apostle Paul.  He was very explicit about the need to make judgments:

·         I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.  But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. (1 Cor. 9-11)

To our ears, this sounds unduly harsh. Yet Paul reasoned that this action, in the long run, is an expression of love. On many occasions he argued that if the church allows flagrant unrepented sin in its midst, it is calling for its own demise:

·         You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth?…“A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough”…The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty. (Gal. 5:7-10)

Allowing a little sin would corrupt the church. He compared it to a little bit of yeast affecting the entire loaf of bread.

Paul also argued that allowing the unrepentant to go without correction could incur negative eternal consequences if he is allowed to continue uncorrected (1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim.1:20).

To not judge was to not love! James also taught that the church needed to correct those caught in sin:

·         My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins. (James 5:19-20)

Contrary to the logic of our age, judging is actually loving. Calling the sinner to repentance might be the greatest gift we can give. Perhaps Chambers and Exodus hadn’t been loving towards gays. Chambers confessed that he hadn’t been honest about his own feelings. Such a confession is commendable. However, there is nothing commendable about substituting the logic of this age for Scripture by not calling our friends to repentance.

Repentance is relationally healing. It’s restorative! There is nothing that will restore my wife and I quicker than an honest and complete confession of sin! And sometimes we need to be confronted about sin before this healing can take place. The same pertains to the church. Sin spreads like a cancer. It must be identified and addressed. If we care, we will sometimes confront.

In the Book of Revelation, God confronted each of seven churches. This was followed by His demand that they repent of their sins, lest He would fight against them (2:16; 3:3) or bring great tribulation (2:22). God makes judgments; so must we!

In opposition to the spirit of this age, the two churches which judged its members were commended (2:2; 2:14), while the one church which failed to judge was condemned (2:20). Consequently, when we fail to address the sins of others, we are culpable before God.

Instead, Chambers chafes that the church has become “an institution of rules.” Although rules can become oppressive and discriminatory, following God’s “rules” is a matter of faithfulness when performed graciously. In fact, every institution needs rules; every encounter is based upon shared understandings and respect for certain boundaries – whether explicit or implicit. We must also respect God’s boundaries.

Repentance is not only necessary for salvation, as so many verses assert, the fruits of repentance are inseparable from a true and living faith. The Apostle John provided the church with a number of ways they could know whether they were saved or whether they needed to confess and repent:

·         If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth.  But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. (1 John 1:6-7)

Walking in darkness is not an option. If we hope to be purified from sin, we must have a biblical trust in Christ – one that honors Him with our lives. If we are unwilling to honor Him, then we are simply unwilling to trust. Our behavior and our faith can no more be separated than removing our head from our body.

If I trust my doctor, I will do what he tells me to do. If I refuse, then I don’t really trust Him. If a gay trusts in Christ, he will attempt to do what Christ wants him to do. If he fails – and we all fail – he can confess his sins and be confident that he is forgiven and cleansed (1 John 1:9). If he refuses to sincerely confess, then he shows that he doesn’t trust in the Lord. Instead, he has placed his trust in his own judgments.

We are deluding ourselves if we claim that we have a relationship with Him while we refuse to obey Him:

·         Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person.  But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.

If we refuse to live as Jesus did, we refuse Him! To truly love a gay person means to confront them humbly and patiently about their refusal, in hope that they will see the light and come to repentance. It’s our duty:

·         And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

The sinner must come to repentance. This is the only way to be saved! To receive the sinner when the Lord does not receive him is to give him a false hope and to cheat him of the one true hope. Enabling the gay person is not love. Similarly, enabling the heroin addict is not love. Both require straight talk.

Faithfulness to our Lord will not win us friends. He never promised that it would:

·         “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.”

The one who loves is often the one who is hated. That’s the lesson of the Cross.

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.