Zach’s Theological Musings

  Matthew 19:21:

Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

Luke 14:25,33:

Now great crowds accompanied [Jesus], and he turned and said to them… “So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.”

Many who profess the name of Christ today will ask, “But that doesn’t mean that we today have to forsake everything in order to follow Jesus, does it?” This question reveals a presupposition on the part of the questioner that he views forsaking earthly possessions in order to gain Christ as a burdensome, “do I really have to” sort of thing. But Peter’s response after hearing Jesus’ call to the rich young man reveals a very different heart:

Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?” (Matthew 19:27)

The rich young ruler heard Jesus say, “SELL WHAT YOU POSSESS AND GIVE TO THE POOR, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Peter, at precisely the same moment, heard Jesus say, “sell what you possess, and give to the poor, AND YOU WILL HAVE TREASURE IN HEAVEN; AND COME, FOLLOW ME!” The rich young ruler went away sad and grieved because he thought Jesus had demanded an overwhelmingly burdensome requirement of him. Peter got excited because he heard Jesus offering some overwhelmingly great blessings, and even though Jesus was not addressing him directly, Peter was eager to shove his way in and ask, “Can I get some of that?”

So, do you have to forsake all you possess in order to follow Jesus? No, in a very real sense it would not be right to say that. The followers of Jesus are those who have tasted and seen that the Lord is good… so good, in fact, that the idea of forsaking all they possess in order to be with Him and receive His heavenly treasures is not at all a “have to” sort of thing.

Luke 18:22b-23a:

`… and you shall have treasure in heaven! And come, follow Me.’ But when he heard these things, he became very sad…

Very sad!?! Did we read that right? “[Jesus offered] treasure in heaven … [and] he became very sad”?!? Now what on earth would cause a man to become sad when Jesus promises him not only treasure in heaven, but even better, companionship with Himself? If you’ve read the context, then of course you know just what on earth it was that caused this man to reject such a glorious offer direct from the hands and mouth of Jesus Himself.

  After making a number of good observations on the matter, The Common Loon asks:

“Is there something about Reformed theology that is inherently complementarian…?“

It is a fabulous question that I wished got asked more often. The answer from this Reformed Complementarian is YES! Yes, in a very direct, powerful, beautiful, poetic, and profound way.

  To see why, try this experiment. Look squarely at the relationship between God/Christ and His people from the Reformed (i.e. Biblical) perspective. Now tilt your head 90 degrees so that the vertical axis transforms into a horizontal one and spiritual dimensions get projected down into earthly/physical ones. Now, with your neck thus bent, Rev 19 overlaps with Gen 2 (passing through 1 Cor 11 and Eph 5 on the way), the shadow of God/Jesus’ initiatory/leading role in the “divine romance” is taken up by a husband, and the particular submissiveness which adorns the church is embodied in a wife. I would argue that what you are looking at is precisely complementarianism—Calvinism turned horizontal.

  Someone who is called a Calvinist will look at someone who is called Arminian and say, “You are ascribing roles, duties, and responsibilities to humanity which are only fit, right, proper, and/or possible for God.” Now make the following replacements in the previous sentence:
Calvinist –> Complementarian
Arminian –> Egalitarian
Humanity –> Woman
God –> Man
In other words, the “Calvinistic” doctrines of grace are not merely connected or related to complementarianism via third-party doctrines and convictions, but the two are in fact one doctrine, in its ultimate/spiritual and allegorical/typological/physical presentations, respectively.

  One the modern American evangelical scene, I would probably be considered a hyper-complementarian in that, ideally, I highly favor a system of godly arranged marriages even above the current conservative fad of “courtship”. The Biblical picture of a bride that is “effectually” chosen and called by the masculine component of society, who is “wooed” by her husband after betrothal and matrimony, makes the Reformed-complementarian link that much more clear and stark to me.

  (On a related note, the qualities that make a husband’s heart flitter for his wife are precisely what God is working to bring about in His bride as well (1 Peter 3:2-6). I have often emphasized this point when writing of a yearning for revival.)

  I have not set out to “prove” or even “defend” Reformed or complemenentarian theology in this post; God willing I will do more of that at another time. But I hope to at least have shown a theologically coherency that makes it not at all surprising that the two commonly (though not universally) go together.

  That abortion is a unspeakably horrific act of murder against the most defenseless of human beings is an obvious moral fact which I have addressed, for example, in: Of Course It’s A Baby and Sonography (see also the entire abortion category on this blog, and don’t miss http://menaretheproblem.info while you’re at it). That the staggering scale of such murders for convenience’s sake makes “Holocaust rhetoric”, if anything, too gentle and mild is an obvious numerical fact which I have addressed, for example, in Postman (see also the numbers at the bottom of my abortion quotes page, all from pro-abortionist sources mind you). Thus when we hear that an abortionist/murderer such as Dr. George Tiller has been killed the natural question is, “Is it right or wrong to murder murderers to stop them from murdering?”, to which I am compelled to answer, at least at this point in my life, “Whew… hmm… that is a very important, very heavy, and very difficult question.”

  I must say I certainly don’t resonate with the majority of the American Christian pro-life movement that is so quick to stand up and unequivocally condemn the murder of an abortionist/murderer. Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait, “hold on”, I want to scream. If we really believe in our own rhetoric, for example that a 9/11-scale slaughter is happening on our own (American) soil every single day, and if we applaud the soliders who go out to engage in bloody warfare following just one single 9/11 tragedy, then isn’t it at least worth considering the possibility that lethal force is justified to stop the actions of a determined, ongoing baby-killer? I think so. I really don’t want to make unfair blanket accusations about people’s motives, but I’ll just say that my impression from the writings of some such Christian leaders is that they are more interested in avoiding a public outcry than they are in grappling with the difficult issues and standing for the truth.

  On the other hand, I’ve read some of the writings of people who have been arrested for anti-abortionist violence (e.g. at the Army of God website) and I certainly don’t resonate with a lot of what they say either. What I hear coming from many of them is a rebellious attitude toward government in general. I really don’t want to make unfair blanket accusations about people’s motives, but I’ll just say that my impression from the writings of some such people is that what they really want most is to vent a lot of pent-up anger and “stick it” to the US government, and that killing an “abortion doctor” (oxymoron) is one way they can feel justified about doing so. But from a Biblical Christian perspective, it seems to me that the governments that Jesus (e.g. Luke 20:19-26), Paul (e.g. Romans 13), and Peter (e.g. 1 Peter 2) commanded submission to were entirely wicked themselves. A submissive attitude toward human authority is not contingent on the worthiness of that authority. We put ourselves under them because in doing so we are directly and indirectly submitting to God (see, e.g., how David treated wicked King Saul with respect as “God’s Anointed” until God saw fit to remove Saul from the throne and from the land of the living).

  Human life. Made in the image of God. The baby, the mother, the father, the abortionist, and the abortionist killer. Whew. To take a human life is a massive thing. For that reason I don’t think you’ll ever find me shouting and waving a banner that says, “Kill the abortionists! Kill the abortionists!” At the same time, and for the very same reason, I don’t think you’ll ever find me affirming James Dobson, Al Mohler, or the many other “pro-life Christians” in their categorical condemnation of those who murder murderers regardless of the thought process and motivations that such a person might have.

  There are just such weighty Biblical issues on both sides of the question: to murder (ongoing, determined) murderers or not to? It seems to me that many doctoral dissertations in Biblical ethics could struggle over the issue for hundreds of pages and not reach definitive resolution. Presently, I can only offer a mere sampling of the issues:

• The idea of an “inalienable right to life” bestowed by the Creator smells more of Jeffersonian-Americo-deist philosopy than it does Biblical theology. Ever since the Fall of our father Adam, man only has a right to death (Gen 3, etc.). Babies have no right to life, nor do abortion doctors have any right to life. But then, just as mere men don’t have the right to life, they neither have the right to kill. Wouldn’t it be nice if everything was so simple and straightforward as to say that no human being should ever be the agent of another human being’s demise. But wait! There is more nuance to the Biblical picture because…
• While the sixth of the ten commandments is, “Thou shalt not kill”, the same Jewish Scriptures command the armies of Israel to slaughter the Canaanites, and command communities to execute certain classes of criminals. While Jesus said, “Love your enemies”, “Turn the other cheek”, and “Those who live by the sword will die by the sword”, the same Christian Scriptures also teach that governing authorities “do not bear the sword for nothing”. It seems that the reconciliation of these various principles is that killing is not an individual prerogative but a responsibility (in the form of war or capital punishment) of societies, and in particular “God’s appointed” leaders of societies (which, to add to the tension, includes a great many very, very evil men—see Daniel 4). So we could be tempted to say that while those guilty of involvement in the abortion process deserve to be executed, it is only the government that has God-given authority to do so. That line of thinking might prompt us to go no further than seeking legal venues to make the consequences of abortion the same as the consequences for involvement in any other murder. Indeed, I am personally convinced that: 1) in a just society abortionists should be executed, yet 2) in a society as unjust as ours it is sinful and wrong for an individual to murder an abortionist/murderer with vigilante motives—that is, as punishment for previous crimes committed, no matter how horrible, that the government has failed to prosecute. But unfortunately the issue at hand is too complicated to stop there because…
• “Professional” abortionists/murderers are almost certainly determined to return to their gory crimes day after day after day. In fact many of them will proudly state their intention to continue providing their “services”. Now, it is one thing to try to take justice for past crimes into your own hands; it is another matter to respond when you see someone walking in a wholesale, brazen, committed, ongoing occupation of baby slaughter. Which brings us to…
• At least in the Old Testament, it seems that “self defense”, including defense of the larger “self” of your family and your people, at least in some cases (e.g. Ex 22:2), is not only a right but in fact the obligation of a godly man. There is nothing honorable about a man who cowers in the closet and calls the police on a cell phone while an intruder hacks at his kids with an axe and rapes his wife. In the urgency of the moment it is his responsiblity to act forcefully. Or take a different scenario. A black boy is being led away to be lynched. There is no point in calling 911 because the Klansmen in white hoods are themselves the local police officers. What do you do? Though the extent of the similarities between the above scenario and the modern abortion scene are debatable, I would argue that the similarities are quite significant. But in any case, the main point is that one must grapple with a passage like:
• “If you are slack in the day of distress,
  Your strength is limited. Deliver those who are being taken away to death,
  And those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold them back.
  If you say, “See, we did not know this,”
  Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts?
  And does He not know it who keeps your soul?
  And will He not render to man according to his work?” (Prov 24:10-12)
• Yes, if you murder you are accountable for the blood on your hands. But (don’t miss the weightiness of this) it also seems, at least in the Jewish theocracy of the Old Testament, that if a community fails to deal properly with a murder then the blood the murderer shed is on their hands (e.g. Deut 21:1-9). Could it be that those of us who merely “sign petitions” and offer up lukewarm, half-hearted prayers while thousands of our defenseless neighbors are being LED TO SLAUGHTER,… that we actually have MORE blood on our hands, in God’s eyes, than those who have killed an abortionist in a desperate attempt to stop him?
• In other words, Biblically, only blood can remove blood stains (compare Rev. 7:14)! Which brings us to a right and fitting Climax, to the Person and the place on whom and on which we must continually fix our eyes: Jesus and His cross. Though more issues could be raised, our picture will only be clearly focused to the extent that Jesus Himself is at the center.

  Personally, I feel, at least for now, I cannot resolve the ethics of murdering murderers to my own satisfaction by attempting a systematic harmonization of the many, many, immensely significant, Biblical principles which must come in to play if one seeks to be faithful to the full counsel of God’s revealed will in Scripture. But on a practical level, looking to the Truth and Life Himself does give me some clarity in how I might move forward.

  Jesus conquered by dying. Any angry pagan can pick up a gun. Mohammed was quite adept at wielding the sword. It takes the Spirit of Christ to pick up a cross.

  On the one hand, perhaps killing abortionists is justified. I for one will certainly be slow to judge someone who is zealous to defend defenseless human life. Though I have yet to see it, I can hypothetically imagine someone fighting the abortion Holocaust in the ethically burdened and heavily constrained-”I don’t know if this is really best but is the best I know how to do”-spirit of Bonhoeffer; and I for one would want to publicly stand in solidarity with such a brother.

  However, even if such actions may be justified, it seems to me that there is a more uniquely Christian way that should be pursued with even more wholehearted zeal than the octane that drives someone to commit homicide. What if we who know abortion to be “murder” refrained from the possibility of murdering an abortionist/murderer and instead murdered our own greedy, gluttonous self and its lifestyle in order to ensure that, at the very least, no person in our country could EVER claim financial motivation for killing a baby? What if the “pro-life” community guaranteed all expenses would be paid for any pregancy in our nation? (I’m not talking about socialized medicine, but in any case I would plead with any self-ascribed Christian Republicans to value life infinitely more than any economic philosophies.) How about if presented abortion clinics with an offer that for every woman they referred away to a crisis pregnancy center, we would pay them TWICE the money they would get for performing an abortion? Essentially the offer is, “Here take ALL of our money, ALL of our property, ALL of our possessions (we don’t need them), and let the babies live. Please!?!” (Again, what I’m talking about isn’t socialism, but it is not Republicanism either. It is about something far more important than the entire political system, which is raw Christ-following without watering down His life-overturning First and Second Greatest Commandments!) Sounds like a fabulous trade to me! Oh yes, I know that such a plan leaves open enormous doors for us to be taken advantage of. Fine. Let your gift be abused and misused. That’s what Jesus has done for us.

Zach Harris
Longmont, CO

  How many cases have you heard of church discipline being exercised in modern times? Now, in contrast how often do you hear “counseling” offered as the solution to Christian “struggles”, and how much psychologizing do you hear taught in Christian circles?

  These days the so-called Christian life isn’t about engaging in full-fledged war against indwelling sin. It is about realizing and actualizing the “wonderful plan” that God has for your life, which gosh-darnit you just need to follow these steps and stop missing out on.

  Perhaps that is one reason why Christ isn’t central either. Even the very name God chose for His Son—Jesus—was given because, “He will save his people from their sins.” Not just from the consequences of their sins, but from their sins! If salvation and the gospel are a thing we accepted in the past and then move on from to searching out the “abundant Christian life” down other paths, then the primacy of ongoing battle against sin, and hence the centrality of Jesus, gets sidelined.