Update: For non-Bible readers and those otherwise unfamiliar with biblical exegesis (especially those attempting to trackback to this post), I use the term “liberal” in a non-political sense. A “liberal Christian” is one who doesn’t hold to the absolute authority of Scripture and considers it closely tied to social causes. If you want to trackback, please read my comment policy. Links leading to insulting, inane and useless posts will be deleted.
————————————–
The problem with liberal theology is that it’s liberal theology. By that I mean loose interpretations of the Bible as opposed to a fundamental belief in the Bible’s inerrancy and infallibility. Liberal theology is empty chatter which seeks to deny man’s spiritual condition and focus instead on social causes.
The Bible is not a book for the materially poor or rich or those with special knowledge. (Clarification: socio-economic status is irrelevant.) It is written for the person who recognizes a Creator in God and salvation through his son Jesus Christ. It is not a manual on how to lobby for government programs or a step-by-step guide on pitting race against race, class against class.
The Bible is the story of God and man, man’s separation and eventual redemption. One cannot read the Old Testament and miss this theme, which is weaved throughout its pages.
As Israel rebelled and God repeatedly forgave this wayward nation, we witness his wrath and his mercy and longsuffering. When Christ returns, the opportunity to be forgiven will be lost for eternity. You will stand before God and account for all of your sins.
Can you imagine? Every secret thing. God’s relationship with ancient Israel serves many functions, one of which is to warn us that God’s patience will run out.
I want to discuss this sentence in the Bible: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:3)
I’m prompted to address it because I’ve read one too many misinterpretations of this passage. What God meant as a message to those seeking spiritual life, liberals use for class envy and proof text for government programs.
Jesus begins his Sermon on the Mount with the “Beatitudes,” a series of blessings. This passage in particular is a favorite among liberals. A few months ago I wrote about how anti-war types quote this passage, stripped of its context, to support their agenda.
For instance, when Jesus says, “[W]hoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also,” he’s speaking of personal slights and persecution for the faith. But a liberal Christian will say he’s referring to any slight, physical or otherwise. We know that can’t be true. It defies common sense.
If someone breaks into your house and tries to rape your wife or child, for example, do you really believe God requires you to “turn the other cheek” while it happens and shirk your responsibility to protect your family, or exercise your God-given right to defend them?
The whole section of the sermon is about spiritual poverty, not material. If a non-Christian and/or someone unfamiliar with the Bible reads the Beatitudes for the first time and concludes otherwise, perhaps that is understandable. But for a Christian to do so is atrocious. If one believes in a social gospel rather than the one in the Bible, I guess that’s the only conclusion they’d come to. Unbelievable.
In light of the whole Bible, what do you think Jesus means when he says the kingdom of heaven belongs to the poor in spirit? Does he mean that only poor people will be saved? That no materially wealthy people will go to heaven? Of course not. Jesus says no man can come to him unless the Father draws him. Those who have faith in him receive salvation, regardless of their material possessions. The Bible does not contradict itself, and God cannot lie. So what must you conclude about Matthew 5:3?
The Greek word for “poor” in this context is one of the keys to understanding the text. It describes one who is desperately poor and destitute, almost powerless to help themselves. If you’re a Christian and/or a regular reader of this blog, that should sound familiar. As unsaved people, we are spiritually poor, destitute and powerless to “help” ourselves achieve salvation.
Let me be clear at this point. Christians are commanded to help those in need, along with sharing the Gospel. I am not asserting that Bible-believing Christians are not to do so. I’m demonstrating that feeding the poor is only one of God’s commands. He also says, “Be ye holy; for I am holy.” When was the last time you heard a liberal (theologically speaking in this context, not politically) mention that command?
During his ministry, Jesus did many things, including physical feeding and healing. But that did not preclude what he really came to do: feed hungry souls and heal sin sickness. His physical acts were signs pointing to the spiritual comforts he came to provide. Why people miss this, I do not know.
I have to note that the sixth chapter of Luke also contains the Beatitudes, but the first sentence is rendered this way: “Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of heaven.” Although the word “spirit” is missing here, if we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, the phrase must be understood as “poor in spirit.”
Being poor is not an automatic ticket to heaven. Jesus is reserving a place for the spiritually poor who acknowledge their wretched condition and recognize that without Christ, they are poor indeed.
I will never get over Christians misreading the Bible. In the Beatitudes, Jesus is teaching about the kingdom of heaven, not of the earth. That kingdom belongs to Satan, who is described as the “prince of this world.” That is obvious to me. Why some Christians fail to understand this is astonishing. I hate seeing God’s word manipulated to fit a social agenda.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 26 comments }
Excellent!
I spend a hour and a half every week day on the road. My constant companion is the word of God on cd. Amen, Amen, Amen.
I know you probably get asked this alot. But what are those at your church saying about this election? Are they more concerned with the war or with social issues? And how do they feel about so called ‘black leaders’ like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton coming out so strongly for Kerry?
La Shawn
You’re absolutely right. Liberal theology tries to frame things in such loose terms that they lose their meaning.
I remember during my one year at Ohio State having a class discussion about Eldridge Cleaver’s “Soul on Ice.” The majority of the class thought I was over-reacting when I objected to his advocacy of rape as a tool of righting injustice.
They told me, that as a Christian, I needed to “turn the other cheek.”
My response to them was, “I understand the implications of the sermon on the mount. But I do not believe that it implies that if Eldrige Cleaver or any one else breaks into my house and decides to rape my wife that my response as a Christian is to not only watch, but to put silk sheets on the bed so that his “job” will be that much more comfortable.”
That, in essence, is the thread of the left’s argument and exegesis. It is aberrant theology of the worst kind.
I attend a conservative Reformed church, and most are concerned about the election and the war. Like most people who interpret the Bible properly, we believe there is a time for war and a time for peace. Now is the time for war and defense.
Our pastor urges us to “pray for our leaders, pray for our leaders,” which is biblical and what every pastor ought to be doing. God has appointed those in authority over us, even someone like Kerry should he win in November. I still shudder at the thought.
One of the better treatises on the Beatitudes (and Christian discipleship, in general) is Dallas Willard’s The Divine Conspiracy.
Concerning Matthew 5:3, he writes:
Just to be clear where you’re coming from on this, La Shawn — you’re saying that the problem with “liberal theology” is that interprets the Bible, whereas “conservative theology” merely takes the plain meaning of the text? Have I understood you?
Let’s not consider “liberal” and “conservative” in the context as political terms. For lack of better terms, I’ll stick with them. I think liberals fail to exegete the text and instead rely on philosophical arguments. As I said in the post, I don’t understand how, when comparing Scripture with Scripture, one can come away from the text believing Jesus is speaking of materially poor people. Whether we use the words “liberal and conservative” or “loose and fundamentalist”, I don’t think labels should obscure the issue and the point of my post.
Amen. Amen. Amen.
I have been thinking how to best pray for this upcoming election. Is it sound to pray that ‘W’ will win the next election or is that my twisting the Word to suite my view? Is it kinda like praying that your football team wins the superbowl? Just because I want him to win that doesn’t necessarily make it so that I am on sound theological ground? I know that there are Christians who believe that ‘W’ is wrong for various reasons, however I would not doubt their salvation based on some of their political views (except abortion???). I hope that ‘W’ wins but would it be more correct to pray that righteousness and justice prevail in this country and that God will forgive this country of it’s sins?
Just a thought – can anyone clarify?
La Shawn:
The problem with liberal theology isn’t so much that it doesn’t “exegete” the text as that it brings—dare I say?—unorthodox criteria to the task. What does this unorthodoxy consist in? I like J. Gresham Machen’s answer in his Liberalism and Christianity (which is also C.S. Lewis’s answer): ultimately, it comes down to the belief that the “supernatural” cannot occur.
About the war in Iraq, I think a legitimate difference of opinion is possible among orthodox Christians. My uncle, who is a VERY conservative Reformed pastor (in the O.P.C.) and one of the smartest and most God-fearing people I know, thinks that the war didn’t meet the criteria that a war has to fulfill to be just. He is by no means a pacifist, has no problem with political authority, and even votes Republican. He just thinks that this particular war didn’t meet the criteria.
On the poverty question: I, like you, can’t stand the reduction of the Gospel to “concern for the poor” interpreted in the sense of political action for what tends to be a left-wing agendas. That having been said, I wonder, with all due respect, whether you might not be overspiritualizing poverty of spirit.
True, when Jesus says “blessed are the poor in spirit,” he’s talking about his followers, and not about a general sociological category that the government is supposed to help by taxing everyone elese to death. But it seems to me that, when push comes to shove, true Christians are going to find themselves reckoned among the nobodies of this world. God uses the weak things of this world to shame the proud, and there is nothing in the N.T. that suggests that the instruments of that shaming shouldn’t expect to feel that weakness in a REAL way that really costs.
I’m not saying that wealth and power are intrinsically evil, or that there can’t be Christian kings and magnates, but only that followers of the Crucified have to be very, very, very careful not to make worldly success a goal.
Fact is, there are plenty of sayings in the Gospels and elsewhere that indicate that worldly success is NOT a worthy goal (this does not mean, of course, that we shouldn’t try to excel at our tasks, just that we shouldn’t expect any reward for it). And certainly in the Christian tradition there have been people who wanted to show in their own lives just how far Christ overturns the standards of a world that does place a premium on worldly success (e.g. Francis of Assisi).
In short, I think us Christians could do with a little more agonizing about the difficulties of participating in a system in which worldly success is the highest goal.
Thanks.
A.
I never claimed that conservative Christians all agree with each other. I said that most in my church support the war.
While I follow your discussion about worldly success, I don’t see how it relates to my post. We are in agreement here.
And when you say I’m “overspiritualizing” poverty of spirit, what do you mean? I tried to follow what came after that, but you lost me. I’m trying to understand what overspiritualizing means in this context.
Empowerment to walk like, think like, and speak like the Lord Jesus Christ is to come under his authority, which has been given to him by God, after coming under the authority of the Lord, he blesses us with his power to live with God and make righteous decisions and choices over the devil, unclean spirits, and the sin nature. Our biggest war in the spirit after salvation is sanctification of our souls (mind, will, and emotions), the natural part of us will give into the world outside of who we humble (submit to) on that day, or at that hour. The believer must always stay connected to the power of God through the wisdom of God (Christ is the power and wisdom of God). When we submit to the Lord Jesus as Lord, then he empowers us to be victorious in each and every area of our life. But the challenge comes when we don’t submit or stay connected. Abide in me and I’ll abide in you is a principle for those who will follow the Lord as a disciple. LB this is a good topic, I believe many of our teachers of the scripture get side tracked by worldly distraction that they fall to traditional teachings of the bible. Liberal teachers misinterpret the scripture because most will try to other religous philosophies and sciences to contrast the truth. The traditions of man make the word of God of no effect. For many years now, many take the word HUMBLE to mean something other than to submit. Coming under the authority of Jesus Christ is the beginning of operating in the kingdom of heaven. It’s alright with God for us to imitate him, that is not be God, but operate like he would, this glorifies him. It’s sort a like what people say about Kerry looking presidential, what is that, Bush doesn’t have to look presidential, he is the president. Be a Christian because God calls us his children, we must stop trying to please man, and start pleasing God, then empowerment comes over the enemy.
I want to post this blog from my pastor -he recently made this post regarding politics. My husband made the statement to me a few days ago that regardless of who is running this country people must have a change of heart via Jesus. see link
commuterseminary.blogspot.com/2004/10/rock-on-dallas.html
What is most alarming is the spread of liberal theology thruout the mainline churches of this nation.The ordination of homosexual pastors, the support of same sex marriages,the general dislike of Israel and the support of tolitarian regimes is quite appalling.
These same liberal churches cry out when our brave soldiers die defending people overseas but are silent when 4,000 children are murdered a day in their own back yard.
Truly the days of Molech and apostacy are here and judgement is not far behind for a nation that has turned it’s back on God.
It is always the agenda of the unbelieving to manipulate the Word to discredit those who believe. 1st Peter speaks at length of the trials we face as believers. Sinful people will bend the Word to fit their own lives. It is the nature of sin to seek justification for that sin.
Thanks for the clarification La Shawn.
The computer program that I use for Bible study lists 14 different commentaries(mostly older commentaries not covered by copyright laws). All of them have the “poor in spirit” distinguished as those who recognize their own spiritual destitution. The term could apply to anyone regardless of their material possessions.
The key here is, as La Shawn has pointed out is “the kingdom of heaven”. It’s not hard to look at the world today and see that Jesus is not talking about it. He is talking about His rule in the coming kingdom. That’s when these blessings will be a reality.
Sharon,
There is nothing wrong with praying that GW will win the election. Moses changed God’s mind through prayer. Don’t forget that Jesus also prayed in the Garden of Gesthemane that “this cup would pass from him”. However, He also knew and said in His prayer that God’s will be done. I personally am praying that GW will win the election. However, I know that if Kerry wins, then for some reason it is in God’s will. I might not ever understand it, as I didn’t understand Clinton being elected once, much less twice, but I know that God understands why He does such things,and that they’re in His will.
La Shawn:
What I meant by overspiritualizing is this: if I follow you, you interpret Jesus’ statements about poverty in terms of powerlessness when it comes to salvation. I agree with that. But couldn’t it be that Jesus is also saying to his disciples: become poorer materially yourselves, because riches are a snare?
I agree that not all believers can or should do so in the way or to the same degree. Some people have to raise kids. Some people have to literally sell all they have, like Anthony of the Desert and Francis. But some form of material, and not just spiritual poverty, may be incumbent on all believers, even though there is no one-size-fits-all formula on that.
That having been said, I agree with your main point: the N.T. is not a mandate for the welfare state, and liberal Christians who invoke it to justify the policies of the Democratic Party are way off base.
Of course, when you can the supernatural element in Christianity, what’s left to do but politicize the heck out of it in the direction of some supposedly compassionate utopia?
Ciao.
Adrian
Thanks for the link La Shawn. Perhaps I should clarify: I want to distinguish between what Matthew says (”Poor in spirit”) and what Luke says (”poor”). I believe that both gospel writers have a distinctive voice and different emphases. Exploring the differences is, I think, instructive.
Hi LaShawn,
I could not agree more with your comments. I have just started to read Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones series of sermons on the Sermon on the Mount compiled in his book of the same title, and I see similarities between your exposition and his. Too bad that our liberal friends who quote verses such as blessed are the poor do not educate themselves by learning from teachers such as Dr.Lloyd-Jones!
Keep up the good work!
Blessings!
He and the late Donald Barnhouse are among my favorites. I aspire to love and exposit the word of God half as well as they have.
In reaction to Leo’s comment, it might be reasonable to ask whether long-term bad interpretation of scripture, beyond a reasonable initial confusion, results from an insufficient love of scripture or God.
I don’t read the bible enough because I don’t love God enough. (That works both ways.)
So I don’t mean to hold myself up as a positive example, here, but it would sound even worse (i.e. condescending) if I tried to talk about a hypothetical friend…
As a person who was once persuaded that “turn the other cheek” meant the military was immoral, I can understand coming up with one of these mistaken (and often more politically “liberal”) conclusions.
But I was interested enough to keep asking the question and keep an open mind, until I discovered the historical context, and discovered I was mistaken. And I also noticed other verses which undermined my reading (such as where Jesus instructs his followers to carry personal sidearms, or Jesus and John the Baptist fail to tell soldiers to repent of soldiering) which tipped me off, and made me less sure.
In the end, the bible changed my politics. That’s as it should be: It is there to change us, not the other way around.
Great Post LaShawn!!!!
You are right on point! You need to check out Denton Bible Church and Denton Theological Seminary in Denton, TX. Alot of the teaching here at the Institute come from teachers down there. They are solid fundamentalists who are conservative theologists. They are also politically conservative. Well, take care and God Bless.
La Shawn, your post is on the mark. Oftentimes, the Bible uses the materially rich and poor to help illustrate the truth in the framework of his time.
The Jews were under Roman occupation and for example, the Zionists were the insurrectionists that, altho outnumbered and outclassed by the Romans, were actively trying to overthrow them. Most Jews were looking for a political/socio-economic messiah that would restore Israeli sovereignty and a heaven on earth. In that context, the oppressed Jews were looking for power; power=wealth.
The point Jesus repeatedly makes is that He came to fulfill God’s promise to restore the damaged relationship between man and God thru a supreme sacrifice. Not an earthly kingdom, rather a heavenly one.
Jesus often illustrated the spiritual relationship in terms that the Israelites could understand — “rich” vs the “poor”. Generally speaking, the poor came to faith more readily because they had nothing else, while the rich could be deluded by their relative wealth to assume that because they were “blessed” with wealth, they must obviously have found favor in God’s eyes.
With the back and forth dialog about “poor in spirit” and “materially poor”, it must be emphasized that ultimately, Jesus is NOT concerned about earthly prosperity, either as a hallmark of faith nor as some sort of social justice. In discussing Biblical exegesis, it would be useful to keep in mind the writer’s POV as they handled a similar quotation of Jesus:
Matthew was by occupation a publican, or tax-gatherer for the Romans, yet he was of Jewish extract. His is the account of the incarnation, life, actions, ministry, miracles, sufferings, and death of Jesus Christ; whereby peace and reconciliation, pardon and righteousness, atonement and redemption, life and salvation, are obtained for lost, perishing sinners. The Jews, to whom the message of grace was first sent, and among whom the Gospel was first preached.
Matthew 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
John Mark, or John, whose surname was Mark and was Barnabas’s sister’s son, his mother’s name was Mary. The Apostle Peter, a fisherman and early disciple, calls him his son. If Mark is the one and same, then he is thought to have wrote his Gospel from Peter, and by his order, and which was afterwards examined and approved by Peter. The Book of Mark is a joyful account of the ministry, miracles, actions, and sufferings of Christ.
Mark 8:36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Luke the beloved physician, is thot to be a Syrian evangelist who was a companion of the Apostle Paul in great part of his travels in the Gentile world. He was not one of the disciples, so he had to rely on others to write his book.
Luke 9:25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?
John was the earliest eyewitness to Jesus’ 3-year ministry and in his writings, he focused on the spirituality of Jesus. He also filled in about a year’s gap in the middle of Jesus’ 3-year ministry not covered by the other Gospels.
John 12:25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
Although each writer had “paraphrased” Jesus (since the Gospels were written in a language other than Aramic/Hebrew, the translations can’t be word for word perfect), the point remains the same: Having a good life, let alone having it all, is pointless if you lose your soul permanently in the hereafter. Among other topics that Jesus covered was paying one’s dues to whomever is in authority, looking out for others less fortunate (personally, not governmentally, altho rulers are obligated to protect the weak), bearing of arms (Mt 10:34, 26:51, Lk 22:36-38), furthermore he never told soldiers to quit their service as the “sword and shield” of their government.
As for sKerry’s “faith without works” mantra, then it is obvious that his faith is dead when he pointedly refuses to back his faith in the start of life at conception with works to stop abortion. Likewise, his faith appears dead without charity works, given what is publically known of “his” giving, it seems the house of ketchup regularly supports immoral non-profit organizations, while his personal wealth is reserved for personal consumption. As for his notion of beating swords into plowshares, there is nothing to support that as part of peace on earth in our time. In fact — going OT here but ties back to my second paragrah — of the three times that plowshare and swords are mentioned in the same sentence; one, Joel Chp 3, refers to the opposite in preparing to defend Israel from her enemies (Islam and anti-semites in general) before the Lord returns to reign on Zion and only then are swords turned into plowshares. This is all part of God extracting his reparations from those — palestiniens and friends — who would deny the Jews their promised land. I’d hate to be on the wrong side of God’s unfolding history, in order to score worldly political points.
Comments on this entry are closed.