When Jesus Insulted People: A Comprehensive List

Below is an extensive biblical list of the times Jesus insulted people. Some will be shocked to find out that Jesus ever insulted anyone, as they have fashioned their own non-threatening, feathered-haired, and limp-wristed version of Christ. The thing is, the Jesus of Scripture is far more complicated than we often let on. Fashioning idols is wrong, even when it is bent toward being nice.

Some may wonder why anyone would compile such a list, especially a pastor. It is true, that Jesus also spoke many kind and gracious words to people, but I am not aware of anyone who denies that. Yet many, who should know better, appear ignorant of Jesus’s many offensive and insulting words. I want us to know the true, biblical Christ in all his complexity. If the words of Jesus make us uncomfortable, then it is us who are in error.

For too long, the American church has neutered and domesticated Jesus. So much so, that even a Chancellor of a Reformed Seminary appears to be ignorant of the many hard words of Christ. In the Bible, Jesus said far more offensive things than John the Baptist did. In fact, Jesus being offensive is a reoccurring theme in the gospels (Matt. 11:6 cf. Matt. 13:57; John 6:61). The Jewish leaders killed him in large part because of what he said (Mark 14:53-63). Jesus is so offensive, that one biblical title for him is the stone of offense (1 Pet. 2:8). If we distort the biblical Jesus, then we will eventually lose everything.

Why Write This Now?

There is a lot of debate concerning offensive language in the American church, especially around the so-called Moscow Mood. There are indeed trolls online who deserve our scorn, but it is wrong to lump everyone sympathetic to the Moscow Project under that condemnation.

Movements like the Moscow Mood, come in response to a much more stubborn distortion of the Christ we find in Scripture—the always nice and soft-spoken one. In the last several years, I have seen far too many theologians and pastors misrepresent Christ as some kind of aw-shucks, non-offensive, and always soft-spoken caricature of the true Jesus. Sometimes I wonder, “What gospel are they reading?”

I am writing this because I’m far more interested in getting Jesus right than I am in refereeing online squabbles. If the Jesus of Scripture offends our cultural sensitivities, then perhaps, like the Pharisees, we need to be offended.

Methodology

Several months ago, I set out to read all of the words of Christ in Scripture to find every time he insulted people. What you find below demonstrates that if we want to minister like Christ, and we should, then correctly insulting others must be a part of our arsenal. Jesus’s insults are not isolated instances, but a reoccurring theme of his ministry.

What do I mean by an insult? For this study, I am using the definition of insult from the Cambridge Dictionary, “an offensive remark or action.”[1] This is a broad definition, but it gives us something to judge by. In short, if Jesus used an offensive term or label for a person or group of people, I classify it as an insult. For example, I’m sure the Pharisees did not view the term “hypocrites” as a compliment. By “insult” I do not mean a “degrading,” “abusive,” or “pejorative.”

In this article, I focus on verbal insults, and not the offensive actions of Christ (like healing on the Sabbath). This means a comprehensive list of everything offensive Christ did would be much longer. Nonetheless, the list below makes the point—Jesus frequently employed insults.

One final note, every insult Jesus used was true. He never slandered anyone, but he did accurately use hyperbole against his opponents. Slander is always wrong. I have seen far too much of it lately, and I’ve seen it from just about every theological camp. Brothers, we must do better.

The Results

In my reading of the gospels, I found 78 examples of Christ insulting someone. In the gospels, there are 89 chapters. This means there is almost one insult per chapter. Again, this tally does not include many of the offensive analogies and parables Jesus used (e.g., John 6:22-71, Matt. 21:33-46, etc.), or his offensive actions like cleansing the Temple. If we were to count all those up, we would have many more.

Matthew leads the way with 42 recorded insults, followed by Luke with 22, Mark with 9, and John with only 5. I expected to find more in John, but most of Jesus’s controversial words are not direct insults, but pushing on cultural norms (John 6:22-71).

Additionally, in the Book of Revelation, we find another 9 insults from Christ. This brings us to 87 total insults from the mouth of Christ. If we were to perform the same research for the apostles and prophets, we would certainly have many more.

Below is the list of the insults of Christ.

Jesus’s Insults in the Gospel of Matthew

1. Matt. 6:2- “Hypocrites”

2. Matt. 6:5- “Hypocrites”

3. Matt. 6:16- “Hypocrites”

4. Matt. 7:5- “Hypocrites”

5. Matt. 7:6- “Dogs”

6. Matt. 7:6- “Pigs”

7. Matt. 7:15- “Ravenous wolves”

8. Matt. 7:23- “Workers of lawlessness”

9. Matt. 8:26- “You of little faith”

10. Matt. 10:15- Jesus equates whole Jewish towns with “Sodom and Gomorrah”

11. Matt.11:21-22- Jesus says the current cities of Chorazin and Bethsaida are worse than the Baal-worshiping cities condemned by the OT prophets of “Tyre and Sidon”

12. Matt. 11:23-24- Capernaum is worse than “Sodom”

13. Matt. 12:34- “Brood of vipers”

14. Matt. 12:39- “An evil and adulterous generation”

15. Matt. 12:41- This generation is worse than “Nineveh”

16. Matt. 12:45- This “evil generation” is akin to being demon-possessed

17. Matt. 12:46-49- Jesus rejects his family by implying that his mother and brothers are not really his mother and brothers

18. Matt. 15:7- “Hypocrites” (Pharisees take offense at this Matt. 15:12)

19. Matt. 15:14- “Blind guides”

20. Matt. 15:26-27- Calls the Gentiles “Dogs”

21. Matt. 16:4- “An evil and adulterous generation”

22. Matt. 16:23- Jesus says to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan”

23. Matt. 17:17- “Faithless and twisted generation”

24. Matt. 21:28-32- Jesus says to the crowd they are worse than the “tax collectors and prostitutes”

25. Matt. 22:18- “Hypocrites”

26. Matt. 22:29- Jesus says to the religious leaders (Sadducees) that they don’t know “the Scriptures” or the “power of God”

27. Matt. 23:13- “Hypocrites”

28. Matt. 23:15-“Hypocrites”

29. Matt. 23:15- Jesus calls the Scribes and Pharisees “child[ren] of hell”

30. Matt. 23:16- “Blind guides”

31. Matt. 23:16- “Blind fools”

32. Matt. 23:19- “Blind men”

33. Matt. 23:23- “Hypocrites”

34. Matt. 23:24-“Blind guides”

35. Matt. 23:25- “Hypocrites”

36. Matt. 23:26- “Blind Pharisee”

37. Matt. 23:27- “Hypocrites”

38. Matt. 23:27- ‘Whitewashed tombs”

39. Matt. 23:28- “Full of hypocrisy and lawlessness”

40. Matt. 23:29- “Hypocrites”

41. Matt. 23:33- “You serpents”

42. Matt. 23:33- “You brood of vipers”

Jesus’s Insults in the Gospel of Mark

1. Mark 3:31-34- Jesus rejects his family by implying that his mother and brothers are not really his mother and brothers

2. Mark 7:6- “Hypocrites”

3. Mark 7:27- “Dogs”

4. Mark 8:33- Jesus says to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan”

5. Mark 8:38- “Adulterous and sinful generation”

6. Mark 9:19- “Faithless generation”

7. Mark 11:17- Jesus calls the money changers “Robbers”

8. Mark 12:24- Jesus says to the religious leaders (Sadducees) that they don’t know “the Scriptures” or the “power of God”

9. Mark 12:38- Jesus insults the scribes accusing them of defrauding widows and being hypocritical in their actions

Jesus’s Insults in the Gospel of Luke

1. Luke 4:24-29- Jesus compares the crowd to OT unclean Gentiles, they respond by almost killing Jesus

2. Luke 6:42- “Hypocrite”

3. Luke 8:19-21- Jesus rejects his family by implying that his mother and brothers are not really his mother and brothers

4. Luke 9:41-“faithless and twisted generation”

5. Luke 9:66- Turns away someone who wants to bury his father, and says, “Leave the dead to bury their own dead”

6. Luke 10:12- Condemns whole towns by making them out as worse than “Sodom”

7. Luke 10:13-16- Jesus says the current cities of Chorazin and Bethsaida are worse than the Baal-worshiping cities condemned by the OT prophets of “Tyre and Sidon”

8. Luke 11:29- “Evil generation”

9. Luke 11:40- “You fools”

10. Luke 11:44- Jesus calls the Pharisees and lawyers “unmarked graves”

11. Luke 11:45-52- The lawyers complain that Jesus is “insult[ing]” them as well, and he then turns and insults them directly for making things worse and being guilty of all the blood of the prophets

12. Luke 12:1- Jesus accuses the Pharisees of “hypocrisy”

13. Luke 12:20- In a parable, Jesus calls a rich young man a “Fool”

14. Luke 12:56- “Hypocrites”

15. Luke 13:15- “Hypocrites”

16. Luke 13:27- “Workers of evil”

17. Luke 13:32- Jesus calls King Herod a “fox”

18. Luke 19:22- “Wicked servant”

19. Luke 19:27- “Enemies” for the “slaughter”

20. Luke 19:46- Jesus calls the money changers “robbers”

21. Luke 20:45-47- Jesus identifies the scribes as phonies who take advantage of widows and they will receive the “greater condemnation”

22. Luke 24:25- Calls some of his disciples “foolish ones”

Jesus’s Insults in the Gospel of John

1. John 6:70- Jesus says to his disciples, “One of you is a devil”

2. John 8:39-41- Jesus tells a group of Jews Abraham is not their father

3. John 8:44- Jesus tells a group of Jews that their true father is the “devil:

4. John 8:55- Jesus tells the crowd they are “liar[s]” like their father

5. John 10:8-Jesus calls those who came before “thieves and robbers”

Jesus’s Insults in Revelation

1. Revelation 2:9- Jesus calls a group of unbelieving Jews the “synagogue of Satan”

2. Revelation 2:13- Jesus refers to a town, because of its various false religions, as “Satan’s throne”

3. Revelation 2:20-22- Jesus calls a woman “Jezebel” and promises to punish her and her followers

4. Revelation 3:9- Jesus calls a group of unbelieving Jews the “synagogue of Satan”

5. Revelation 3:17- Calls a church “wretched”

6. Revelation 3:17- Calls a church “pitiable”

7. Revelation 3:17- Calls a church “poor”

8. Revelation 3:17- Calls a church “blind”

9. Revelation 3:17- Calls a church “naked”

Conclusion

We all want to be more like Jesus, but do we know what that means? Pastors want to speak like Jesus, but then they act like hard words are somehow unchristian. Is Scripture our highest authority or not?

How then should we speak?

First, if we categorically rule out the use of insults in the name of Christlikeness, then it is likely we are fashioning a sub-biblical version of Christ. To fit our cultural morality, many evangelicals have cut out whole parts of Scripture.

Second, if we take this list as a justification to always insult others, or to use hard words as our primary form of engagement, then we are also distorting the Jesus of Scripture. If we want to speak and minister as Christ did, then we must recognize that he often acted in surprising ways. Sometimes, we will need to speak with grace. At other times, we will be required to use hard and intentionally offensive words. Such a balance requires both wisdom and courage.

Jesus was able to balance this tension perfectly, but as sinners, we will often fall short. Above all, we need to stop fashioning our own neutered versions of Christ and instead behold his glory as revealed in Scripture.

Levi Secord

April 23, 2024

[1] Many of these insults are indisputably insults, while others likely are. In reading through the gospels, this list could be edited to add some and remove others. The general point remains—Jesus regularly used insults.

Marriage and Happiness?

Every couple, as they approach their wedding day, dreams of a happily ever after. Yet, through the years of marriage, those dreams are often left unfulfilled. Marriage has the potential to be a tremendous blessing or a horrid curse. The book of Proverbs offers a realistic picture of both the promise and peril of marriage. For example, Proverbs 18:22 declares, “He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the Lord.” Finding a spouse is an objectively good thing that displays the goodness of God.

But then Proverbs 21:9 and 19 chime in, “It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife…It is better to live in a desert land than with a quarrelsome and fretful woman.” No one gets married thinking that one day they’d prefer living in the Sahara Desert than with that man or woman. Yet, approximately 40-50% of our marriages end in divorce. So much for that happily ever after.

People make decisions based on what they believe will make them most happy. This is how we approach relationships, especially romantic ones—in pursuit of happiness. A thousand pop songs preach the gospel of happiness and self-fulfillment, especially through romantic love.  Such reasoning is entirely understandable, but in the end, it isn’t working. Why does demanding happiness through relationships often backfire? Rob Green explains, “You expect your spouse to make you happy…I have noticed that the love we demand from others is not satisfying. It demands more and more.”[1]

Frustrated husbands and wives often manipulate their spouses in an attempt to get what they want—happiness. A feeling. Yet, this is never satisfying because it came through manipulation. Behind all of this is a subtle, but deadly redefinition of marriage and of love. If we define love as what makes “me” happy, love becomes mere selfishness. When love is distorted to mere selfishness, we become miserable.

 In this way, love is reduced from the biblical ideal of the sacrificial giving of oneself to a pursuit of me. Love, with personal happiness as the center and goal, becomes utterly selfish. Green chimes in again, “[such love] may demonstrate not how much you love the other person, but how much you love yourself! What you have found is a person who helps you love you better than anyone else. That is a sobering and scary thought.”[2] Our day has turned self-love into the highest good. We have become petty, narcissistic people and this is driving our loneliness and misery. Conversely, the Bible assumes you already love yourself more than enough and that what you need is to learn to love others more (Matt. 22:39).

 When we make marriage and love primarily about personal happiness, then we begin to treat our spouse as a product to be consumed. Once that product stops working, we feel justified to discard it and find a new, better product. Welcome to the wasteland that is marriage in our society.

 Happiness isn’t the problem, it’s our seeking of it as the ultimate good. But, if personal happiness is not at the heart of marriage, then what role does it have in marriage?

 Does Marriage Have Nothing to Do with Happiness?

The church often responds to the sins of the world with overcorrection. Ours is a day where people worship “romantic love” as described above. In the end, what they’re really worshipping is themselves. Good-meaning Christians, then warn others about idolizing marriage. It can feel holy to downplay marriage’s importance. Even in the church, marriage is often treated like either a burden or something that distracts us from what is really important.

To be fair, some people do idolize marriage. But the Bible clearly teaches that marriage is woven into the fabric of God’s creational design and is meant for man’s good (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:23-25). It is objectively “not good” for man to be alone (Gen. 2:18). While the warnings in Proverbs about preferring the desert to a terrible marriage are true, we cannot forget that marriage remains a blessing from God that can bring great happiness.

 In the Bible, there is a strong link between marriage and happiness (or, joy). Consider a few passages from Solomon:

 Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love.- Proverbs 5:18-19

 Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life that he has given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun.- Ecclesiastes 9:9

God instructs us to enjoy and rejoice in our spouses, even sexually. We are to find joy and happiness in the one-flesh union. Why? Because sex is a gift of God meant to be enjoyed (1 Tim. 4:1-5). Treating God’s gift as a burden is not holy. In Ecclesiastes, as Solomon wrestles with the vanity and frustration of life in a cursed world, he reminds us that God gives marriage to lessen this vanity. Holiness looks like enjoying your marriage as a gift from God (Eccl. 3:12-13). Marriage is designed to bring a measure of happiness amid the ups and downs of life. This is God’s good design.

While in some Christian circles, it feels holy to treat marriage as icky or as a distraction, such an attitude turns its nose up at God’s design and provision. He created marriage and sex to be delighted in. Marriage brings joy and happiness, it is our sin that ruins it.

The Key to Happiness in Marriage

The Bible’s view of marriage is realistic—it can be a tremendous blessing or one of the worst curses in life. Many a study demonstrate, contrary to the dogmas of the sexual revolution, that married people and sexually conservative people are happier and more satisfied. It turns out, that when you make life about yourself and your happiness, you actually become more miserable. It’s almost like we are called to lose our lives to find them (Matt. 10:39).

What makes the difference between a marriage that is a source of great happiness versus one where you’d rather live in the desert? The answer may surprise you—don’t make your marriage about your personal happiness! The more we seek self-satisfaction the more elusive those things become. Man can never satisfy himself with himself. We are simply far too small to meet our own needs. As Augustine famously wrote, “You have made us for yourself, O Lord. and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.”

Practically, this means your main goal in your marriage is not to be happy but to be faithful. Do not treat your spouse as your source of meaning, purpose, and happiness. Instead, receive them as a good gift from God. It is faithfulness that produces a lasting joy, even in the midst of trials. The correct answer is not to downplay the blessing of marriage, or to idolize it, but to receive marriage as a gift from God.

We are called to experience God’s goodness through marriage. Ultimately, marriage is not about us. The wonder and joys of marriage point to a greater reality—the gospel of Christ Jesus (Eph. 5:22-33). Is it any wonder that marriage has such potential for joy, and why it is often perverted by the enemy? Christians must proclaim the goodness of marriage by receiving it as a gift from God, not the source of gain, happiness, or meaning in life. Therefore, taste and see that the Lord is good through his gift of marriage.

________________________

[1] Tying the Knot, 15.

[2] Tying the Knot, 27.

Holier than Jesus but Worse than Jonah

These last three years, I’ve spent most of my energy starting and shepherding a church. This has left me considerably less time to write or to even keep up with the broader evangelical movement (small mercies, I know). But this past weekend, I was reminded how anemic American evangelical theology is. I spend most of my time running in Reformed circles, and we argue about a lot of things, but there is at least a baseline of biblical knowledge. What I saw on Saturday was a shocking biblical ignorance.

Far too many American evangelicals use the standards of cultural “niceness” and political correctness as the primary lens for determining what is right and wrong. They use modern winds of doctrine to interpret the Bible. In this way, they fashion an idolatrous wood statue of Jesus that wouldn’t survive even an elementary school-level reading of Scripture. Lord, have mercy.  

Christians are called to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor 10:5), but instead, we bind Christ to our every cultural whim. We pretend to be holier than Jesus. Such towering arrogance leaves us ripe for a fall of epic proportions. In short, too many evangelicals act as if they are holier than Jesus, but they are in reality worse than Jonah. Let me explain.

The Setting

On Saturday, our state association of Baptist churches met to debate, and hopefully approve, a public Call to Repentance to the State of Minnesota. This statement called both the citizens and leaders of Minnesota to repent and find forgiveness in Christ. The statement was in response to the recent passage of laws that expanded abortion and transgender evils in our state. Minnesota is now one of the most progressive (read wicked) states when it comes to these issues, including allowing infants born alive to be left for dead and treating parents who believe in biological realities as abusive. Up is down and right is wrong in our state.

At the meeting, the Call to Repentance did not have enough votes to pass. There were some, with whom I disagree, that opposed it for understandable reasons. My critique is not directed at them. Yet, many of the reasons given by others for their opposition illustrate larger problems in the American church. The vacuum created by our biblical ignorance has been filled with compromise and cowardice in the face of cultural pressure.

Pretending to be Holier than Jesus 

At the meeting, an ignorance of Scripture was displayed in many ways. Several concerned parties argued that “confronting sin publicly” is “unloving.” Preaching against sin in public is not only “unloving,” but it won’t work and will only lead to “closed doors.” It was argued that Jesus wouldn’t do such things. If you make such sweeping moral statements—that public calls to repentance are inherently unloving and wrong—and if Jesus did those very things, then you are claiming a moral standard higher than Christ. You’re pretending that your holiness exceeds God’s.  

To be clear, the Bible shows both confrontation and mercy in the ministry of Christ. We are to hold these things in tension, affirming both eating with sinners and public calls to repentance. Scripture is full of examples of public declarations of the gospel, including calls to repentance.  

We have the public confrontation of sin from Moses to Pharoah. The prophets are filled with similar acts. In the New Testament, we see the preparatory public preaching of John the Baptist commanding the people to repent (Luke 3:7-9). The church itself was founded by the giving of the Spirit and a public sermon calling the people to repent (Acts 2:38). The book of Acts is full of such public preaching and calls to repentance including Stephen in front of an angry mob (Acts 7:1-60), Philip in Samaria (Acts 8:4-8), Paul in the marketplace of Athens (Acts 17:17), and many more. One could say public calls to repentance were an essential ingredient of the early church’s witness. To label such acts as inherently “unloving” is to display a shocking ignorance of Scripture.  

But what about Jesus? Did he ever preach in public? The Gospel of Mark records the first words of Christ’s public ministry as a public call to repentance, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (1:14-15). From time to time, Christ taught in synagogues (Luke 4:14-15), but much of his teaching occurred in the public square, at the beach, in the hills, or the courts of the Temple. Jesus’ custom was to teach crowds in public (Mark 10:1). Everything from the Sermon on the Mount to his Seven Woes to the Scribes and Pharisees was done in public (Matt. 5-7; Matt. 23).  In the Seven Woes to the Scribes and Pharisees, Jesus publicly accuses, rebukes, and confronts the wicked leadership of Israel. Was he unloving? He does the same to the crowds in John chapters 6-8. 

If public confrontation is inherently unloving and sinful, then Jesus was unloving and sinful. If such confrontations “don’t work,” then Jesus’ ministry was a failure. If Jesus was worried that publicly rebuking the Pharisees would prevent opportunities to reach them, he certainly didn’t show it.

To put it plainly—we act and reason like we are better, smarter, more strategic, and holier than Jesus. When we do that, we are in essence accusing the Holy One of sin. May it never be!  Thus, some evangelicals are either ignorant of the ministry of Christ as found in Scripture, or they are completely beholden to the political correctness of our day as the standard of conduct. Thus, they have an alien standard setup over and against the example of Christ, the prophets, and the apostles. We have carved a false image of Christ that excludes the true Jesus from our midst.

Worse than Jonah

After the public Call to Repentance was defeated, I drove home processing what happened. The story of Jonah came to mind. God tells the prophet to go to Nineveh and publicly confront them over their sins (Jon. 1:1-2). It’s almost like calls to repentance are a part of the God-given method for reaching the lost. After being regurgitated, Jonah is forced to be back on mission and preaches one of the most succinct messages of condemnation you’ll ever find, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown” (Jon. 3:4). Jonah makes no offer of forgiveness or mercy just the threat of judgment. Yet, the message still worked. They repented, “And the people of Nineveh believed God. They called for a fast and put on sackcloth from the greatest of them to the least of them” (Jon. 3:5).

Why did Jonah refuse to go and preach repentance to Nineveh in the first place? Jonah tells us in his complaint to God, “That is why I made haste to flee to Tarshish; for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and relenting from disaster” (Jon. 4:2b). Jonah knew God. Jonah knew the power of calling people to repentance. Jonah believed God would save. We don’t. Jonah’s silence was motivated by his hatred of Nineveh. He wanted them to be left in their sins so he remained silent. What does that say about our silence?

Jonah believed in the power of God to save through faithful calls to repentance. We don’t believe in that power anymore. We refuse to speak publicly because we don’t believe God can save through it. Jonah knew differently, so he ran. We don’t even have the faith of Jonah. We are worse than the prophet who had to be swallowed by a fish to obey.

Like Jonah, who displayed his hatred for Nineveh in refusing to announce God’s judgment, we display our apathy and unbelief by refusing to speak clearly to a dying world. Do we even want them saved? Jonah fled to Tarshish, but we flee to hide behind the walls of the church and a supposed secularism. Then we try to dress up our unbelief in the name of a formless and impotent love that doesn’t resemble the love of Christ. We claim to be holier than Jesus, but we are worse than Jonah.

If revival is to come to our land, and I pray that it does, we need to fix our biblical ignorance, cut down the false idol of Christ we’ve made, stop caring about the Pharisaical righteousness laws of our day, and begin preaching the gospel of repentance and faith outside the walls of the Church. To that end, all faithful ministers must pour out their lives knowing what Jonah did—the call to repentance is an act of love, mercy, and essential to evangelism. As evidenced throughout Scripture, public rebuke is a powerful instrument in the hand of our gracious God. If the church cannot speak against our current evils, then the world is left without a faithful witness. How great our apathy and lack of faith must be!

Levi Secord

February 1, 2024

A Moral vs Therapeutic World

Relativism marks our day, with its rejection of absolute truth. Francis Schaeffer in Escape from Reason, traced the trajectory of Western thought, specifically as man turned inward in two distinct ways. First, man turned away from God and to himself by declaring human reason, or rationality, as the foundation of knowledge. This was the dogma of the Enlightenment—that human reason was the universal standard of truth. Not surprisingly, human reason could not support such a weight because humans cannot agree on what is actually reasonable and rational.

Enlightenment thinking led to a second inward turn. If human reason determines truth but humans cannot agree on what is reasonable then it follows that each person constructs his own understanding of reality. We can thank Immanuel Kant for this reasoning, and thus truth became subjective. Truth is now relativistic as it is determined by the individual. This second turn inward ends up denying universal truth and replacing it with each person’s interpretation of the truth. Truth is constructed by groups or individuals as they interact with the world. Consequently, the self became the absolute standard. By making the individual the arbiter of truth, modern man has the power to redefine all of reality. As God is replaced with man, people began to view life through the lens of an extreme relativism. You can have your truth and I can have my truth, even if they’re contradictory.

Without a proper foundation for truth, morality is reduced to personal preference. As society works out the logic for such erroneous thinking we’ve arrived at a spot where right and wrong are primarily judged by what makes us “feel good.” Or, as David Wells observes, we no longer live in a moral world, but in a therapeutic one. Therapy, that is feeling better about one’s self, is the goal. What is good and right, is whatever makes someone feel good. Conversely, to offend or hurt someone’s feelings is the cardinal sin. The problem is, the more we search for feeling good the less good we tend to feel.

The tyranny of the therapeutic hovers over the problems both in culture and in the church. Tone and affirmation are the standard of right and wrong instead of content and accuracy. We are often more upset if a Christian says the right thing in the “wrong way” than if a false teacher uses his forked silver tongue to spit out heresy. In this way, many within the church appear to fear the idol of the day more than the God of the universe. Jesus himself said, “Blessed is the one who is not offended by me” (Matt. 11:6).

The Therapeutic Religion in Culture

In society, the tyranny of the therapeutic rules with an iron fist. Many claim it is harmful to not affirm the delusions of transgendersim. It is detrimental to tell LGBTQ individuals their behavior is wrong. Why? Because such words hurt their feelings and attack their constructed view of reality. To point to the immutable truths of reality is no excuse because reality bends to the dictates of the therapeutic. To question this is sacrilegious as it is an affront to the highest laws of the therapeutic religion.

Christianity must oppose such thinking. We believe the Creator God is there and that he has spoken. We believe there is a universal moral code that everyone, no matter their feelings, must keep. Christianity puts forward a moral view of the world because it has a universal standard for both truth and morality—God himself. This puts Christianity on a collision course with our modern, therapeutic world. The therapeutic religion asserts that our feelings determine what is true while Christianity asserts that the truth must determine our feelings.

The Therapeutic Religion's Influence on the Church

Yet, the lies of the therapeutic religion run deep and impact the church in a myriad of ways. If we hope to speak prophetically to our day, then we must get our own house in order first. The therapeutic view of life is impacting the church in at least five ways.

1. Many Christians care more about personal experience than truth and substance. Churches aim at bringing people in, not by the faithfulness of their teaching, but by offering light shows, entertainment, and a non-threatening experience. Moreover, it is no coincidence that movements within the church that stoke emotionalism and experientialism are growing in popularity. In a lot of ways, such movements are just mirrors of our modern therapeutic desires. The foundation of Christianity is not experience, but truth. While we must have a personal encounter with God, such an encounter must include the truth of who he is. Without such truth, there is no way to experience the God who is there. Humans can manufacture lots of experiences that will draw crowds, but these are mere trifles in comparison to the power of God. To counteract the experientialism of our day, Christians need to stress substance over feelings, by focusing on God and not ourselves.

2. As we rely on experience over truth, many Christians fall into the trap of seeing feelings as the source of truth. With no truth, morality goes out of the window and is replaced with subjectivism. Is it any wonder so many Christian leaders and churches are embracing new doctrines concerning sexual morality? Such Christians follow the example of the world by determining morality according to subjective feelings and cultural trends, instead of the immutable character of God.

3. In a therapeutic world, as feelings become ultimate and truth takes a backseat, the church starts minimizing doctrines that offend. This is natural as feelings trump truth in a therapeutic world. Some Christian leaders now argue for things like pronoun hospitality, using someone’s preferred pronoun even when it’s not true, precisely because they value feelings over truth. In a moral world, truth is always more important than feelings. This doesn’t give us the right to be jerks, but Christians must know that truth liberates. Truth frees those enslaved by their subjective feelings and experiences. Feelings cannot determine truth, but the truth should inform how and what we feel.

4. Similarly, in the therapeutic worldview, our primary problems in life are external. If life is about me feeling good, then things like society, institutions, and even biology are the culprits that cause my bad feelings. The solution is that the world must conform to my feelings. But again, in a moral world, our primary problem is internal. We are sinners, and this sin is our responsibility as individuals. We stand before God naked, ashamed, and guilty. In a moral world, we need a moral solution. In a moral world, we need a savior. Thus Christ came to die for our sins. Therapeutic preaching treats God as a way to cope with life, to feel better, to improve our self-perception, and to overcome our victimhood. As these two different worldviews identify different core problems, they inevitably preach different gospels.

5. In a therapeutic world, we lose the ability to disagree with others and still love one another. We now view disagreement as a personal attack. When we make truth personally constructed, then disagreement becomes an attack on a person’s identity. In such a world, there is no way to overcome our differences. This, of course, silences all debate and any mutual pursuit of truth. Conversely, in a moral world, reasoned debate is encouraged because the truth matters, not just for me, but also for my neighbor. So we approach each other as equals by seeking the truth together through reasoned debate and dialogue. In other words, truth is worth being uncomfortable over and if my beliefs do not align with reality, it is my beliefs that must change, not reality.

Conclusion

The Bible identifies this world as a moral one, and it addresses us as moral agents under the law of God. As such, all attempts to make life to be about therapy come from our failed attempts to deal with our real moral guilt. As guilty people, we intrinsically don’t feel so good. We know our guilt, and it haunts us. We want to be free of that guilt and therefore we seek to assuage these bad feelings through therapy. But our core problem remains we are guilty sinners before a holy God.

Instead of going to God through Christ, we try to massage away our bad feelings by turning inward. It does not work and never will. This is why, as we press into our feelings more and more, we often go away feeling worse and worse. The therapeutic religion leaves us both guilty and enslaved to our feelings. Moreover, it doesn’t even help us to feel any better. Feelings are an impotent god. The church must realize this tension point, for if we acquiesce to the therapeutic view of life, we will neuter the gospel and leave this world without any hope.

Levi Secord

January 4, 2024

When Mercy Ministries Become Justice Ministries

There is a growing trend in evangelical circles to rebrand mercy ministries as justice ministries. I recently came across this reality when I was asked to give someone church recommendations. In my research, I came across a church with a justice ministry. Under this ministry was everything from feeding the poor to adoption. Such ministries were once identified as mercy ministries. Why are churches rebranding them as justice ministries? What does this shift reveal about our current moment?

You may be wondering if this is even a big deal, and that’s a fair question. With the rise of social “justice,” mercy has taken a backseat. It is now very hip to advocate for justice, and as Christians, we should promote justice but we must define it biblically. That’s the problem, much of what passes as justice in the woke worldview is actually injustice. Within Christianity, the problem is more subtle as we have blended mercy and justice together. Such confusion leads us to lose both.

Justice and mercy are both important to Christians. We must advocate for both without collapsing them upon each other. Justice is giving someone what they have earned; what they are due. Justice is merit-based. It is something we are owed.

Conversely, mercy forgoes merit and gives good to those who are undeserving. In a very real way, the two are opposites. It was only through a supernatural act of God that both justice and mercy were accomplished at the cross (Rom. 3.26). To make it plain, justice is something we can demand while mercy is something we have no right to demand. It is this ability to demand justice that makes it more appealing.

If Christians make feeding the poor an issue of justice instead of mercy, then we are saying the poor have the right to demand satisfaction from others. Moreover, they have the right to demand they receive what belongs to others. Such an action violates the eighth commandment and is therefore unjust.

Biblically, things like feeding the poor and adoption are acts of mercy not of justice. Poverty is not always caused because of injustice. While some people become poor because of oppression, it is also true that some are poor as a result of justice. The acts of some people earn them poverty (Prov. 6.9-11; 24.30-34). In these cases, it is clear that helping the poor is not an act of justice, but of mercy. For Christians, justice and mercy are both desirable virtues, but they must remain distinct. If we confuse mercy and justice, we lose both.

A Revealing Confusion

What does this trend of mercy ministries becoming justice ministries tell us about ourselves? First, it exposes that we are bored with mercy—a truly dangerous place to be. We look at mercy and think it isn’t nearly as appealing as justice. To demand justice feels empowering while asking for mercy requires humility. To truly love mercy, one must have a transformed heart. One must have drunk deeply of God’s mercy in Christ. Our apathy toward mercy testifies to our spiritual sickness.

The indictment is that we are bored with God’s mercy. We would rather demand justice than do the hard work of promoting mercy through transformed hearts. A people bored with mercy is a people ripe for judgment. Our entire standing before God rests upon his unchanging mercy as Christ meets the demands of justice.

Second, our boredom with mercy reveals a staggering self-righteousness. When we cast out mercy and replace it with a redefined justice, it reveals hideous pride. We don’t believe that we need mercy. When mercy ministries become justice ministries, it reveals that we think we are the just ones. It reveals that we think we do not need mercy. In a very real way, the modern social justice movement is a modern-day Pharisaism. Keep these laws and you will be righteous. Everyone feels the need for righteousness. We also feel our inability to get it.

There are only two options. We can seek that righteousness through our ability, or we can receive it through God’s mercy. Too many evangelicals are infatuated with achieving a moral standing by meeting the demands of the manmade woke laws of our day. But these will never satisfy our need for righteousness. We need an alien righteousness that comes from outside of us. We need Christ’s righteousness and we can only get that through the mercy of God. If we confuse justice and mercy we confuse the gospel. Be careful what you ask for. If we continue to demand justice while sneering at mercy, then God may just give us what we want.

November13, 2023

Dr. Levi Secord

The Necessity of a Christian Worldview

Perhaps the biggest Achilles heel of evangelicalism is the lack of a robust Christian worldview. This is true for many Christians from the pulpit to the pews, and it isn’t a new problem. Francis Schaeffer’s  words ring true, “The basic problem of the Christians in this country in the last eighty years or so… is that they have seen things in bits and pieces instead of totals.” Christians are not good at looking at the big picture with a Christian worldview. That was 1981, and it has only gotten worse.

Those cracking the whips of the chariot of secularism have ravaged our country, and part of their success is that they did see the big picture. Our inability to think with a wider scope has allowed secularists to outmaneuver us again and again. Christians spend so much time putting out fires and we never get around to playing offense.

Nancy Pearcey identifies the problem as the secular/sacred divide. What is this divide? It is the tactic secularists use to exile religion, especially Christianity, to the private realm of life. Secularists assert there are secular and sacred areas of life. The sacred area, where religion is allowed (for now), is the private realm. The public realm is to be free from religion. Christians have unwittingly adopted this dichotomy in much of our thinking. For many believers, the faith has shrunk to only private spiritual disciplines. The problem is, such a miniature religion is not found in Scripture. In Scripture, all of the world is under the lordship of Christ (Col. 1:15-20).

To free us from these secular chains, we need to reclaim a robust Christian worldview.  Christians must examine every facet of life through the lens of Christ’s lordship because he currently rules over everything (Eph 1:21-22).

As secularism decays and spins out of control, there has been a renewed interest in the Christian worldview. People are searching for a comprehensive way of life, but the problem is many sub-Christian ideas have infiltrated the faith. The Christian worldview is not just talking about all the spheres of life. Plenty of Christians talk about the world but sound eerily like the world. Christians must think, speak, and act distinctively as Christians throughout all of life.

The infiltration of secular ideologies under the guise of Christianity is troubling because ideas have consequences. We reap what we sow. A Christian worldview that gets many things correct, but which still sows the seeds of progressivism will lead to a weak and eventual heretical Christianity. This drift has happened many times throughout church history. How many more denominations, schools, churches, and families must we lose? Christians should have learned their lesson by now.

Francis Schaeffer’s work has shaped me in many ways. I have learned much from reading his books, and among the most important things is that ideas have consequences. I’ve been amazed when reading his predictions from 40-50 years ago.  These predictions were surely shocking for his time, and many in his day likely thought he was merely a Chicken Little. But here we are, his predictions were not only correct, but he may have underestimated the severity of our problems. How did Schaeffer know things like the worship of homosexuality was coming? He understood that ideas have consequences, and he understood the ideas of his opponents. To put it simply, Schaeffer didn’t think in bits and pieces, but he saw the whole picture. He filtered the world through the Christian worldview. We desperately need more men like Schaeffer. Honeslty, many of the fiercest disagreements within the church today rage between those who insist on a comprehensive Christian worldview and those who prefer to think in bits and pieces (i.e., secularism).

In our decaying society, we must recover a robust Christian worldview. Not a fake Christian worldview which is nothing more than a halfway house for the latest progressive doctrine, but one which seeks to submit to Christ alone in every area of life.  This is a tall task, but it is imperative for Christians as we reach out to this dying world. We must build families, churches, schools, and institutions upon the Christian truth of reality. Christians must declare Christ in all of life. We must see life not in pieces, but in the fullness of the Christian worldview with the lordship of Christ over everything.  

Dr. Levi Secord

October 23, 2023

The World is Already Christianized

“To oppose the Christianization of society not only ignores our history, it also opposes equality, human rights, limitation of power, and progress. To be anti-Christianization is to be anti-civilization as we know it. The gospel has, is, and will continue to transform the world, whether we like it or not. “

Introduction

The debate over the role of Christianity in society rages both inside and outside of the church. Outside of the church, Christianity is painted as an oppressive force that is a threat to democracy. Inside the church, people who should be allies are now splintering over the question of whether or not Christians should desire the Christianization of society. Both of these reactions display a profound ignorance of the Christian faith and our history. While one should expect unbelievers to fall prey to revisionist history, the church’s ignorance of its past is mind-numbing.

These two negative responses to the Christianization of culture are closely connected. If Christianity is an oppressive force, then Christianization brings Hell on earth and must be opposed. Has Christianity been good for the world? If so, then the Christianization of society becomes desirable and Christians should pursue it out of love for their neighbors.

Answering the question, “Is Christianity good for society?” rests upon whether we can define what is good. For postmodern relativists, there is no universal standard to define good. We are left only with relative truth claims made by individuals or communities. This means what is right or good for one group is non-binding on others.

To take extreme examples—according to Aztec culture, harvesting still-beating hearts from thousands of people was a moral good. By postmodern logic, such behavior is ethically permissible. For the Assyrians, filleting people alive was acceptable, so who are we to judge? The examples could continue with the atrocities of ISIS, Communism, and Nazism. If there is no God above, then there is no right or wrong. We are left with power and cultural norms to determine what is right.

No one today really wants to live as if this is true. The claim of moral relativism is a convenient excuse to escape moral authority when one’s conscience is convicted. Yet when this ethic has been tried on a societal level it has led to untold barbarism.

So why do we look upon the abuse of power as not good?

Christianity Has Been, Is, and Will Continue to Christianize the World

Enter Tom Holland, the atheist author of Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World. Holland, who loves the ancients, wrestled with why he found so many of their practices evil. The answer is simple—he’s been Christianized—and so have the rest of us. The way we reason, do ethics, and practice governing are inseparable from the positive impact of Christianity. Whether a person in the West professes belief in Christ or not (an eternally important question), they are already thoroughly Christianized.

We hear a lot of talk today about the West being “post-Christian,” but this is simply untrue. Holland proves that despite declining personal belief in God, the West remains Christianized. Moreover, if the West ever truly becomes post-Christian and returns to its pagan roots, such a trajectory will bring with it more and more oppression.  

Holland traces the Christian impact on our history through three major contributions—human equality and rights, the progress of history and society, and rejecting power for weakness. In this way, Christianity transformed the world for the better.

Holland points out that even movements within the West that take aim at Christianity ironically borrow these Christian beliefs to undermine the faith. For example, the woke movement and its belief in human rights, its calls for men to treat women with dignity and equality in the sexual arena, and its rejection of power structures operate from a Christian perspective. He writes, “Christendom, in that sense, remains Christendom still” (pg. 542). To critique Christianity, our opponents must first borrow from our belief system. Unbelievers have no basis to argue for human rights, universal morality, or limitation of power structures apart from God.

Many believers and unbelievers take for granted our Christian inheritance and believe that these truths are “self-evident.” If natural law, or human reason, leads to the obvious equality of humanity, then we would expect to find human rights throughout history. We don’t. In fact, we find the opposite. Holland explains:

That every human being possessed an equal dignity was not remotely self-evident a truth. A Roman would have laughed at it…The origins of this principle—as Nietzsche had so contemptuously pointed out—lay not in the French Revolution, nor the Declaration of Independence, nor in the Enlightenment, but in the Bible (pg. 494).

Revisionist history whitewashes Rome as the pinnacle of civilization whose collapse brought on the Dark Ages. This is nothing more than propaganda. Rome was renowned for its brutality and abuses of just about everyone. If you love the abuse of slaves, the denigration of women, the free killing of lower classes, crucifying opponents, brothels with infants and children, and so much more, then Rome is for you! Holland and others describe the wickedness in which Rome gloried in great detail. There was no human equality in Rome. But, if you view human rights and equality as a good thing, then you have been Christianized.

Christianity also brought with it the idea of progress in society. History is linear, and not cyclical as the pagans often believed. Wherever Christianity took root, society was compelled to progress in holiness, goodness, and order. In this way, even modern liberal progressivism is a heresy that has broken away from Christianity. Progress and societal transformation have always gone alongside the gospel. This is the church’s history and it is not something for which we ought to be ashamed.

Finally, Christianity preaches a rejection of power and an embracing of weakness. History bears witness to the fact that power is often abused, but Christians are called to reject earthly power and to protect the weak. Such behavior is not natural to sinful man and is not commonly found in world history. Such a laying down of power is at Christianity’s heart, for the faith centers on a crucified God. The gospel turns the world and its vying for power on its head. But, to reject the Christian God, as Nietzsche points out, is to leave behind all Christian morality (pg. 464).

Conversely, Christianity directs us away from lusting for power. Holland contrasts Hitler’s thirst for power with the work of JRR Tolkien, “True strength manifested itself not in the exercise of power, but in the willingness to give it up. So Tolkien, as a Christian, believed” (pg. 485). If there is no God above, then power is all there is. If power is everything, then might makes right. Living in such a world is a terrifying thought. Many movements throughout history have centered on power and slaughtered millions, but Christianity with its crucified savior turned the world upside down.

What’s at Stake

If we believe that human rights, equality, progress, and limiting power are good things then Christianity is good. This is part of the transformation Christianity has always brought with it. Whether one believes that we should Christianize culture or not, it already has. Society is already Christianized, and this is a manifestly good thing. Wherever Christianity goes and takes root, it transforms and Christianizes society. Of course, there is still more transformation to go, but our history tells of the many positive ways society has already been Christianized.

There is not enough space to recount the many examples of this transformation throughout history—forcing African nations to stop selling slaves, steering Islamic nations away from the practice of slavery, and putting an end to widow killings in India. Yet, it is true that some who claimed to be Christian rejected these beliefs and perpetuated evil in the name of Christ. Such hypocrisy is not the end of the story. As Holland points out, such conquerors sowed the seeds of their own defeat as they brought Christianity with them. This is unique in history, that the conquerors’ own religion became the foundation of the conquered to be liberated. We must not fall prey to revisionist distortions of our history.

If society, aided by confused and cowardly evangelicals, succeeds in de-Christianizing itself, evil and suffering will only increase. Europe already experienced a taste of this as Holland explains how both Hitler and Marx rejected Christian morality and embraced ethics based on Darwinism (pg. 455-487). The result was millions upon millions being murdered. It is Christ or totalitarianism.

If we love our neighbors we should desire to work toward the Christianization of all things and against the de-Christianization of our society. Moreover, as people look for a foundation for freedom, progress, and rights, Christians have a tremendous evangelistic opportunity to point their fellow citizens to the God who saves sinners and who is renewing the world. Christ, through the blood of his cross, is reconciling all things to himself (Col 1:20).  

To oppose the Christianization of society not only ignores our history, it also opposes equality, human rights, limitation of power, and progress. To be anti-Christianization is to be anti-civilization as we know it. The gospel has, is, and will continue to transform the world, whether we like it or not.

Always Wronged but Never Wrong: The Demented Heart of Wokeness

 [This article was originally published in the Fight, Laugh, Feast Magazine and I reprint this with permission.  For more articles like this, you can subscribe to the magazine here: https://flfnetwork.com/]

The social justice movement has many tenacles to it, but we need to ask why it is so appealing? One of its driving forces is the victimhood mentality. Following Marx’s oppressed versus oppressor framework, wokeness trains people to view themselves as always wronged but never wrong. Those who internalize this mentality become small, miserable people—always the aggrieved victim. They are triggered by anyone who disagrees because being a victim is central to who they are. Thus, they gather an ever-expanding list of grievances validating their victimhood identity.   

Such an ideology is damaging and exhausting, and it has made many inroads into the church. Christians can be easily swallowed by this ethos because the Bible does address justice, oppression, and caring for the needy. What kind of a monster wants to be against a true victim? A good Christian wants to help the wronged, and therefore evangelicalism is ripe to be steered toward this grievous error. 

Social justice warriors use the same terms as Scripture but fill them with different definitions. Something becomes wrong merely because of power imbalances. When everything becomes about power dynamics, the gospel becomes lost or deformed. Christianity says you’re born a sinner who owes a great debt to God. The victimhood mentality says you’re born wronged by others and thus society owes you a great debt. There is no common ground. 

The genesis of this modern heresy is found in Jean-Jacques Rosseau. He argued that man is oppressed by society and its expectations. Individuals must free themselves from the traditions, norms, and expectations of others. Seek your own self, follow your own heart, and you will be free. Marx adapted Rosseau’s foundation and applied it to economics ushering in some of the greatest evils ever seen—all in the name of righting wrongs. All in the name of “justice.” This iteration of victimhood opposed oppression by bringing in greater oppression. Brilliant. 

Now Marxism has morphed by applying victimhood through the oppressed versus oppressor framework to cultural issues—race, sex, looks, ability, etc. Nearly an entire generation has been trained to view itself as always wronged but never wrong. Like before, evil is done in the name of opposing oppression—mostly peaceful protests and all that. Take a moment and listen to what is argued for within conservative denominations in the name of “empowering” victims—things contrary to Scripture’s plain teaching. What could possibly go wrong with this iteration of Marxism of combating sin with sin?

Understanding the Heart of Wokeness 

What do I mean by victimhood mentality? How do we identify it? This mentality can be taken on by anyone—whether they are actually a victim or not. It drives people to place their primary identity in being a victim. But why would anyone want to be a victim? What’s so appealing? That is the right question as a true victim generally doesn’t want to be one. 

Nonetheless, some who have experienced unspeakable wrongs still internalize the victimhood mentality in search of a way out. They are promised new power through this ideology. Since there is no universal morality, everything is reduced to power. Salvation is found by empowering the oppressed. Power is their god. Ironically, this empowerment enslaves individuals to remain victims as it becomes central to who they are. 

This leads to the rise of what I call the victim-hero, someone who is always wronged and yet claims to be overcoming it! The reality is that these individuals appear trapped in a never-ending cycle of offense, anger, and hatred. It is this pursuit of empowering and overcoming that fuels the victim-hero narrative and strangely makes it appealing. For many who have swallowed the social justice camel, to be a victim is to reach a certain status of achievement—it is desirable. It grants status and meaning. 

The edict goes out, “You must listen to the oppressed!” Victims, it is posited, have special access to truth. We must hear their stories and use their experiences as the guide for truth and justice. If you’re a victim, you get a seat at the table of power. If you’re a victim, people must listen to you, or else. 

In this way, the victimhood mentality puffs individuals up. They become full of pride as they sit on their enlightened perch. Moreover, what offends them, especially anyone daring to disagree with them, becomes a public nuisance that must be dealt with. Such people become full of themselves and easily triggered. Volatile to the core. Forget about forgiveness, there is only power. 

This is the always wronged side of the equation. Because society has wronged you, you’ll be rewarded through empowerment and exaltation. Such thinking puffs people up, yet there is also a dehumanizing side to this equation. Since victims are never wrong, they are not held to any standard of behavior. They are treated as less than image-bearers. Victims can loot and burn down cities, but that’s not their fault because of what they’ve been through.

No consequences and no external standards are to be applied. Victims get special knowledge, status, power, and immunity for their behavior. Such reasoning incentivizes being a victim and we see it playing out in the family, church, and society. It’s a cultural trump card wielded to shut others up. It is this mentality that drives so much of wokeness and it is utterly destructive. 

Scripture’s Anti-Victimhood Mentality

Justice is important throughout Scripture because God himself is just. Some of what I write here could be taken as dismissive of justice—it’s not. Justice should be pursued, but it must be defined biblically and sought through biblical standards. A woke university professor and Christ do not share the same definition of justice. 

We must consider the instructions God gives to victims and how they differ from the victimhood mentality. Here, it becomes clear how opposed these two religions truly are. It begins with the framing of our main problem—for Christianity, it is that we are born sinners and that we choose to sin. You are the guilty party who owes a debt you can never pay. This starting point transforms everything. 

Have you ever considered why the Bible repeatedly commands victims to not take vengeance and to not repay evil for evil (Rom. 12:19; Lev. 19:18, Pro. 24:29)? There are at least two reasons. First, when we are wronged, we feel justified in doing evil things. It is natural, in our fallen state, to respond to sin with sin. But God warns us, that being the victim does not negate our responsibility as moral agents to act righteously. 

Second, God gives these commands because justice must be sought and applied according to his universal standards. We are to trust God to act. We are to trust the justice system to act impartially and pursue justice. Hear this—victims do not have special access to the truth about justice! The repeated commands to not repay evil for evil exists because once wronged, we cannot be trusted as guides for justice. True victims should be heard, but not heard louder than the commands of God.  

Also, consider Jesus’s command to turn the other cheek and to go the extra mile with those who have wronged you (Matt. 5:38-41). Why does Christ give this command? Again, it is not to nullify the need for justice, but to train our hearts to not take offense and lash out. When sinned against, it is natural to sin in response. Instead, Christ instructs us to show grace and mercy because we too require grace and mercy. While the victimhood mentality promotes a petty and perpetual vengeance, Christ commands mercy and grace.  

Finally, consider Christ’s teaching on forgiveness in the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matt. 18:21-35). To summarize, the servant is forgiven a huge debt by his master, but he then goes around demanding others to pay their much smaller debts to him. The victimhood mentality in the church is the unforgiving servant of our day. Despite having been forgiven far more by God, this mentality demands full payment when I’m wronged! There is no forgiveness because there is no gospel and there is no Christ in this ideology.

Forgiven people forgive. Forgiveness does not cancel the need to confront and deal with sin, just look at the section immediately preceding this parable where we read of church discipline (Matt. 18:15-20). Nonetheless, Christ commands us to forgive when are wronged, at least in part, because it doesn’t come naturally to us. This attitude is wholly missing from the victimhood mentality. 

If we insist on making victim status central to our identity, then we spurn the basics of the Christian faith. If we seek to make the experience of victims, whether real or imagined, the standard of right and wrong, then we ignore the plain teaching of Scripture. If we take a big view of the sin of others while ignoring our own sins, then we become self-righteous and miserable people. To protect your church and denomination from wokeness, you must undercut the lies of the victimhood mentality and that means regular calls to repentance, forgiveness, and reminders that Christ will right every wrong. To defeat the heart of wokeness you need a big view of sin, the gospel, and sanctification. In other words, you need Christianity 101 applied to all of life.  The only one who was truly innocent, wronged, and never wrong is Christ. We should be eternally grateful that he rejects the vindictiveness of the victimhood mentality, otherwise we would be without a hope in this world. 

Above Your Master? The Sin of Winsomeness

We live in a time of tumult, not stability. It should not surprise us, as critical theory (i.e., leftism) aims at deconstructing everything. It can be hard for Christians in general, and pastors in specific, to know how to respond to the never-ending barrage of controversy. Should we engage more? Less? Should we seek to transform culture through the gospel (the evangelical ethic) or wholly withdraw (the fundamentalist impulse)? As a pastor, I can see that most seminaries did not equip their students for such a time as this. I know it’s asking a lot, but many of these seminaries don’t even equip their students to interpret Scripture sufficiently. 

As those on the deranged left increase in their vile hatred for all things good, the backlash directed at Christians increases. Lies about a totalitarian Christian theocracy are spewed out by the talking heads on the mainstream media, and thus the handwringing begins for Christians. The world doesn’t like us—what should we do? 

That’s the underlying question that informs so much of the evangelical response, at least from our leaders—how do we regain a seat at the table? How do we get the world to dislike us less? If that’s the question, the answer comes as talking less about things that the world disagrees with us about. We must be winsome or they’ll get angry. Thus, when we get backlash for talking about marriage, sexuality, and abortion, then clearly we’ve done something wrong. Perhaps we should have said it better?

The underlying assumption is this—that it’s a sign of failure if the world hates us.  Our seminaries, conferences, and leaders have failed us terribly for this moment. Consider Christ’s words from John 15:20-21:

Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.  But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me.

Christ says, if you are his servant, they will persecute and hate you. That backlash and cultural derision from those who hate God is actually a sign of faithfulness. Of course, such persecution must come in the cause of righteousness (1 Pet. 3:13-17), but it is to be expected. Too many evangelicals today fancy themselves above their master as they shun cultural persecution. Too many think they have surpassed Christ as they seek a seat at a table where Christ is hated. 

This is displayed in the pursuit of being viewed as “winsome.” Whatever that means.

The Sin of Winsomeness

Now, I need to be clear, being winsome is not sinful in itself. We should always be ready to give a defense, and we should be salt and light. Sin enters the equation when we make winsomeness the standard, especially when we define it by how the world responds to us. Why would we expect those under the power of the evil one to represent us accurately or to find us appealing? Again, to some, we are the aroma of life, and others of death (2 Cor. 2:16). Christians cannot allow the sensibilities of those with hard hearts to be the standard of winsomeness or success. To do so is to fall into idolatry and it elevates us servants over our master. 

What do I mean by that? First, I am not endorsing those who think the only way to practice cultural engagement is to be a jerk for Jesus. Such an overcorrection is just as unbiblical as seeking cultural approval. Yet, the current obsession with being winsome is driven by the standard of a morally bankrupt world. What is the standard we measure everything by? 

Christ, as ever, should be our model. He often spoke kindly to the deplorables of his day, and fiercely to others, sometimes even to his own disciples. The example of Christ shows that Christians must, at times, say intentionally provocative, blinding, and even culturally offensive things. If you don’t have room for that, then you think you are better than your master.

Take these examples for our master’s life. First, Jesus tells a crowd of Jews they are not sons of Abraham! Jesus says they are not really Jews. He takes what was most dear to them and destroys it. If that’s not culturally insensitive enough, he then calls them sons of the Devil (John 8:39-44)! Not very winsome, Jesus. 

Second, Jesus has a long back and forth with a crowd who claims to believe in him. What were they arguing about? Jesus tells them they need to “eat” his flesh and “drink” his blood. The crowd keeps offering chance after chance for Jesus to take it back (cannibalism and blood consumption were culturally offensive), but he refuses. The result is everyone but the twelve leaves Christ (John 6:22-71). Again, if being winsome is the measure of success, Christ failed. 

Third, don’t forget about the time Jesus was pronouncing woes on the Pharisees and a lawyer protested, “Teacher, in saying these things you insult us also.” What do you suppose a winsome preacher would say? Maybe try to explain how he was misunderstood? Sprinkle in some nuance? What about Christ? He replied, “Woe to you lawyers also!” (Lk. 11:42-46). Jesus thanks the lawyer for the reminder and turns to ‘insult’ his group as well.

Surely, some are thinking, “But what about the parables, those were winsome?” Were they? Why did Jesus teach in stories? He tells us, “This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand” (Matt. 13:13). Christ told parables to conceal and harden people—not very winsome. Christ’s philosophy of ministry was NOT winsomeness. It was based on truth. 

If your desire for being winsome makes you cringe at these sayings of Christ, or to think Christians can’t speak like their master, then you think you know better than God the Son. You think, at some level, that you’re above your master. If you prefer winsome lies to hard truths, you’re part of the problem. If a winsome error is more pleasing to your heart than a harsh truth then you are flirting with the father of lies (John 8:44) and not following the one who is the truth (John 14:6). Check yourself, and repent. 

A Soulless Middle-Earth: Amazon's Un-Tolkien Take on the Lord of the Rings

All stories teach. Stories argue for a view of what is true, good, and beautiful. The best stories call us beyond ourselves to something greater. JRR Tolkien’s Middle-earth is one such story. Tolkien’s enduring success is not found in his use of elves, dwarves, men, orcs, and hobbits, but in how his world points to deeper truths about our world. In a secular age suffering under the malaise of disenchantment, Tolkien offers an enchanted view of life rooted in his Christian faith. 

Despite the popularity of Tolkien’s work, Amazon’s adaption in The Rings of Power (RoP) has been met with mixed reactions. While it may seem acceptable for Hollywood elites to dismiss all criticisms as either racist or fascist, the show’s problems are evident.

What exactly is lacking? The main problem stems from a misunderstanding of what Tolkien’s work teaches, and how that points us to transcendent truth. The writers exchanged the beauty of Tolkien’s Christian worldview for the ugliness of woke ideology. 

Tolkien’s Christianized Middle-earth

Tolkien’s world, though not allegorical like Narnia, is fundamentally Christian. Tolkien explains that you tell he is a Christian from his work (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 288) and his work is fundamentally “religious and Catholic” (172).  Throughout the stories of Middle-earth, readers encounter a Christianized fantasy world. Christianity is the soul that enlivens Tolkien’s work. It is the source of its transcending beauty. 

Tolkien knew all stories must provide “elements of moral and religious truth (or error)” (Letters, 144).  As stories teach, they offer supposed solutions and errors about right and wrong. For Tolkien, fairy tales and fantasy stories point to the Christian “evangelium” found in the person and work of  Jesus Christ. According to Tolkien, this deeper meaning is the “highest function” of fantasy stories.

This deeper meaning is exactly what is missing in Amazon’s show. The show offers an entirely different worldview than what is found in Tolkien’s work. Instead of calling us beyond ourselves to something transcendent, RoP points us inward. In this way, Amazon guts Middle-earth of its soul. 

A Soulless Middle-earth

A lot has changed since Peter Jackson’s movies hit theaters in the early 2000s. Since then, cultural centers like Hollywood have become ardently anti-Christian. With the rise of postmodern deconstructionism and critical theory, the old virtues heralded by Christianity are often demonized as oppressive. In such an environment, Tolkien’s world must change, according to the show-runners. 

RoP offers a different vision of Middle-earth because it is written by those who do not understand Tolkien’s view of reality. This reality became clear with early promotions of the show by cast and crew as they spoke of how “empowering” this vision of Middle-earth would be. Empowerment is the gospel offered by critical theory, but in Middle-earth empowerment is offered by the enemy as a path to eventual enslavement. In other words, seeking empowerment smells more like Mordor than the Shire. 

This rewriting of Middle-earth guts it of its soul as it proposes different solutions to humanity’s problems. For Tolkien, evil is not overthrown by power, but through self-denial and sacrifice. Evil ever offers us power, but victory comes through laying down your life for others as Christ did. In Middle-earth, empowerment is a temptation that leads to death, not salvation. 

Amazon's reinterpretation of Tolkien’s world is seen throughout the show. Instead of a clear distinction between good and evil, everything is muddied with moral confusion. Rather than a light that offers hope in the darkest of places, Galadriel encourages us to touch the darkness. In Tolkien’s worldview, we are instructed to not touch the darkness but to cast it out with light. Tolkien offers moral clarity, RoP is mired in the moral confusion of our day. 

The differences do not end there. Tolkien’s story warns us of corruption from within and thus we must distrust our motives. Even the purest heroes like Gandalf and Galadriel are tempted by the power and corruption of the Ring, and they pass the test through self-denial. For Tolkien, the main problem is internal. Amazon’s show is full of what Carl Trueman calls expressive individualism, where the greatest good is finding your true self and then expressing it. But Tolkien’s world calls us to die to the self in submission to an external, eternal standard. 

But in the first season of RoP, most of the problems are located externally. It is society and its expectations that hold back Galadriel. It is cultural expectations that stand in the way of a forbidden romance. Instead of warning of our corruption, the characters are even reassured they are the “good people.” They just need to declare themselves good! In Tolkien’s world, even the good guys must guard against internal corruption—a message we all need to hear. Tolkien’s world calls beyond ourselves, but Amazon’s show points us inward. 

Society must change, not the self. RoP sounds more like Rousseau than Tolkien. This explains why Galadriel has been transformed from the lady of light, a transcendent picture of wisdom, beauty, and virtue to a whiny and uncontrollable teenager who can wield a sword. Tolkien’s Galadriel called us beyond ourselves toward the light, but this new Galadriel points us inward to trust ourselves. They transformed here into a dime-a-dozen kick-butt character, but a rather unlikeable one. Tolkien’s Galadriel is transcending and unique, but Amazon’s Galadriel is a tired and selfish trope. 

As society becomes increasingly hostile to Christianity, it is no surprise that they cannot  understand Tolkien and his world. There is still time for RoP to recover, but to do so the writers must recapture the soul of Middle-earth—its Christian worldview. As it turns out, a billion-dollar budget cannot buy the show a soul, especially when you trade in the virtues of Christianity for the vices of modern wokeism.