This is incredibly timely for me to hear. My state politics is embroiled in a bit of an uproar over a candidate that quoted an uncomfortable bit of scripture and now the usual players (even in his own party) are calling for him.to drop.out of a race and quietly disappear.
The reaction itself proves the point. We live in a culture that speaks endlessly about tolerance and free expression, right up until someone says something that challenges the prevailing orthodoxy. Whether one agrees with the candidate or not is almost beside the point. The deeper question is this: by what authority do we judge what may and may not be said? Christians should be especially concerned whenever Scripture itself is treated as something that must be hidden away to remain socially acceptable. Truth has never depended on public approval, and faithful witness has rarely been comfortable.
I have found myself defending this young man from people I usually agree with on a variety of topics. One who is EO told me the Bible does not say what the candidate paraphrased. Another told me that only the "Old Testament God" (as if there were two gods) would say such things, despite the relevant passage being from one of Paul's epistles. Another told me.that while he had met the candidate and liked him, he was becoming annoying because he wasn't backing down in interviews
That is precisely what I find so interesting. The discussion quickly moves beyond the actual text and becomes a discussion about whether the text should have been quoted at all.
When one person says, "The Bible doesn't say that," another says, "That's only the Old Testament," and a third says, "He should stop talking about it because he's becoming annoying," we are no longer debating the meaning of Scripture. We are debating whether Scripture should be allowed a place in the conversation.
One may agree or disagree with the candidate's interpretation or application. Fair enough. Christians have always debated such things. What concerns me is the growing assumption that biblical language itself is somehow disqualifying in public discourse.
That seems to confirm the very point I was attempting to make. The pressure is often not about accuracy, but about silence.
Yes. As I mentioned there is a Torah journey that leads to sin and death. That is that first Adam. It is predominantly in the world with assertions, interpretations of meaning, tests of historicity and so on. Then there is another way to read the Torah journey that leads to reconcilation and life. That is another Adam. Same story, completely different outcome. I know the second story and yet when I tell it often people seem so enslaved to the first one that they refuse to consider. They place value in idols like the cross around their neck, or the clergy who gather them, or as you have noted at times, self love. I cannot unsee that other Adam story and go back to thinking in the ways of the first Adam and if I was to think about the early church movement they could not either.
I always wonder, do I tell share the journey with others, or stay silent.
You are touching on something very real in Paul's writings. He contrasts the first Adam and the last Adam, not merely as two individuals, but as two ways of being human. The first Adam represents humanity turned inward upon itself, grasping, defining, judging, and ultimately dying. The second Adam, Christ, represents humanity restored through obedience, self-giving, and reconciliation with God.
Where I would differ slightly is that I do not see the Torah itself as leading to sin and death. Rather, as St. Paul teaches, the Law reveals sin and exposes our inability to save ourselves. The problem is not the Torah, but the fallen heart that encounters it. The same story that reveals our failure also prepares us for Christ.
I agree that many people can become attached to symbols, leaders, or even religious identities in ways that obscure the reality to which they point. Yet the answer is not to discard the Cross, the Church, or the ministry, but to see them rightly—as signs that direct us to Christ rather than ends in themselves.
The early Christians certainly could not return to seeing the world as they once had. Having encountered the risen Christ, they read the Scriptures with new eyes and discovered that the story had always been pointing toward Him. As our Lord told the disciples on the road to Emmaus, "Beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself."
The challenge for all of us is to keep Christ at the center, lest we mistake the signpost for the destination.
Well, now you see my challenge. I lived something which is this second Adam, not read about, lived. And yet if I say that directly, I am often attacked or put down. Why? Because people are convinced to see the story of the first Adam and not the second one. I never experienced this fall people talk about and never really needed to be reconciled. Yet I cannot say this directly so instead I write a consistent message in articles - do not reconcile to the systems of the world and that they are not in authority.
I understand your challenge. If your lived experience does not include a sense of estrangement from God, then much of the Church's language about sin, repentance, and reconciliation will naturally seem foreign.
Yet the Christian claim is not that we recognize the Fall primarily by our personal feelings or experiences. It is that Scripture reveals a condition shared by all humanity. The Apostle Paul writes that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Some experience that brokenness dramatically, while others experience it more subtly, but the Church has always taught that reconciliation is something every person needs.
I wholeheartedly agree that Christians should not conform themselves to the systems of the world or grant worldly powers an authority that belongs to God alone. On that point we stand together. Where we differ is that I believe the answer is not found in denying humanity's need for redemption, but in recognizing that our true authority, identity, and life are found in Christ, the Second Adam, who restores what was lost in the first.
I did not fall short nor did I sin. See the challenge? The churches plan towards reconcilation isn't incorrect, but what happens to a person who didn't sin and thus didn't need to repent or reconcile. Now the language becomes a weapon wielded by those in the system itself as they think they have authority. Isn't that a described pattern in the gospel?
Thank you! This is a good reminder.
This is incredibly timely for me to hear. My state politics is embroiled in a bit of an uproar over a candidate that quoted an uncomfortable bit of scripture and now the usual players (even in his own party) are calling for him.to drop.out of a race and quietly disappear.
The reaction itself proves the point. We live in a culture that speaks endlessly about tolerance and free expression, right up until someone says something that challenges the prevailing orthodoxy. Whether one agrees with the candidate or not is almost beside the point. The deeper question is this: by what authority do we judge what may and may not be said? Christians should be especially concerned whenever Scripture itself is treated as something that must be hidden away to remain socially acceptable. Truth has never depended on public approval, and faithful witness has rarely been comfortable.
I have found myself defending this young man from people I usually agree with on a variety of topics. One who is EO told me the Bible does not say what the candidate paraphrased. Another told me that only the "Old Testament God" (as if there were two gods) would say such things, despite the relevant passage being from one of Paul's epistles. Another told me.that while he had met the candidate and liked him, he was becoming annoying because he wasn't backing down in interviews
That is precisely what I find so interesting. The discussion quickly moves beyond the actual text and becomes a discussion about whether the text should have been quoted at all.
When one person says, "The Bible doesn't say that," another says, "That's only the Old Testament," and a third says, "He should stop talking about it because he's becoming annoying," we are no longer debating the meaning of Scripture. We are debating whether Scripture should be allowed a place in the conversation.
One may agree or disagree with the candidate's interpretation or application. Fair enough. Christians have always debated such things. What concerns me is the growing assumption that biblical language itself is somehow disqualifying in public discourse.
That seems to confirm the very point I was attempting to make. The pressure is often not about accuracy, but about silence.
Yes. As I mentioned there is a Torah journey that leads to sin and death. That is that first Adam. It is predominantly in the world with assertions, interpretations of meaning, tests of historicity and so on. Then there is another way to read the Torah journey that leads to reconcilation and life. That is another Adam. Same story, completely different outcome. I know the second story and yet when I tell it often people seem so enslaved to the first one that they refuse to consider. They place value in idols like the cross around their neck, or the clergy who gather them, or as you have noted at times, self love. I cannot unsee that other Adam story and go back to thinking in the ways of the first Adam and if I was to think about the early church movement they could not either.
I always wonder, do I tell share the journey with others, or stay silent.
You are touching on something very real in Paul's writings. He contrasts the first Adam and the last Adam, not merely as two individuals, but as two ways of being human. The first Adam represents humanity turned inward upon itself, grasping, defining, judging, and ultimately dying. The second Adam, Christ, represents humanity restored through obedience, self-giving, and reconciliation with God.
Where I would differ slightly is that I do not see the Torah itself as leading to sin and death. Rather, as St. Paul teaches, the Law reveals sin and exposes our inability to save ourselves. The problem is not the Torah, but the fallen heart that encounters it. The same story that reveals our failure also prepares us for Christ.
I agree that many people can become attached to symbols, leaders, or even religious identities in ways that obscure the reality to which they point. Yet the answer is not to discard the Cross, the Church, or the ministry, but to see them rightly—as signs that direct us to Christ rather than ends in themselves.
The early Christians certainly could not return to seeing the world as they once had. Having encountered the risen Christ, they read the Scriptures with new eyes and discovered that the story had always been pointing toward Him. As our Lord told the disciples on the road to Emmaus, "Beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself."
The challenge for all of us is to keep Christ at the center, lest we mistake the signpost for the destination.
Well, now you see my challenge. I lived something which is this second Adam, not read about, lived. And yet if I say that directly, I am often attacked or put down. Why? Because people are convinced to see the story of the first Adam and not the second one. I never experienced this fall people talk about and never really needed to be reconciled. Yet I cannot say this directly so instead I write a consistent message in articles - do not reconcile to the systems of the world and that they are not in authority.
I understand your challenge. If your lived experience does not include a sense of estrangement from God, then much of the Church's language about sin, repentance, and reconciliation will naturally seem foreign.
Yet the Christian claim is not that we recognize the Fall primarily by our personal feelings or experiences. It is that Scripture reveals a condition shared by all humanity. The Apostle Paul writes that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Some experience that brokenness dramatically, while others experience it more subtly, but the Church has always taught that reconciliation is something every person needs.
I wholeheartedly agree that Christians should not conform themselves to the systems of the world or grant worldly powers an authority that belongs to God alone. On that point we stand together. Where we differ is that I believe the answer is not found in denying humanity's need for redemption, but in recognizing that our true authority, identity, and life are found in Christ, the Second Adam, who restores what was lost in the first.
I did not fall short nor did I sin. See the challenge? The churches plan towards reconcilation isn't incorrect, but what happens to a person who didn't sin and thus didn't need to repent or reconcile. Now the language becomes a weapon wielded by those in the system itself as they think they have authority. Isn't that a described pattern in the gospel?