Jezebelian Egos

The first person in human history to commit premeditated murder was the first person ever born.  It’s ironic that when Eve held the little baby Cain in her arms, she hoped that he would be the promised Messiah; instead he was the first man to commit homicide.  He was also the first man to murder a prophet of God (Abel).

 

When we think of human depravity in its most monstrous expression; it is always the male gender that comes to mind.  (We can immediately think of men from the last century who orchestrated holocausts; men such as Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin.)

 

If we compare man’s corrupt nature to a beast; we think of a swine.  Its selfishness, greediness, laziness, rudeness, and filthiness typify behaviors we utterly despise in humans.

 

Other four-legged creatures can be cited as depicting man’s wantonness.  The wolverine defiles whatever food it cannot finish eating so that no other creature will find it fit to consume.  We think of the behavior of men in the 1800’s who considered it sport to “hunt” buffalo from the passenger cars of locomotives. 

 

Hundreds of thousands of bison were killed and left to rot on the prairie.  Such wanton behavior is purely man’s depravity rejecting the divine mandate to be a faithful steward of creation.

 

The Old Testament has a long list of men who were rapacious.  Who can forget Haman -- who due to his grudge against one man sought to execute a genocidal holocaust against the entire Jewish nation. 

 

But sprinkled in the O.T. list of villains are a few women who also are examples of human depravity at its worst.  Jezebel certainly tops the list.

 

By giving us the account of Jezebel; it appears that God is overturning the earth mother myth.  The earth mother myth suggests that human depravity has primarily landed upon the male of our species, and to a much lesser degree upon the female.

 

Some childhood poems contain the myth -- boys are composed of snakes and snails and puppy dog tails; while girls are made up of sugar and spice and everything nice.

 

Through the lens of the earth mother myth, men are viewed as wanton, impure, knuckle-dragging beasts whose passions make them destroyers of life; whereas the earth mother myth casts women as pure, virgin-like, givers of life, and nurturers of life (and yes, ‘tamers of men’).

 

Under what conditions does the earth mother myth proliferate?  The myth derives its strength from a breakdown of father-son relations.  When the sons’ hearts are alienated from their fathers; the female is elevated to a position of adoration; she is lifted to the status of source person (source person is defined as a being to whom we look for our well-being, purpose, affirmation, and fulfillment).

 

This is the opposite of Gods’ blueprint for the family.  God’s plan involves the father imaging the love and authority of God to the children.  When the children are able to relate to their dad as their loving, authoritative spiritual teacher; the promise of Psalm 78 is that the children will put their confidence in God (78:7).

 

Psalm 78 begins with a description of the father’s responsibility to invest spiritually in his children (the Psalm passage alludes to the portion of God’s law that requires the father to teach the Scriptures to his family in every conceivable setting – Deut 6).

 

When the hearts of fathers and sons are alienated; idolatry (with its inherent earth mother myth) proliferates. This was certainly the case with apostate Israel.  The idolatrous Jews adopted the fertility cults of Canaan. Worship of the female abounded; images in the likeness of the female body dotted the landscape (Jer 44:15-19; Judges 10:6). 

 

Although the seventy year Babylonian exile cured Israel of national idolatry; in the years that followed, the Jewish fathers were slow to embrace God’s blueprint of spiritual leadership in the home.

 

In the last book of the O.T. God announces through Malachi that spiritual renewal and revival depend upon a certain kind of change; the hearts of the fathers must be restored to the hearts of the sons and daughters (Mal 4:5, 6).

 

If the hearts of the sons remain alienated from the fathers; then the sons will use their masculine strength for the expression of sinful passions; physical and spiritual destruction will result (God says without this restoration taking place between the hearts of fathers and sons, He will smite the land with a curse – Mal 4:6).

 

God’s plan is for children to learn of God in the relational space of child to father.  When godly fathers willingly assume their roles as spiritual heads; it forms a pipeline or conduit if you will of passing on faith in God to the next generation.  The love, care, tenderness, truth, and authority of the unseen God of the universe is made tangible in the relationship a godly father has with his children.

 

But the labor necessary for the advance of spiritual order is resisted by our flesh.  In order for spiritual decay to accelerate; all one has to do is nothing.  Things unravel spiritually of their own accord.  Neglect sends men to hell (Heb 2:3).

 

The flesh is inordinately spiritually lazy; family heads tend to relinquish their headship.  They abdicate the incredible privilege and responsibility that God has given them to image the Heavenly Father to their children.

 

By contrast, when a man who teaches the Word lives a life of Christian character; he is a powerful instrument in the hands of God.  Gordon Dalbey in his book, Healing the Masculine Soul, likens the father’s role to that of a swordsman.

 

Dalbey states that every believing man has been issued a “sword” by God.  Men especially are designed by God to wield the sword of truth.  A godly man wields that sword in all his relationships.  He is to be a man of principle who loves, speaks, and chooses based upon God’s timeless truths.

 

Dalbey states that it takes not only a godly life for a man to wield his God-given sword but also a great deal of courage.  If a man is controlled by the fear of man (or the fear of woman); he will leave the sword in its scabbard to corrode from lack of use.  But if he loves and fears God he will use the sword all the time – because he knows that those in his sphere are instructed, protected, and healed by the use of his sword.

 

Swordsmanship is especially a male calling. The use of the sword is to be learned from one’s father; and very commonly from a spiritual father if one’s own dad is not available or qualified (by conversion). 

 

Adam was to subdue the earth -- make it fruitful; but his cultural calling also included using his sword of truth in order to raise up, and protect God-fearing communities.

 

A born again man is wired by God for his calling as a swordsman.  When godly men gather, they tend to relate to one another and fellowship together around the topics of theology and biblical principles.  There is a clear reason for this; God has called them to be leaders in their marriages, families, and in the church.  They must know intimately both God and His principles – they are to be swordsmen who handle accurately the Word of truth.

 

Swordsmanship is innate to their calling; for it is their business to use constant discernment.  They train themselves to discern good and evil in its most subtle forms (Heb 5:14).  They are to use the sword surgically – Paul told Timothy to be ready with the Word in season and out of season.  In other words; apply the Word to situations even when it is not popular or convenient (MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1880).

 

Men of God will frequently have to make tough decisions that result in toes being stepped upon.  Church discipline is one of those decisions.  The necessity for spiritual objectivity means that they will often have to choose fidelity to spiritual principle over a person’s feelings.  (Certainly Paul the Apostle had to do this when he publicly confronted Peter’s hypocrisy in Gal 2:11-14).

 

Just as it is somewhat unnatural for a man to raise and nurture babies all day long; so also it is somewhat unnatural for a woman to judge in the gates all day long.  Certainly there are exceptions; but it may be said that generally a man’s calling differs from a woman’s calling at this very point of swordsmanship. 

 

A woman may die to save her child; but it is a man who will die for principles.  In our culture it is a rare for a man to be totally committed to the task of faithfully carrying out his God-given role as swordsman.  There is a dire need for godly fathers; and for godly mentors who are willing to be spiritual fathers who wield the sword.

 

Because of a crisis in spiritual leadership, males tend to be estranged from the influence of godly fathers; and are therefore cut off from the relational revelation of God.  Add to this problem the fact that the earth mother myth is in full force.  Men tend to see the female as source instead of God.  (Sadly the fertility cults of Canaan that worshipped sex now have a full-blown form of expression in our country.)

 

Today’s fashions are designed for the worship the female body.  Modesty, which is a statement of fearing God and loving His plan, is all but passé.  Males are led about hypnotically by the flaunted sensuality of women; males seem to be nearly defenseless against visual temptation which comes at them from every quarter – including computer cyberspace.

 

This is precisely why the historic character Jezebel has such current relevance. The Scriptures indicate that Jezebel had 950 men who ate at her table (450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of the Asherah --1 Ki 18:19).  Think of it; she had nearly a thousand men who traded away their manhood in order to adore her.

 

We must let the travesty of this situation sink in.  These Jewish men, appointed by God to be His witnesses and teachers of His law, were willingly controlled by an idolatrous pagan woman from Sidon.  What would have to happen in order for the better part of one thousand men to become her loyal followers?

 

The answer given in Romans 1:25b is that the worship of God has been replaced with the worship of the creature.  Creature worship (with one of its expressions in the earth mother myth) is embedded in our very sin natures.  No one had to think it up.  Whenever the true worship of God is lost; idolatry rushes in to fill the vacuum. 

 

The mother; the female; the person who gave us life and nurture from very substance of her own body is the most natural substitute for God.  Earth mother cults are found on every continent.  When Satan sought to corrupt Christianity; he turned to the earth mother myth and planted it in Rome.

 

The woman’s form, beauty, sensuality, nurture, and apparent selflessness all call out to the male as ineluctable reasons for her to be his source person.   Jezebel’s “kingdom” if you will was built upon the fawning, obsequious adoration of males who were willingly emasculated for her sake.

 

It’s interesting to note that the queen mothers of Israel spent so much time commissioning the sculpting of images of the female body to be set up in the land (1 Ki 15:13).  There is a reason for this.  The more the female body is exposed as an object of desire and adoration; the more the sensual side of the earth mother myth is perpetuated.  (In light of this; isn’t it obvious that God has His specific reasons for modesty!)

 

Without needy, passive, adoring males, Jezebel’s power would have been very limited.  She collected dependent males who would perpetuate the adoration of herself.  This is the driving force behind all matriarchies because matriarchies feed upon needy males the way hurricanes feed off of warm sea water (the effect cannot exist without the cause).

 

Jezebel derived her power from the males who saw her as goddess; as earth mother; as source person.  This gives us some insights into how human depravity manifests itself in the female of our species.

 

As one popular singer quipped; men will kill you with a gun; women with murder you with their sensuality. Apparently he wasn’t far off the mark; for it says in Proverbs of the cunning harlot; “Do not stray into her paths.  For many are the victims she has cast down, and numerous are all her slain.  Her house is the way to Sheol, descending to the chambers of death” (Prov 7:25b-27).

 

So let’s review.  The monstrous things men do in their depravity are usually much more graphic, direct, and openly destructive than what women do.  We can look down through history and recount holocausts and serial crimes perpetrated by men.

 

By contrast, the depravity in women is expressed more often by control over others, than by a direct exertion of destructive force.  Samson became a slave in chains with his eyes put out through the cleverness of Delilah – but she didn’t directly chain him or put his eyes out.  What a parable his loss of strength is; he was shorn by the very woman whose sensuality he craved.  After shaving his head, she delivered him over to his captors.

 

Let’s consider additional differences between the sin of men and women.  The pride and arrogance that drives male narcissism has caused men to aspire to conquer continents even if it produced rivers of innocent blood. 

 

We could say that the expression of male depravity is a radical perversion of man’s sacred trust as steward of God’s creation. Depraved man at his most destructive wants all he can get; he uses; abuses; then wantonly casts aside.

 

In summary, the man’s depravity is a perversion of his stewardship – when his stewardship should be expressed in protection, provision, and purity; instead he preys upon others.

 

Narcissistic pride in a female is expressed in a different manner.  The woman’s depravity is more commonly expressed as a desire to possess, to control, to manipulate, to influence, to seduce, to emasculate, and to win adoration and worship. 

 

Jezebel probably did not personally stab anyone to death; but because of Jezebel’s sin, tens of thousands of Israelites died when Baal worship was purged from the land. 

 

The woman’s depravity is a perversion of her nurture gift.  Her God-given gift of nurture enables her to sacrificially love and care for her children. 

 

What made Jezebel an immoral monster was her unconscionable driven-ness to corrupt the king and his subjects with wholesale idolatry.  The frightening part is she used “nurture” to do so.  Jezebel’s magnetismcannot be discounted; her followers were numbered in the thousands.

 

If we compared her to a creature; it would be a spider that wraps its victim in silk; then injects venom that liquefies the internal organs so that they may be consumed. 

 

Regarding the danger of responding to perverted nurture -- the book of Proverbs warns of the danger of being a naïve man.  It is the naïve man (the fool) who sees no aggression or danger when a woman puts forth her sensuality.  He is likened to a bird about to enter a snare, or an ox about to be slaughtered (Prov 7:2, 23).

 

This is the part that goes missed today.  Countless college educated men are grossly naïve according to the Word of God.  A huge percentage of young men are

‘sensual opportunists’ who see no danger in being responders to a woman’s offer of sensual pleasure.

 

The woman dressed immodestly who telegraphs her invitation to a man appears to offer affection and sensual delight (nurture) all for free; or without consequence.  But the Proverbs, when speaking of the man’s spiritual state, says that his response to her overtures will cost him his life (7:23). 

 

By contrast the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.  When a culture sells itself to sensuality; it loses the willpower to remain free.  If Jezebel’s influence in Israel would have gone on unabated, the nation would have been quickly enslaved and destroyed (instead God raised up Jehu to purge Baal worship from the land and thus extend Israel’s existence).

 

Because God has made men the leaders and protectors in society, the vast majority of Scriptural exhortations that are gender specific are addressed to men.  
But there are a few gender specific woes in Scripture that are addressed to women.

 

Isaiah 3:16-26 is one of them.  It is directed at the pride of the ‘daughters of Zion.’  It’s interesting to observe that in the passage every conceivable accoutrement in that culture that could be used to attract attention and woo with sensuality is mentioned. 

 

God says through Isaiah that the Lord will take away the beauty of these accessories and leave these women to be bound by rope; wearing only sack cloth; dirty, seated on the ground, with plucked out scalps.

 

The understanding of this passage is that God hates it when women take pride in their power to seduce (3:16).  He will judge them.

 

A second judgment passage directed at women is Amos 4:1-3.  The satire is equally biting in this text.  God likens the dominant women in this passage to cows.  These upper class wives were lovers of luxury.  They thumbed their noses at the poor.  They dominated their husbands; they demanded to be served by them. 

 

God swears by His holiness that these women will face His judgment.  He states that they will be taken away with meat hooks and the last of them with fish hooks (4:2).

 

The value of studying these sections today is not only to learn from Israel’s history; but also to understand that female depravity is expressed differently than male depravity and that God hates it as much as He hates depravity in men. 

 

One would think that this should be obvious; the problem is that it is not obvious in a culture in which sex and the female body are worshipped, and the biblical roles for men and women are under attack. 

 

The evil one’s plan to rip apart the family includes this attack upon the God-given roles of men and women. In the entertainment industry the role of a man’s headship is laughed to scorn.  The husband’s ineffectiveness as a leader is the most popular punch line in sitcoms.

 

To say anything about the sinful behavior of a woman is considered bullying.  Is it any wonder that so many women who profess to be Christians seem blinded to their own female depravity and unable to mourn it and mortify it? 

 

Feminist propaganda has so thoroughly conditioned the thinking of our culture that the subject of male-female differences is commonly greeted with the charge of sexual bias.  (The feminist presupposition is that the teaching regarding gender differences is a patriarchal power play.  For the feminist, equality is rooted in sameness.  According to feminism, roles ought to be a matter of choice and capacity, not the result of God’s created order.)

 

Wayne Grudem gives the following sobering assessment concerning the attempt to erase the divinely created role distinction between men and women. 

 

Says Grudem, egalitarianism is an “engine” pulling a train of destruction.  Some of its effects are as follows: gender identity crisis, a resultant self-hatred, fear of marriage, anger and violence, homosexuality, breakdown of the family, the weakening and feminization of the church, and methods of Bible interpretation that discount the ethical mandates of Scripture that are rejected by culture (Wayne Grudem, Winterim lectures on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood at The Master’s Seminary).  (Egalitarianism is a term used to describe a view of male-female equality that depends upon the rejection of created roles for man and woman).          

 

The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood gives a parallel warning: “As increasing promotion is given to the feminist agenda, there are accompanying distortions or neglect of the glad harmony portrayed in Scripture between the loving humble leadership of redeemed husbands and the intelligent, willing support of that leadership by redeemed wives.”

 

The family is under attack.  The evil one is using philosophic naturalism (the philosophy of evolution and its companion, humanism) to tear apart God’s blueprint for the family.

 

The result is like a wrecking ball swinging through our culture leaving broken families, devastated lives, and aborted babies in its wake.  Sensuality is not a victim-less crime.  The Canaanites sacrificed infants to Molech; Americans sacrifice fetuses to the god of sensuality and immorality.

 

Now let’s move to an explanation of the title of this paper.  The heading, “Jezebelian Egos” refers to the mindset of women who use sensuality and/or nurture to control and manipulate.

 

In a culture steeped in the earth mother myth (with a growing allegiance to earth mother “spirituality”), it is easy to overlook just how flagrant the effects of female depravity can be.  (Consider that in the media, men are all too frequently cast a victimizers and women as victims.  The women’s rights movement has been a convenient cudgel to keep men silent in the arena of male and female roles; and to discourage men from leadership in home and marriage.) 

 

We’ve already established that male and female narcissism involves the perversion of a virtue or divine gift. The man is given strength to subdue the earth and rule over it as a faithful steward.  When his depravity is given full expression he moves from protector to predator, from caretaker to wanton user.

 

Female narcissism is much more subtle.  We’ve already stated that female narcissism tends to possess and manipulate.  Let’s look at how the woman reasons when she attempts to possess and control.

 

God has given the woman the incredible capacity to gestate life, to give birth, and to nurture so as to help form personhood in another human being.  The perversion of this virtue involves the misuse of nurture.

 

Thus female narcissism has an inflated view of what a woman can do through nurturing others.  In her narcissism, she reasons that her love is so powerful she can tame the savage in a man.  She can impart self-esteem to others.  She can make a project out of a male and then mold him as she sees fit.  She can obligate people because she lavishes so much praise and attention upon them. She can influence and control. 

 

All the while, the “love” she is dispensing in her narcissism is intended also to build a coterie of loyal adoring followers.  Those who are brought into her sphere; she possesses.  She has “collected them;” they are devoted to her.  They in turn must sing her praises. 

 

Her goddess dream has its imperious side.  If one should prove disloyal; she will destroy their reputation; or heap guilt upon them.  The female narcissist can never tolerate disloyalty.  She has built a loyal following. She feeds upon their adoration.

 

What is the cost of this female narcissism in a family?  The cost is great.  For female narcissism cannot coexist with male headship.  This is why “Jezebelian Egos” is not too strong a term.  For female narcissism is destructive to God’s plan for the role of husband and wife.  (Yes, men commonly abdicate their roles; 1 Peter 3:1-6 was written in part to answer that dilemma.)

 

Female narcissism has as its unbending agenda the goal of building a constituency of loyal worshippers.  It can brook no competitors.  Therefore it is impossible for it to avoid eroding the husband’s authority in the home. 

 

After all, a goddess is wise and at least partly omniscient.  Therefore female narcissism is expressed in the phrase, “Mother knows best.”  The problem with mother knows best is that frequently it means that mother knows best and father doesn’t.

 

What is the cost of a decade and one half of growing up under mother knows best?  For a son, the answer is that he has learned by example how to relate to a woman.  He will carry a great deal of confusion; how can a guy confront a goddess?  How in the world does confrontation coexist with adoration?  He reasons, “How can I ever be right and have the final say if she is always to be right?”  “How can I disagree with her if disagreement is disloyalty?”

 

The effect of mother knows best on daughters is equally pernicious.  The daughter will tend to carry a secret hatred of her father’s passivity and her mother’s dominance.  The temptation to manipulate as her mother has done will be overwhelming.  She will depend upon nurture, guilt, persuasion, manipulation to protect herself and to get her needs met.  Like her mother, she will be basically blind to issues of male honor – unable to apprehend God’s chain of honor that flows through the father and husband.

 

The aim of this author is to identify the problem in order to solve the problem.  God’s answer is to call the Church back to the healing power of submission to His Word. 

 

Although Grudem has given a very candid, and serious exposé of the problem in roles, he offers a summary filled with optimism and encouragement: Christ is progressively purifying His Church.  The Reformation recovered the grammatico-historical method of interpretation (i.e., literal as opposed to allegorical interpretation) and reaffirmed the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.   Thus through a proper handling of Scripture, God is perfecting the Church.  This process includes a correction of both male oppression and feminism (Grudem, Winterim Lectures).

 

John Piper also sets forth a return to the biblical roles for manhood and womanhood as the much needed corrective: “[T]he Bible reveals the nature of masculinity and femininity by describing diverse responsibilities for man and woman while “rooting these differing responsibilities in creation, not convention” (Piper, What’s the Difference?, p. 17).

 

The next generation is watching to see what we as parents and grandparents really believe and practice concerning the roles of men and women.  There is a full scale war raging between modern culture and the truth of God’s Word.  The battle is pitched at key points of conflict – one of the most pivotal areas in the fight is the subject of manhood and womanhood.  Our youth are receiving a garbled message about their roles. The stakes are immeasurably high. 

 

We must affirm the wisdom and beauty and necessity of God’s plan.  God takes pleasure in the created differences of male and female. Our differences are good.  We need to affirm them and rejoice in them to the glory of God. God’s plan for men and women is best for us.  It truly honors men and women.  It guards against abuse.  It doesn’t suppress women’s ministry gifts, but encourages the use of them (Wayne Grudem).

 

There are clear advantages of the complementarian view (biblical view of roles):

        1.)  A new delight in our masculinity and femininity given to us by God.

2.)    A new honoring of women as valued partners with valued ministries.

3.)    Jesus Christ purifying His Church by means of His plan for biblical manhood and womanhood.

 

(Note: The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood recently received a correspondence from a woman at Cambridge University. “I want to be submissive to my husband, but don’t know how, can you help me?  I am to marry in one month.”)

 

 

Knowing Right from Wrong

The Futile Search for Ethics in a Landscape without Truth.

The public schools are desperately trying to teach moral character to their students. Their purpose is education, but they are realizing that without sufficient character qualities in their students they are not able to educate them. Educators are now promoting character education and encouraging student-led character clubs.

One student who is president of her high school character club was asked recently in a television interview about one thing she can take away from her experience with the character club as she looks to college. She said that the most important thing she learned was tolerance and understanding. Does she mean that before her involvement with the club she was a bully who went around punching everyone she didn’t like or agree with? No, she meant something very different. We will look at the new understanding of tolerance in a moment. But first, a brief introduction to our subject is in order.

Ethics are ultimately from God.

When we talk about discerning right from wrong, we are dealing with the subject of ethics. Ethics is the study of the good; the study of right and wrong actions and attitudes. In simple terms, ethics is the study of how to relate to God, others, and ourselves. Ethics govern the creature’s relationship toward God, they govern the creature’s relationship to fellow creatures, and they govern the creature’s relationship to the creation itself.

The foundational ethic to all others is the command to glorify God. Vine’s Expository Dictionary describes the command to glorify God in the following manner: In the New Testament “to glorify” is to extol, praise, and honor God by acknowledging Him as to His being, attributes and acts. God’s glory is the revelation and self-manifestation of all that is His. Believers glorify God by bearing much fruit (Jn 15:8). To live for God’s glory is only possible when we seek to imitate Him in holiness, honor and righteousness (Eph 5:1).

“Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:31, NKJV).

How can we glorify God?

 

“And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him” (Heb 11:6, NIV).

“But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you@ (Matt 6:33, NKJV).

So the Christian ethic, the only real ethic, is to glorify God by having faith in Him and giving His kingdom priority in our lives.

God has given us His revelation, His Word, to guide us in ethics, in knowing what we should and shouldn’t do.

The book of Proverbs was given to us to teach us right conduct.

“To know wisdom and instruction, to perceive the words of understanding, to receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, judgment, equity [or, doing what is right, just, and fair, NIV]; to give prudence to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion—a wise man will hear and increase in learning, and a man of understanding will attain wise counsel . . . . The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Prov 1:2-5, 7, NKJV).

Because our Creator is Holy, we live in a Moral Universe.

The path of life and the path of destruction are set before us.

Because God is Creator and sovereign Ruler of all creation, moral law is built into the very fabric of the universe. As the only creature made in the image of God, every action man takes is either an affirmation or denial of God’s moral government. These two moral directions are described in Scripture as two paths—one of life, and the other of destruction (Jer 6:16-19; Matt 7:13).

The book of Proverbs, as the rest of the Bible, teaches us to think in terms of antithesis—that there are two opposing ways of looking at life, a right way and a wrong way. In the book of Proverbs we find right and wrong contrasted, and often these occur even in a single verse. Here is one for example:

“In all labor there is profit, but idle chatter leads only to poverty” (Prov 14:23, NKJV).

We see thesis and anti-thesis; this way or that way. We need discernment to be able to distinguish between right and wrong, between truth and error, and then we need to conform ourselves to the truth or the right way. In fact, we are commanded in Scripture to do exactly that:

“Test [or, examine, NASB] all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thess 5:21-22, NKJV).

Jay Adams has this to say about the principle of antithesis.

In the Bible, where antithesis is so important, discernment—the ability to distinguish God’s thoughts and God’s ways from all others—is essential. Indeed, God says that “the wise in heart will be called discerning” (Proverbs 16:21).

From the Garden of Eden with its two trees (one allowed, one forbidden) to the eternal destiny of the human being in heaven or in hell, the Bible sets forth two, and only two, ways: God’s way, and all others. Accordingly, people are said to be saved or lost. They belong to God’s people or the world. There was Gerizim, the mount of blessing, and Ebal, the mount of cursing. There is the narrow way and the wide way, leading either to eternal life or to destruction. There are those who are against us and those who are with us, those within and those without. There is life and death, truth and falsehood, good and bad, light and darkness, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan, love and hatred, spiritual wisdom and the wisdom of the world. Christ is said to be the way, the truth, and the life, and no one may come to the Father but by Him. His is the only name under the sky by which one may be saved.[1][1]

Adams suggests that “people who study the Bible in depth develop antithetical mindsets: they think in terms of contrasts or opposites.”[2][2] We often refer to this as thinking in terms of black and white, truth and error. How different this antithetical thinking is from the thinking of our culture which claims truth is a fuzzy gray with no center. Also, how different it is from the attitude of many Evangelical Christians who want to only present biblical truth in positive terms but never point out error and especially never point out proponents of error.

This idea of antithesis is as old as human history as Jay Adams has indicated. It is also the subject of a fascinating early church document from around the end of the first century A.D. calledThe Didache, or Teaching of the Apostles. The word didache comes from the Greek word for teaching. The Didache is the first manual on church order that we know of. It was written to teach “the doctrine of the two ways.” The opening sentence begins, “There are two ways, one of life and of death, and there is a great difference between the two ways.” It then proceeds to expound on those two ways.

Jesus clearly taught this idea of two ways in His famous Sermon on the Mount:

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult [or, confined, constraining] is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matt 7:13-14, NKJV).

All of us are either on the narrow way that leads to life, or we are on the broad way that leads to death. There is no other alternative. There is no gray area. There is no neutral ground to stand upon.

We cannot know right from wrong without understanding God’s truth.

When ethics are divorced from the character of God, they can become vices.

In our present godless and humanistic culture, there is a new “virtue” which undermines and opposes everything Christians believe. The new “virtue” is tolerance. (The highest virtue wasjustice, now it is tolerance. More on justice in a moment.) Consider the following characteristics of this “new morality.”

  1. The word tolerance now has a dual definition.
  2. Webster’s dictionary gives the traditional definition of tolerance (now known as “negative tolerance”). That definition acknowledges that tolerance recognizes and respects the beliefs and practices of others without necessarily agreeing or sympathizing with those beliefs. Everyone has a right to his own opinion.
  3. The new tolerance is known as “positive tolerance.” The new tolerance can be explained as follows: Every single individual’s values, beliefs, lifestyles, and claims to truth are equally valid. So if a person claims that any individual’s values, beliefs, etc. are better or more correct than another’s; that is hierarchy and constitutes bigotry. Thus a bigot is one who believes in moral hierarchy (that there is a lifestyle, belief, etc. that is greater than another’s).
  4. Under the U.S. constitution each person has an equal right to hold his or her belief. But under positive tolerance all beliefs are equal in the sense that they are morally equivalent. (EXAMPLE: If I say the claims of Christ are superior to the claims of Mohammed, or anyone else, it makes me a bigot who is going against virtue.)
  5. Traditional tolerance was simply the right to hold to one’s belief and practice it and still be respected and treated fairly. However, “positive tolerance” demands praise and approval for all beliefs and lifestyles (“Now we not only want your neutral permission, we demand your positive praise and approval”). To be considered tolerant, you must from your own heart, regard the beliefs and lifestyles of others to be equally valid to your own or you’re not tolerant. You must treat the ideas of others the same as your own.
  6. The most quoted verse has changed from John 3:16 to “Judge not lest ye be judged” (Matt 7:1). Christians frequently are accused of being judgmental the moment they make a moral judgment. (Moral standards are now equated with being judgmental which is equated with being intolerant.)
  7. The confusion inherent in “positive tolerance” is captured in a quote by National Public School administrator, Frederick Hill, “It is the mission of public schools not to tolerate intolerance.” This is a logical contradiction. To be intolerant of intolerance is itself an act of intolerance which they say is wrong. The position of positive tolerance violates the traditional view of tolerance. Now postmoderns no longer recognize and respect someone who has a differing belief when it comes to the issue of tolerance. Instead, in their quest to be “tolerant” they are unjust because they are being intolerant of someone just because they have a different belief when in the past that would have been tolerated. So justice and “positive tolerance” are incompatible. They are, in fact, antithetical. This is because to make justice possible, one must make a moral judgment on right and wrong. But “positive tolerance” does not allow one to make moral judgments. It actually forbids moral judgments. So the irony here is that the more open-minded you become (not making moral judgments), the more close-hearted you become (don’t care about justice for people). The end result of positive tolerance is moral and intellectual intimidation or bullying to get you to no longer hold to moral standards or pursue objective truth. Romans 1:18-32 gives us insight into the cause behind this trend and where it will lead our society (see Addendum).

Christians are considered the most intolerant people on the face of the earth. Consider the following changes that have taken place in our culture in less than fifty years.

  1. By the mid-nineties 2800 major corporations were taking their employees through training in tolerance. Now the person who dares make a moral judgment is commonly greeted with a response such as, “You’re a bigot. You’re judgmental. What gives you the right to say that? Who do you think you are?”
  2. The truthfulness of what one says is no longer the issue. One’s right to speak the truth is jeopardized by “positive tolerance.” The Bible is not quoted much in public anymore because its content is regarded as bigoted and anti-multiculturalism.
  3. Multiculturalism has also changed. It is no longer confined to racial issues. It now is the application of tolerance to culture in such a way that all cultures are equal in belief, values, lifestyle, and truth claims. If you deny this, you are regarded a bigot. (Francis Schaeffer warned more than four decades ago that we are moving from a post Judeo-Christian culture to an anti-Judeo-Christian culture.) We are now at a point where we have gone from the Christian view being dominant in American public life to it not being tolerated in public. The most dangerous person in America now is the Bible-believing Christian who says there is such a thing as right and wrong for everybody.

The tolerance intended by our forefathers was based upon God’s absolute truth.

When considering the dual definition of tolerance, there is no intelligent way to discern between them without appealing to absolute truth. By “absolute” is meant that the truth of God’s infallible Word is universal and unchanging. It applies to all men everywhere and it always will do so. No man has ever taken a “moral holiday” from God. God’s moral government will be in force in both heaven and hell. The righteous man utters, “Oh, how I love Thy law!” God’s moral law is revealed in His Word, and it is also an unchanging standard that is written on the conscience of man (Rom 2:15). Due to the fact that sinners suppress the truth of God and sear their consciences by presumptuous acts of sin, there is a constant need to sensitize and educate the conscience of man by means of the Word of God.

There is a hideous and rapacious beast on the loose called “lawless love.”

Scripture demands that human dignity, life’s sanctity, and love’s boundaries are founded upon God’s laws. Lawless love is the patent denial that justice is inseparable from Christian love (Micah 6:8). Consider the following contrast between biblical love and the lawless “love” espoused by positive tolerance.

  1. Under “positive tolerance” justice is regarded as the enemy of tolerance because justice demands a moral base apart from oneself to discern right from wrong. (By contrast the new tolerance says that there is no universal moral basis for right and wrong. The Bible teaches that the moral basis for right and wrong is both fixed and outside the individual; it resides in God and His immutable Word.)
  2. The new tolerance and justice cannot coexist because justice requires moral judgment. (The tragedy is that younger folks are not insisting upon justice!)
  3. The new tolerance says, “I must be indifferent when it comes to values and lifestyles. I must not impose my values on another. I must not make moral judgments.” The values of the new tolerance can be summarized as follows:
    1. The moment you are not indifferent regarding values, truth claims, and lifestyle, you have crossed the line into bigotry.
    2. You are biased, prejudiced, and discriminatory if you care enough to make a moral evaluation.
  4. By contrast, Christian love says, “I must act and speak truth in love. So if I see someone in a destructive belief or lifestyle I will stop to speak truth in love. Therefore, positive tolerance is opposed to Christian love! (because Christian love makes a moral judgment). Jesus exposed the lifestyle of the woman at the well (John 4) as a sinful lifestyle—what He did in confronting her was love!
  5. Truth and morality cannot exist separately. History is filled with a record of the tragic consequences of attempting ethics apart from God’s truth. Oppressive regimes have always sought to set aside the truth of God’s moral government in order that they might have uncontested power. Pol Pot of Cambodia taught evolution in order to do away with the concept of God. The dictator’s motive, by his own admission, was to make the state the supreme authority—the holocaust known as the “killing fields” was the result. (Other examples of ethics attempted apart from God’s truth include the following: the French Revolution, fascism, and morality by popular opinion resulting in infanticide and euthanasia. Moral chaos, anarchy, and sexual perversion thrive in a climate of “ethics” without truth.)
  6. In our present culture, moral relativism resembles a shoreless sea without the safe anchorage of God-ordained ethics. The result is countless shipwrecked lives.

Having rejected God’s truth as a moral compass, the pseudo-ethic of positive tolerance offers itself as a means of moral navigation. The tragedy is that untold numbers of lives are led into the path of destruction by this faulty compass. Immorality reigns under this erroneous definition of tolerance. Guilt, misery, and enslavement to sin comprise the tragic consequences.

 

Love that is not established upon the foundation of truth is incapable of

coming up with its own ethics.

When all values, truth claims, and beliefs are equal, you lose the ability to choose right from wrong. This is because if all views are equal, then it doesn’t matter which one you choose. They have no substance and they are inconsequential. One’s beliefs have nothing to do with the real world of cause and effect. We see this clearly in our Christian youth.

1. Today there is no connection between belief and behavior. There is a gaping chasm between theology (Christian beliefs) and behavior.

a. EXAMPLE: Josh McDowell brought the sharpest young people to the front of a church he was visiting. He asked, “Would you lie to get out from under a situation? 204 of the 209 said that they would lie.

b. But here is the shocking part, 99% of the kids said lying was wrong, but said, “I’d do it anyway.”

2. It is devastating to have young people say that something is wrong because mom says it is wrong. It is inadequate moral preparation for adult life. (Among those who give young people moral instruction, the common approach is to cite the precept, “The Christian religion requires that you do not lie, after all, the Bible says, ‘Thou shalt not lie.’” As McDowell cautions, “[At best,] we are [preparing] a whole generation to live by legalism.” We say “at best” because most likely most of these youth will not be in church once out of the home.

Without God’s truth, there is a radical loss in moral discernment.

When young people only discern right from wrong by precept or commandment, they are inadequately grounded. Without a foundation in God’s truth, pragmatism and sentimentality can easily cloud the discernment needed to make right ethical choices. Moral relativism has so fully permeated our culture, we can no longer successfully train our youth in ethics by using dated and unscriptural methods.

  1. We cannot preach the way we preached before the age of positive tolerance.
  2. The old way of instructing in morals was, “It is wrong because God says, “Thou shalt not . . . .” But, culture has changed so radically, we can no longer do our moral instruction the old way. The old way is lacking in moral authority. The precept is not simply “one among many equally valid claims.” It is THE truth, the one and only truth!
  3. We must show our young people that right choices depend upon knowing absolutely right from wrong, and right from wrong depends upon knowing the truth.

In order to teach right from wrong, one must teach the truth.

Culture has changed; relativism has ushered in a deadly perspective that believes we no longer have morality, only differing opinions.

When we teach morality, we tend to start with a precept. But, if you stop with a precept, you are left with moralism (which can easily become legalism). We must communicate the fact that behind every precept is a moral principle (a broad standard or norm).

God’s moral principles are grounded upon His absolute truth.

  1. What is absolute truth?
    1. It is true for all people, in all places, at all times. It is constant and unchanging.
    2. It has an objective basis outside of self. God and His Word are an unchanging (immutable) reference point external to us.
    3. Truth is to be distinguished from personal standards. (EXAMPLE: Different sets of parents have different policies for their children when setting the time of curfew.)
  2. There are two models of truth.
    1. God establishes absolute truth (absolutism).
    2. Man determines truth (relativism).
  3. When asked to give the definition of truth, only 4 out of 7000 Christians could do it. Truth is that which corresponds with reality. Another definition found in Webster’s Dictionary is: “Truth is that which has fidelity to an original.”
    1. EXAMPLE: If I say that I have a one-liter container, and someone says, “No you don’t!” Truth can settle the matter. “Fidelity to an original” comes into play when I take my container and my friend to the International Bureau of Weights and Measures to measure my liter against the original liter. There is fidelity if my container is equal to the original.
    2. The “original” is the unchanging reference point.
    3. Ethics can’t operate without truth (situation ethics demonstrate that ethics divorced from truth cannot provide an immutable standard).

Right from wrong is nothing less than the revelation of God’s righteous character.

Something is right or wrong because it is true in God.

1. Why does the Bible say, “You shall not murder?” The reason is because God is life. He is the source and giver of life. The command flows from and is the expression of God’s very Person and nature! It is the life of God that gives sanctity to life. We are to pursue sexual purity because God is pure and holy.

2. Because our culture has adopted the twisted values of relativism and postmodernism, we must now teach biblical morality the Scriptural way; by connecting the command or precept to the Person of God.

3. When it comes to teaching right from wrong, the Scriptures never disassociate the precept from the divine Person. Josh McDowell offers the following paradigm for understanding how we should present moral truth:

a. Level One – is PRECEPT (a specific moral command)

b. Level Two – is PRINCIPLE (or broad moral principle)

c. Level Three – is PERSON (behind every principle is the Person and character and nature of God Himself.)

4. Without level three, you are left with moralism (or legalism).

The character of God is the basis for discerning right from wrong.

Right and wrong do not change, because God’s character does not change.

  1. Our moral foundation has a truth foundation. “Fidelity to an original” is fidelity to the very nature and character of God.
  2. God’s commands are not for Him, but for us. They are for our good. They are to protect us and to provide for us. They are the safeguard of love. EXAMPLE: Like an umbrella, if you remove yourself from obedience, you remove yourself from protection and provision. (On a hot summer night, a high school athlete walked past a sign that said no entry, danger, no trespassing. He climbed over a fence with a girlfriend. In the dark she saw his silhouette dive off the diving board into an empty swimming pool. He was paralyzed for life.)
  3. We must teach our young people that God’s moral absolutes flow from His love to us. He is trustworthy. He wants to provide for us and protect us.

Because we live in a moral universe, love is impossible apart from delayed gratification.

Instant gratification by indulgence of our lusts destroys love of God and neighbor. Selfishness is the enemy of love. When the lower nature is allowed to set the standard of our moral conduct and behavior, sin and bondage are the result. Love is guarded by the ethical boundaries God has established in His moral law. Part of the deceptiveness of positive tolerance is found in its attempt to define freedom in terms of throwing off God’s moral standard. Jesus reserves some of His sternest warnings for this kind of error (see John 8:34-44, also see 2 Pet 2:18-22).

Young people tend to make choices that are based upon immediate return.

  1. There is a paradox associated with moral choices:
    1. Most right choices have immediate “negative” consequences (sacrifice, planning, delayed gratification, self-denial, peer disapproval, etc.)
    2. Most wrong choices have immediate “positive” consequences (temporal pleasure, peer acceptance, false sense of freedom, etc.)
  2. In the long run, there is a total reversal of consequences. Wrong choices bear more and more bitter fruit and right choices produce ongoing well-being.
  3. The reason for the above truth is the character of God. This is a moral universe ruled by a holy God. Therefore, the universe is built upon delayed gratification, not indulgence.
  4. Purity and chastity is power because self-control and love are virtues solely found in those who are living free. It takes God’s truth and God’s strength in order to live free. Our entire identity is bound up in the fact that we were created in the moral image of a holy God. Sin is deadly because it is a distortion of God’s image. Man as image-bearer of God lives in a universe that is not now normal. Death, decay, suffering, injustice, and disease are reigning because of sin (Rom 5:12-21). Not until sin is dealt with will these byproducts of sin be expunged from creation. Thus we proclaim from the rooftops, there are two paths, two kingdoms, two masters, two destinies! If we trust our sinful preferences, we will remain in a state of darkness and deception. By nature we are part of the problem, but through Christ we can be part of the solution.

Youth can’t see the result of choices long term.

  1. In order to make the sacrifices that are inseparable from right moral choices, young people must be taught that God loves them in Christ and that God is trustworthy.
  2. This is the only way that they can be equipped to make consistent right choices. We must show them that they are to walk through the maze of life by the precepts of a trustworthy God, even when they cannot see the immediate results. EXAMPLE: Josh McDowell uses the following illustration when teaching young people. He speaks to the young person who has been blindfolded: “You know me, you trust me. Now start walking. I will get you safely through this maze, telling you when to stop and turn.”
  3. Though we can’t see the results of right choices in the immediate, God sees the end from the beginning.
  4. In summary, when instructing, counseling, and discipling our youth, we must not stop at level one or two. We must move from precept to principle to the Person of God. Each moral choice needs to be anchored in the Person and character of God. EXAMPLE: Using all three levels, how would you respond to the phrase, “If you loved me, you would sleep with me.” The precept says, “Flee sexual immorality” (1 Cor 6:18). The principle is God’s standard for sex is based upon love, purity, and faithfulness (within marriage). The personlevel states that God is love, pure, and faithful.

Connecting belief and behavior.

  1. We must now show our youth how beliefs are consequential in the real world, that there is a cause and effect relationship between beliefs and behaviors that have good or bad consequences. God’s moral standards are not only based on truth, they apply to them in a practical way. We must show them what truth can do for them.
  2. We show them the practicality of the truth when we show them how God’s standards protect them from harm and provide for their well-being. God’s commands are for our good. “And now Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good?” (Deut 10:12-13, NKJV). God’s commands are not arbitrary. They serve a practical purpose. He never gives commands like, “You shall paint your right ear lobe green.” The apostle John declared, “And His commandments are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3b). He never tells us to walk twice as far as we need to go just because He commands it. No, all of His commands have a practical purpose. They are for God’s glory and our good.
  3. In the example of illicit sex, God’s standard of purity protects them from guilt, unplanned pregnancy, STDs, and emotional distress. Sex with marriage provides spiritual rewards, optimum environment for raising children, peace of mind, truth, true intimacy.

We must know how to teach the truth to our youth.

The Holy Scriptures provide the content, method, and example for teaching truth to our youth.

  1. By relationship, example, and truth.

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord [is] our God, the Lord [alone] [Truth]! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength [Example]. And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart [Example]. You shall teach them diligently to your children [Truth], and you shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up [Relationship]. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates” [Truth] (Deut 6:4-9, NKJV).

  1. Rules without relationship = rebellion. Parents, use the following questions as a self-test to see how you are doing in relating with your youth:

· When was the last time you laughed together?

· When was the last time you cried together?

· Do you know what his/her current favorite song is?

· Do you know who he/she sits with in the school cafeteria?

· When did he/she last seek your advice?

· When did you last forget or cancel a commitment to him/her?

· Do you more often ask questions of or make statements to him/her?

· Have you recently admitted a mistake or fault to him/her?

· What do you know—really know—about his/her spiritual life?

  1. The answers to such questions help reveal the depth of your relationship with your child and may suggest places to start deepening them right now.

An Addendum on Postmodern Tolerance

Understanding postmodernism is essential if we are to make an accurate assessment of our times.

Postmodern (PM) tolerance is having a disastrous effect on moral virtue in our society. Its corrupt fruits are seen in divorce, recreational fornication, homosexuality, abortion, profanity, and perversion. These sins are defended in the name of tolerance and freedom.

On the worldwide web there are numerous sites filled with bitter anti-Christian material. These are often the same sites that are promoting tolerance. Why is there such ferocious opposition from the “paragons” of tolerance? The reason is because the truth claims of Christianity (which are absolute and exclusive) are the death-blow to postmodernism which is simply a cloak for intellectual and moral self-government (i.e., self-centeredness, self-worship, idolatry).

This casting-off of the Christian worldview for the purpose of moral "liberation" is explicitly admitted by one of the "fathers" of postmodern thought, Aldous Huxley:

“I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. . . . For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.”

-Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means, pp. 270 ff.

A theory we have as to the motivation behind the postmodern tolerance view is that when people think of positive tolerance they primarily have in mind sexual freedom. Firstly, homosexual rights and acceptance in Western culture and, secondarily, other deviant lifestyles surrounding sexual immorality like pornography, abortion, fornication, adultery, transsexual/transgender lifestyles seem to be the driving motivation. We believe in the near future that we are going to see this emphasis on tolerance of sex sins spread into even more vile sins such as pedophilia, incest, bestiality, orgies, and public sex acts. It is quite plausible to believe that positive tolerance is really an irrational and demonic defense for an exploding sexual revolution in our culture.

Positive tolerance has become our culture’s highest virtue and coming alongside that is a heightened value placed on sexiness. Being sexy has become most fashionable. Case in point, at a recent awards ceremony Madonna and Brittany Spears kissed on stage (this was planned in advance). We must be reminded that sexiness is not a virtue, it is a vice. It doesn’t have God’s approval but His condemnation. (Flaunting one’s sexual parts in public certainly could be considered a form of sexual harassment!)

Romans 1:18-32 demonstrates that the progression (or, more accurately, regression) into sin is marked by sex sins. We can parallel the steps into moral degradation in Romans 1 with what we witness in our own society in the last 100 years. In verse 18 we recognize that we have entered upon the wrath of God, being given up to our sins, as a society by the following:

· Step 1 – v.18b, Suppression of the truth. We removed the Bible and God from public thought (beginning with higher criticism then on down to the public schools—early 20th century and up to the fifties and sixties).

· Step 2 – v. 21-22, Futile thinking—nihilistic worldview, existentialism, postmodernism, relativism, etc. filled the void left by the removal of a Christian theistic worldview (early 20thcentury up to the present).

· Step 3 – v. 23, Change of focus from God to the creaturely world—materialism, consumerism (beginning in the fifties and on up to the present).

· Step 4 – vv. 24-25, Sex sins increase along with an increase in materialism (the sixties, the sexual revolution and up to the present).

· Step 5 – vv. 28-ff., The rise of sins of every kind; moral anarchy.

In the midst of such moral chaos, Christians must not be duped or intimidated. We must retain confidence in the power of God who stands behind His unbreakable Word. We must remain bold in proclaiming Christ as the only hope for people in the world. It’s vitally important that we rise above the confusion—there is a source of absolute truth; it is outside of us, it is true no matter how you feel (Ps 119:151; John 17:17).

Postmodernism says there is no such thing as knowable absolute truth. Truth is only the creation or construct of the human mind. Therefore, there is no religion superior to anyone else’s. Right and wrong cannot be based on theology, but “what I believe is right for me.” In other words, truth has now become preference, and these preferences are determined by a perverse and wicked human nature.

In postmodern thinking, confident faith is demonized while skepticism is enthroned. Strong convictions are equated with intolerance. If a person has strong convictions he may even be compared to terrorists because he wants to persuade people to adopt his own convictions.

Postmodernism leads its proponents into extreme irrationalism. To know absolute truth is considered arrogant. Dogmatism about the truth is regarded as bigotry and pride. PM tolerance is highly irrational. PM views two contradictory propositions as simultaneously true! By contrast, the Word of God indicates that whatever contradicts truth is error (1 Tim 6:3, 4). This is the law of non-contradiction (A cannot be non-A in the same way and at the same time.). Human history has unequivocally held to it and still does in all realms with the exception of the current moral and ideological anarchy. In other words, in all areas of human endeavor like science, medicine, engineering, driving, sports, etc., we use the law of non-contradiction. Only in the moral and ideological realm (namely the metaphysical) do we seem to allow the law of non-contradiction (and other laws of logic) to be violated.

Scripture truth is unchanging because God is unchanging (1 Pet 1:25). Repentance is the only proper and rational response to postmodern thought. Our thoughts and affections must be adjusted to God’s invariable truth.

Postmodernism attacks the clear meaning of Scripture, suggesting that God’s Word to humanity has countless meanings for countless people. The Word says the opposite. Scripture has one meaning. That meaning is perspicuous (having clarity). It is not “whatever it means to me” (2 Pet 3:16).

The Word of God is the starting point and final test of truth. The Scriptures, being the infallible Word of God, are totally rational because God is the only source of rationality. Without God one cannot explain the origin of rationality.

The natural man (a person not born again) is at war with the truthfulness of God (Rom 1:18). He or she does not receive God’s truth. It is regarded as foolishness (1 Cor 2:14) because the natural man is darkened in his thoughts and driven by a relentless lust for autonomy.

We must recover our love of biblical truth and the conviction that it is unassailable truth (2 Thess 2:13-17). We must proclaim it, for it is a sin to keep it to ourselves (2 Cor 5:11-21).

God is Building a Kingdom of People whom He has enabled to Choose Right from Wrong (Titus 2:11-14).

God’s plan for the recovery of fallen mankind involves the writing of His laws on the hearts of those saved by Christ. This not only means that the conscience is tuned to God’s moral will, it also means that the desire to obey God’s law is stamped upon the hearts of the redeemed. Right moral choices become a function of having been set apart by and in Christ. God-glorifying ethical living is the expression of a new nature that is empowered by God’s Holy Spirit. Christians are not establishing their identities by right moral choices, instead their ethical conduct is the manifestation of who they really are. Thus their transformation by God’s truth and daily righteous living is a function of them becoming what they really are in Christ, sanctified by truth.

The following words from the Lord Jesus interceding for His elect are a most fitting benediction to end with:

“I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. As you have sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth” (John 17:14-19, NKJV).

 

[1][1] Jay E. Adams, A Call to Discernment (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1987), 31.

[2][2] Ibid., 29.