Double Graded Absolutism
Last month I posted an article on graded absolutism that was in fact an excerpt from my Commentary on First Peter. The following is one person's comments on what I said and my response. I did not plan to release this, since the objection itself is so weak that it carries limited value for theological instruction. However, it provides an additional illustration to a point that I plan to discuss in my next article.
Here I will reproduce from my article the paragraph that describes the popular ethical "dilemma" in question, but you might need to review the whole article to get the full context behind what follows:
Here is a favorite test case, or mental experiment: Suppose a person comes up to you with a deadly weapon demanding you to disclose the location of another person, whom he intends to murder. It appears that two moral duties apply in such a situation. First, there is the duty to preserve the life of another. But if you lie to divert the man from his target, then it seems that you would be violating your duty to tell the truth. To put this negatively, on the one hand, you are forbidden to contribute to the unjust death of another person, and on the other hand, you are forbidden to lie.
Then, here is the person's comments, and after that, my response, which I have expanded from the original.
His criticism is interesting, but the proposed solution is poor. It does not work out an answer for the problem and does not make a lengthy and careful exposition on how to "obey the commandment" and trust in God for the rest. What commandment or commandments? Or does he think the dilemma does not exist here?
I prefer the solution presented by Charles Hodge, in which he examines the question of a person's right to demand an answer to the question (in this case, the man with the gun). If he has no right to the answer, then to deceive him cannot be classified as a lie. I suspect that Cheung will say this is Christian sophism, but the evaluation of the person's right is something that should be done.
1. "What commandment or commandments?"
If he is asking which commandment applies, then I would say that at least in principle, all of God's commandments are in force at the same time. I say "in principle" because, although "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife" is always in force, if the entire scenario has nothing to do with anyone's wife, then it is not directly relevant in that situation. But still, this does not mean that it is not in force — it just means that there is no wife for anyone to covet at that moment.
But if he is implying that we must select a commandment to apply, then he is arguing in a circle, since he assumes the type of reasoning used by graded absolutism without answering my objections against it. So if this is what he means, then he is not doing anything to defend graded absolutism, but he is merely asserting it again.
2. "Or does he think the dilemma does not exist here?"
Correct. There are no dilemmas, paradoxes, or contradictions — ever — in God's commandments, and in any situation. No one has ever shown that there is in fact a dilemma in the above scenario, or any other scenario. And asking this rhetorical question does not create a dilemma where there was none.
The truth is that the tension in any so-called ethical dilemma is never between two or more of God's commandments, but between God's commandments and the person's own opinions and desires.
3. "It does not work out an answer for the problem."
Actually, I did answer it, but he does not say what is wrong with my answer. Also, as indicated above, there is in fact no "problem" at all, and this is also part of the answer.
4. "…and does not make a lengthy and careful exposition on how to 'obey the commandment' and trust in God for the rest."
In fact, I did this as well, but he does not interact with what I said.
5. "If he has no right to the answer, then to deceive him cannot be classified as a lie."
WHY? Who made up this rule? Where is it in the Bible? "Thou shalt not bear false witness unless the person does not have a right to the truth"?!
Now we must examine the Bible to tell us who has a right to the truth in each situation. And are there ever dilemmas, paradoxes, and contradictions when it comes to this? That is, are there situations in which a person seems to have the right to the truth according to one portion of Scripture, but then does not seem to have that right according to another part of Scripture? How is this resolved when that happens? So this is just double graded absolutism. Now we need a third principle to determine who has the right to the truth in each situation. And if that ever produces a dilemma, then we need a fourth, and so on.
If someone does not have the right to the answer, why not just refuse to say anything? Or, why not say, "You have no right to the answer"? And what about the other possible options that I suggested in the earlier article? But somehow the idea is that when someone does not have the right to the answer, then we should go ahead and lie to him. In fact, he says to deceive is not to lie in this case, which is nonsense. Perhaps he intends to say that to lie is not to sin in such a situation.
6. "…but the evaluation of the person's right is something that should be done."
Again, who says? Is his God Jehovah, or Charles Hodge?
7. "I suspect that Cheung will say this is Christian sophism."
No, my dear brother. I am not trying to sound clever or to mock you, but the truth is that I will just call you a liar. And I will probably never believe anything that you say. You see, if you are so prepared to lie, then in your heart you have already done it, and that is who you are.
This is the state of Christian theological reasoning. God have mercy on us all.
Recommended
Graded Absolutism
The Blasphemy of Graded Absolutism
Blasphemy and Mystery
The Sermon on the Mount
Blinded by Atheism
"O unbelieving and perverse generation, how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you?" (Matthew 17:17)
Yesterday our ministry received a message from an agitated reader who, in very dramatic language, urged me to answer an objection against my epistemology. As I can no longer take time to answer most of the messages calling for my attention, especially ones with the problems that I will mention below, ordinarily this one would have been ignored. The main reason that I have chosen to respond is because of the instructive value in examining the message. That is, there are other points to be made besides answering the objection.
The message has been lightly edited for readability. Changes include corrections of typos, spelling errors, etc. The sender's entire message appears below in blockquote format. His words are highlighted in blue, and the objection that he quotes is highlighted in red. Also, note that in my response, I will sometimes speak to "you" — that is, the sender of the message — and since this is now adapted for public consumption, I will sometimes speak directly to "you" the readers. The difference should be obvious, so that this should not result in any confusion. And sometimes it makes no difference as to how the "you" is understood.
I appreciate your ministry and have all your books and most of them read. However, you MUST FACE AND SQUARELY ANSWER THE FOLLOWING ISSUE OR YOUR MINISTRY WILL WILT AND FADE AWAY!!!
One of your critics has summarized the issue as follows (I am not your critic but I think it is more than a crucial point):
"Herein lies a vicious circle. Unless he already knows, apart from Scripture, that Scripture is an object of knowledge, how can he ever know that the Bible is his source of information? Likewise, unless he already knows that occasionalism is true, how can he ever know that this is the true mechanism which puts his mind in contact with the propositions of Scripture?
"You see, for Cheung, Scripture is like a safe. Occasionalism is the combination. But there's one little snag: the combination is locked away in the safe. Cheung is telling us that he gets the combination (occasionalism) from the safe. But he can only open the safe if he already has the combination in hand. How does he know that occasionalism is the correct combination to open the safe if the combination is written on a piece of paper inside the safe?
"So this is his dilemma: if he can open the safe without knowing in advance what's inside, then his knowledge is not limited to what's inside the safe. But if he can't open the safe without knowing in advance what is inside, and if the contents of the safe are his only source of knowledge, then he can't know anything at all.
"So, you see, Cheung is cheating. He is tactically assuming an insider's knowledge which he, as an outsider, can never enjoy. That's his secret fudge-factor."
I HAVE read all your responses but they really are NOT adequate. For the sake of the kingdom and God's people, I request, plead…BEG! that you make a full and formal and THOROUGH reply to this objection.
It is not right that you unwittingly allow your students to enter into the world of argument as cripples because I opine that probably most do not know how to adequately answer the above objection. And if you know the answer then you are obligated to make it known to your students. I am not a stupid fellow, but if I do not understand how your current replies are adequate, I am sure that most others do not understand as well.
I am not your critic. I do not have a blog against you or any such thing. I am desperately trying to make sense of your arguments and for the glory of God, so would you please stop riding this objection out, ignoring it as if it has already been met?
This is the most critical issue your apologetic ministry faces — your Achilles heel *perhaps* — so please PLEASE make a formal, in-depth, article LENGTH, totally comprehensive, public response which breaks it all down Barney style so that the stupidest among us can defend it.
Please do not shrug this email off as just another crazy critic who has not bothered to think through or read your articles. But in the end, its your ministry that's on the line and not mine. However, God's name is on it and, as your brother in Christ, I am calling you out to take responsibility for what you have started.
THE CRITICAL ISSUE
Before I answer the objection, I must talk about the tone and content of your message.
First, if you are going to be a half-decent apologist, you will need to calm down. Stop being so dramatic. This emotional flair is irritating to me, degrading to yourself, and not conducive to rational thinking. If you think that something like this can threaten my ministry's survival, I seriously question your intelligence and wonder how much confidence you can have in Christianity itself. I had no respect for you by the time I finished the first paragraph of your message. You are a weakling.
Second, it is unacceptable to insult my readers. Whether or not I "allow" it, I take great offense that you call many of them "cripples" when it comes to argumentation, and reduce all of them to your level of incompetence. Speak for yourself. I certainly did not allow you to "enter into the world of argument" with this bad attitude. It got my attention this time, but not in a good way, and only so that I could make an example of you.
Third, if you are going to insult me, at least get your facts straight. I have mentioned several times that I do not read most of the things written about me on the Internet. This is not because I deliberately avoid them, but mainly because I do not read anything much on the Internet at all. I do not read blog articles and discussion forums. I cannot even read many of the emails sent to me. Printed publications keep me busy enough. So it is not that I have been "riding this objection out," since I was unaware of it until you sent it to me today. God knows all things — I am not lying — I have never come across this objection. Call me a liar first before you call me a coward.
Fourth, you are not qualified to name "the most critical issue" in my "apologetic ministry." By "apologetic ministry," you are either referring to apologetics as the main mission of this ministry, or you are referring to the apologetic aspect of this ministry. I have said several times that the main focus of this ministry is not apologetics, but theological and biblical exposition. Do not think that this ministry is mainly about apologetics just because we are very good at it — there is no simpler way to put this. And if you are just referring to the apologetic aspect of this ministry, then you are still not qualified to say that this is its "most critical issue." You say that unless this ministry answers the objection, it will "wilt and fade away." Really? How about our systematic theology, commentaries, books on prayer and spirituality? They will all count for nothing? Right now your attitude seems a bigger problem than the objection.
You are right about one thing — I am the one who must take responsibility for this ministry. And this is why I am going to operate it on my own terms. I do not take orders from you or my critics. This ministry will not be bullied. It will not sway from its mission due to pressure from you or any critic. Because I am responsible, humanly speaking, I am also the only one who sets the agenda for this ministry. If I think that this ministry needs a commentary on First Peter, this ministry is going to get a commentary on First Peter. If I think I will become a better minister by taking more time to read and pray — guess what? — I am going to take more time to read and pray. You and the critics can wait in line, and I am going to be responsible for this decision. Of course, we consider comments and suggestions, but you are in no position to make demands.
THE SECRET ATHEISM
As for the objection, I could protest the analogy, but for now let us work with it anyway. As usual, there is a whole list of things wrong with this one. Here I will take time to mention only the most crucial error. This alone is sufficient to refute the objection, and to do a whole lot more.
Read the entire objection again. I will repeat a portion of it here: "You see, for Cheung, Scripture is like a safe. Occasionalism is the combination. But there's one little snag: the combination is locked away in the safe. Cheung is telling us that he gets the combination (occasionalism) from the safe. But he can only open the safe if he already has the combination in hand. How does he know that occasionalism is the correct combination to open the safe if the combination is written on a piece of paper inside the safe?"
What is wrong with this picture? Do you see what is missing? THINK! Do not assume this person has it right. Whether or not you agree with my epistemology or occasionalism, recount in your mind the process or all the factors involved in my exposition. Then, read the analogy again and see what is missing. Please take at least several seconds to do this before reading on.
Here is the problem: Where in the world is GOD in this analogy? God — remember him? In my exposition of biblical occasionalism, I refer to God's constant and active power again, and again, and again, and again, and again. It is the defining factor in both my metaphysics and epistemology. So, although I put God before him over, and over, and over, and over again, this critic completely blocks God out in his thinking, and in his representation of my epistemology. If the critic is an unbeliever, then he has simply disregarded my belief in God — the very thing we disagree about in the first place — in order to refute my knowledge of God. If the critic is a professing believer, then it is even worse, for this betrays the irreverence — even secret atheism — in his thinking. How is it possible that I can put God before the face of a "Christian" again and again, and then he answers me as if God is absent from the conversation, as if I never mentioned him? This is his "secret fudge-factor" — atheism.
He writes, "He can only open the safe if he already has the combination in hand." This might be true in his atheistic analogy, but in my Christian worldview, where there is a God, the Almighty tears open the door — or any other barrier — and imparts to me his knowledge. Biblical occasionalism is God-centered and God-empowered. But just as an atheist often makes the mistake of removing God out of a believer's worldview when interacting with it, this man-centered critic assumes that his opponent is man-centered as well. Whereas the most crucial factor in my occasionalism is God, in his representation of my view, he puts everything into the analogy except God. He refers to occasionalism as if it is an independent and impersonal thing or a method that is operated by the human person, which is precisely the opposite of what I affirm, although this might be how a self-centered empiricist think about his sensations.
"Cheung is cheating"? But who is really cheating? This person removes God from my epistemology when this is the crucial factor. And in fact, from the metaphysical viewpoint, God is the only necessary factor in my position. This relates to another problem with the analogy that I will not discuss in detail — it represents my entire position in physical terms, even though my occasionalism is such that it can work in a dream, in a purely spiritual world, or in heaven, and the Bible is the physical representation of that portion of God's mind that he has revealed to us. That is, if you destroy all physical copies of the Bible, you have not destroyed the "word of God" that is in my epistemology. I have said this a number of times in different ways.
If you take out God from my epistemology, then of course it is going to fail. There is no shame in admitting this. In fact, if you remove God, then Christianity itself fails. Yes, if Christianity becomes atheism, that is indeed a problem. But if you remove God by force and rule him out of the conversation, then there is really no point to this debate at all. For me, if God is gone, then all is lost. You might as well take it all, since it will no longer matter to me what epistemology is right or wrong, or which approach to philosophy and apologetics is best. Still less will I care about what this critic has to say.
I have laid out my case for biblical occasionalism in metaphysics and epistemology in several places and in different ways. I have responded to attacks a number of times. But how about my critics? Where is the case for empiricism? If there is no proof for it, then who is riding this out? And now that I have answered this objection, I ask again: If my critics cannot defend empiricism, then how are they able to read the Bible, and how are they able to read my works so as to criticize them?
So you slandered me when you said, "Would you please stop riding this objection out, ignoring it as if it has already been met?" Of course this objection has already been met long before this. Every time I answer a specific objection, it is only an application of the biblical system expounded in my works. It is important for my readers to realize this. I might be more proficient at it, but once you have learned the system, you possess the same equipment as I do to handle any intellectual opposition against it. But you judge my materials by your incompetence. If you are going to let this critic remove God from your thinking, and if you are going to block out all mention of God from my writings — although I refer to his role again and again — then of course you will regard them as "not adequate." I am happy to confess that my occasionalism is unable to defend atheism.
It is not my fault that you let someone completely remove God from the picture. On the other hand, it is entirely your fault that you did not even notice when God himself was taken away from you. And then you turn around and blame me? And you dare say to me, "I am calling you out to take responsibility"? What kind of person are you? Do not lecture me about my "responsibility" if you claim to be a believer but cannot even remember God while thinking about Christian apologetics.
The same goes with the critic — if you indeed claim to be a Christian but your reflex is to block out God from your mind like this, my occasionalism is the least of your problems. Actually, it is the cure.
THE ROAD AHEAD
The good news is, if this is already my "Achilles heel," then I think I am going to be around for a while and will not "wilt and fade away." In fact, I wonder if these objections are meant to destroy me by flattery rather than by argument, because if this is my Achilles heel, and if to misrepresent me as an atheist is one of the best objections, then I am pretty much invincible.
The above illustrates why I do not rush to answer every objection against me.
First, it is because there are so many, and they are all so stupid. Sometimes in legal battles, lawyers do not necessarily have to win all the advantages by sound arguments, but they can buy time or neutralize their opponents by filing motion after motion, thus drowning them in paperwork, so that they cannot make any progress. Likewise, the most straightforward tactic against the biblical system is of course to refute it, but since this is impossible, the devil can incite people to raise one stupid objection after another, drowning a ministry in frivolous controversies so that it cannot pursue its mission. We refuse to be so easily deceived. Also, consider that it takes less effort to raise objections (especially stupid ones) than to answer them in a presentable and satisfying manner. I could have answered the above objection just by saying, "What about God?" or "He left God out," but then some people might not understand why this answers the objection, and many more might fail to perceive the atheistic assumption behind the objection.
Second, time and again, I have demonstrated how outrageously stupid are the objections against our biblical system, and how easily they are answered. There is no weakness at all in the biblical system, and therefore no weakness at all in the approach of apologetics taught by this ministry. The problem is in the anti-biblical mentality that resides in the critics and those who are troubled by them. This time it is implicit atheism. Another objection (and the failure to answer it) will reveal some other spiritual defect. Therefore, by focusing on our teaching mission, this ministry is doing exactly what is needed to cure the root of the problem, instead of just dealing with the symptoms. We proclaim the greatness of God, the coherence of revelation, the depravity of man, the work and wisdom of Christ, and the divine commands for holy living. From this biblical worldview comes a natural and invincible apologetic.
I have spoken harshly to the sender of the message, but I still want this person to do well. I wish him to realize that it is wrong to blame me when the problem lies within himself. Unless he corrects the mentality that is so easily manipulated by the critics, he will soon come across another objection that he cannot answer, and then he will blame me again. I also appeal to the rest of you to gauge yourselves by how much difficulty you had with the above objection. When someone removes God from the conversation, or from a representation of your position, do you even notice? If I speak to you as I would a dog, you might find that obvious. If you are a man and I refer to you as if you were a woman, it is likely you will notice that as well. And if you speak only English but I talk to you in Chinese, you will probably scratch your head and think something is amiss. So how can it completely bypass your attention when someone speaks to you or about you as if you were an atheist? Perhaps these other things are more central to your identity than being a Christian. There is no need to despair, but humble yourself and do not blame other people for your shortcoming. This is the type of problem that any faithful minister must aim to fix, mainly not by giving you a list of answers to stupid objections, but by helping you become a biblical thinker.
As a Christian, you should never make apologetics the main focus of your spiritual life. Divine providence might require some of us to focus on apologetics in our public ministry, although even then I would urge a strong teaching ministry to go along with it. But I am mainly referring to your personal life before God. Apologetics is so easy such that if it is the main focus of your life and if you become any good at it, you might become disillusioned with boredom and with a lack of purpose. Just look at the foolishness that I must deal with — there is nothing new, nothing clever, and nothing stimulating or challenging. Never confuse debates and controversies with spiritual food. Always define your life and ministry in positive terms that direct you toward right doctrine and right worship. Such a pursuit yields constant reward and never loses its attraction.
As for the critic who raised the objection, he might read this response and attempt another one. I will probably ignore him, or more likely, I will be unaware of his new attack. But this does not mean that I cannot answer him, or that you cannot answer him. The fact that he was unable to even describe my position, but left God completely out of the picture, betrayed his incompetence and irreverence. Whether he is a man of no account or one of reputation makes no difference to me, I implore him to repent of his atheism and embrace the simple reality and power of God. What he has against me is trivial and I harbor no bitterness toward him — he has a much greater problem than I can ever give him or wish upon anyone. And please, do not send me anymore objections from this person or anyone related to him. He is just not good enough. He possesses an altogether lower class of intellect. There is no competition, no comparison — I have no interest in him and no use for him.
Do I sound arrogant to you? That is a very American reaction, but not necessarily a Christian one. You still do not understand, do you? I have confidence in God's word, and it is because I depend on God's word that I can never be defeated. Because the wisdom of God is so vastly superior to the wisdom of man, I will always win any debate with almost disheartening ease. It is this confidence that I wish to impart to every Christian. Indeed, humanly speaking, it can be lonely here looking down at the rest from the top of the world — and that is where a person is when he stands upon God's word. This is a place of separation, but it is also a place of victory and rest, and an end to all struggles. Here is where we can experience constant communion with the mind of Christ. This place belongs to every Christian, will you not join me?
RECOMMENDED
Presuppositional Confrontations
Short Answers to Several Criticisms
Not in Word, but in Power
The following is an edited email correspondence.
"But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." (1 Corinthians 4:19-20)
"And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?" (Mark 12:24)
I heard a pastor claim that it is the "power" and not the "words" that Paul evaluates. He then said that this "power" is something we ought to practice since we have been given authority to do so. Supernatural feats seem to be more of a priority to him than the "words" (gospel or doctrine). But if I am not mistaken, "the word of the cross… is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18-31).
So here is my question: Is this pastor's application of the verse correct?
It is true that Reformed and Evangelical Christians frequently neglect the miraculous power of God, and charismatic excesses scare them off even more. Many of them seem to believe only in God's "hidden" activities, such as conversion and providence. Some of them speak as if this has become a deistic universe since the days of the apostles. I am making a generalization — this complaint does not apply to everyone. In any case, several key aspects of the Reformed and Evangelical theology of miraculous power need to be revamped, because they are outright unbiblical and prejudiced. Yes, we can denounce the Charismatics all we want, but just because we say that one group is wrong does not mean that the other is right, and just because we talk about miraculous power does not mean that we are required to use the Charismatics as our model. But we still need a truly biblical theology on the subject.
That said, that passage from 1 Corinthians is referring to something else. The context is key. To paraphrase, "The kingdom of God is not just talk, but it carries actual power." Or, as the NIV has it, "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power." This is said against the boasting of the Corinthians, who challenged Paul's authority. Verse 19 refers to "the words of those who are arrogant" (NASB). So, Paul is not saying, "The kingdom of God is not a matter of doctrine but of power," since he is not making a contrast between God's words and God's power, but he is referring to the arrogant words of the Corinthians. Nevertheless, the statement does make the point that the things belonging to God's kingdom are powerful and effective.
The verse from Jesus means what it says. We should know both "the scriptures" and "the power of God." Again, observe the context. He is speaking to those who deny the doctrine of resurrection, and thus deny God's word and God's power. So they know neither.
As for, "the word of the cross… is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18-31) — yes, but let us not equivocate. We must admit that there are such things as the miraculous manifestations of the Spirit, and even if they are used to vindicate "the word of the cross" at times, they are not themselves "the word of the cross." Even a cessationist must believe that at least some people in the Bible wielded divine power according to God's will, and that this is not the same as preaching. Using this passage to refute the pastor would be to take it out of context just like he took the other passage from Corinthians out of context.
In summary, although they have a very developed theology of conversion, sanctification, and providence, Reformed and Evangelical Christians tend to neglect the miraculous power of God and fail to understand its operations. Their deficient theology on the subject makes them unable to make sense of many biblical passages, and even frequently lead them to distort these passages in order to maintain their view, or to consign them to an irrelevant ancient past so that they no longer have to deal with them.
So there is the need to abandon some traditional but unbiblical lines of thinking, but this does not mean that we follow the Charismatics, since they do not give us a good model of biblical interpretation and implementation. In fact, in constructing a biblical understanding on the subject, there is no need to mention them at all, but many people have so inseparably connected the two in their minds that they are no longer able to confront what the Bible actually teaches. The whole subject has been tainted for them. And sometimes what we are left with is bad exegesis, faulty reasoning, and a whole lot of unbelief.
Then, what follows is not a conclusive argument, or even a biblical argument, but it provides food for thought.
Many of those that we regard as heros of the faith in church history in fact did not affirm the rigid and extreme cessationism that has become so popular today, and that has even become a test of orthodoxy in some circles. Consider Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Edwards, and Lloyd-Jones. A number of other significant individuals might be mentioned as counterexamples, but then you might be surprised if you will read their biographies and journals. Sometimes this is written off as just one of their imperfections, but I suggest that it is their sober faith in God's present and active power — yes, even miraculous manifestations — that made their character strong and their work effective.
For example, both Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones talked about an "anointing" to preach. It is something so real that the minister is conscious of it when it is present, and when it is stronger or weaker. But many have thrown out the entire concept, chalking it up to charismatic mysticism. A number of these respected preachers and theologians also talked about a calling to the ministry after the pattern of those we read about in the Bible, although it is agreed that the written revelation has been completed. But this has been thrown out as well. Perhaps people think that this ministry operates with a sense of authority and direction just because of my natural character or even sheer arrogance?
Moreover, there is often a double standard when it comes to this subject. If Spurgeon says something about the work of the Spirit in his ministry, then it is pure genius. If Mueller relates how God answered his prayer in a spectacular or even miraculous manner, we are awed and inspired. But if someone who has not yet attained idol status — or if he is still alive — makes a statement like Spurgeon's or tells a story like Mueller's, then he must be a charismatic heretic. As long as those uncomfortable things stay in the past, even the recent past, we are content, but God is now forbidden to do the same things that he did in Scripture. How dare he act sovereignly and upset our tradition?
Charismatic mysticism is certainly unbiblical and destructive, but to conspire against God's power is not a whole lot better. It is a testament to God's grace and faithfulness that the church has survived under so much unbelief — now, that is a sign and a wonder.
RECOMMENDED
Pentecostalism and Cessationism
The Bible, the Preacher, and the Spirit
D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers
Charles H. Spurgeon, An All-Round Ministry
Tony Sargent, The Sacred Anointing: The Preaching of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Association with Unbelievers
The following is an edited email correspondence. Some details have been changed or generalized to protect privacy.
As a recent convert to Christianity, I find your writings extremely helpful in understanding my new faith. As I find myself agreeing with the Calvinistic outlook and abandoning my lifelong humanistic/liberal outlook, I realize this shift in worldview is the work of God, since my past beliefs were in complete opposition to Scripture. One cannot simply reverse their way of thinking on a mere whim or even a determined decision.
But now I have a question. One of my neighbors is a [homosexual, adulterer, etc.]. Before my conversion I considered her a friend, but now I know that her lifestyle is wrong and repugnant, and I am confused as to how I should regard her. What should I do? Do I stop associating with her? Do I pray that she will repent and believe in Christ? How should I conduct myself in social settings with unbelievers?
A Christian's life is in constant opposition to the non-Christian outlook and agenda, and as long as a person is a non-Christian, he lives every moment of his life as a rebel against God's kingdom and his people. Therefore, on this spiritual level where things really count, the Christian and the non-Christian maintain a constant hostility against each other. Although this should not translate into physical violence, this by no means lessens the enmity between the two. Undiscerning people regard physical violence as more dangerous or more worthy of attention, but the conflict on the spiritual/intellectual level runs much deeper, and carries greater long-term influence and significance.
This does not mean that you have to be abusive toward unbelievers all the time. However, there must always be a clear awareness of what they are, so that when interacting with them you will not operate on the wrong assumptions about what kind of people they are and where they stand. Many Christians are often tempted to allow a sense of solidarity with men to override their obligation and allegiance to God. But God is pleased with those who will put him front and center in all that they think and do (Exodus 32:25-29; Numbers 25:3-13; Deuteronomy 13:5-16; Deuteronomy 33:8-11). A number of hurdles in theology and apologetics exist for many believers precisely because of this — on those issues they stand with men rather than God. Otherwise, there is no reason that a Christian should have any hesitation or difficulty in answering a challenge such as, say, the so-called problem of evil. It has never been a rational problem for Christianity, but when the objection is raised, believers sometimes sympathize with men's bitterness against God, and allow a problem to be formed where there was none in the first place.1
You are generally permitted to associate with unbelievers, but there are biblical restrictions and exceptions, which I cannot enumerate here. In any case, you must no longer behave toward them the way you did before, and you must abandon the idea of maintaining intimate and meaningful relationships with any of them. Since your deepest commitments are now vehemently hostile to theirs, it is no longer possible to have the deepest kind of communication and comradeship with them. Even the closest relationships between Christians and non-Christians must remain superficial. Anyone who disagrees with this either compromises their Christian commitments, or fails to understand what it is to have a truly deep friendship.
This reality finds its most acute expression in the marriage relationship. Now, of course a Christian must not marry a non-Christian, so we are considering a marriage in which one of the two unbelievers converts, or in which a Christian marries a non-Christian in defiance against God's command. Since the marriage relationship is supposed to be the closest possible relationship between two human beings, this is also the closest possible relationship between a believer and an unbeliever, but because such a relationship is doomed to come far short of what marriage is intended to be, it is also the most tragic. In fact, in a relationship where two people are supposed to become one in spirit and in body, these two individuals are divided at the deepest level, torn apart by the vast gulf that separates heaven and hell. This separation is already present and manifest in their daily life, and unless the other person also converts, one day it will become complete and permanent.
In contrast, the marriage vow between two believers is taken from God's own word (Genesis 2, Ephesians 5, etc.) and taken before God as their witness. Their ability to fulfill this vow comes from their constant contact with God's power in sanctification, and their confidence in each other is also derived from this reality. Just as a Christian relies on the Holy Spirit to sustain his spiritual life, and to grow in knowledge and holiness, he depends on this same power and grace to make progress in his marriage. On the other hand, there is no power and no promise for the non-Christian who takes the marriage vow. He relies on his own moral integrity and ability, and since he has neither of these or at best only an appearance of these, his marriage and all his relationships — like all his thoughts and activities — are without meaning and substance.
The question of how much we are to interact with unbelievers is frequently mishandled. People err toward both extremes. There are those who think that we must deliberately disassociate with unbelievers as much as possible, but this extreme is not common in our circle. Rather, there is sometimes a need to correct a misapplication of the teaching that believers are to be "in but not of the world." Some Reformed and Evangelical believers carry this very far, riding on their version of the "cultural mandate," their denial of any "sacred vs. secular" distinction, and the false doctrine of "common grace." This line of thinking is sometimes used to excuse their licentiousness, and their lust for worldly culture, amusements, and associations. But to be "in" the world, or even to be very involved in it, does not mean that we are to embrace and befriend it.
I have addressed this topic elsewhere with illustrations from various biblical passages. For example, Christians often justify unbridled socializing with unbelievers on the basis that Jesus associated with sinners. Of course he did that, but he always took control of each situation to accomplish a spiritual purpose, and if these Christians would do exactly that, then there is no reason for us to oppose their interactions with unbelievers. But I am concerned that most of them are just liars when it comes to this, deceiving themselves and attempting to deceive the rest of us. At any rate, this time we will consider the following passage from Paul:
I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you." (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)
The context of this passage is church discipline. Paul had written to the Corinthians on the subject, instructing them "not to associate with sexually immoral people" (v. 9). This first entails an intellectual evaluation of a person's lifestyle based on God's revealed moral precepts. Then, if it is determined that he stubbornly persists in immoral conduct, he is to be expelled from and shunned by the community of believers — "With such a man do not even eat."2 To pursue this biblical procedure is to "judge" someone. Contrary to a popular misconception, Scripture does not teach a simple "judge not," but it forbids only inaccurate, superficial, and hypocritical judgment.3 In fact, our passage is one of many that requires Christians to judge people.
In this context, judgment demands both an evaluation of a person and a corresponding action against him. This helps us understand what Paul means when he says, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?…God will judge those outside" (v. 12-13). He does not mean that Christians must not evaluate the character and behavior of non-Christians — he just got through calling them immoral, greedy, swindlers, and idolaters (v. 9-10). In fact, he says that if we refuse to associate with all such people, even when they are unbelievers, then we will have to leave this world altogether (v. 10). The implication is not that it is good and harmless to associate with unbelievers, but that the world is full of these immoral people, so that it is impossible to completely avoid contact with them. Therefore, the passage does not teach against being "judgmental" at all — rather, it is one of the most judgmental passages in Scripture, requiring the Christian to acknowledge that the world is full of immoral unbelievers.
The passage says that we are not to "judge" those outside the church because to "judge" in this context means more than an evaluation of a person's doctrine and conduct, but it also includes the execution of disciplinary action against him that involves an entire body of believers. To "judge" someone in this context means to "Expel the wicked man from among you," but the non-Christian is not "among" us in the first place, so this kind of judgment does not apply. So this — corporate and official disciplinary action against unbelievers — is not the business of the church, but Paul adds, "God will judge those outside." On the other hand, when the context is such that "judgment" refers to an accurate and non-hypocritical evaluation of belief and conduct based on biblical revelation, then there is no doubt that Scripture requires us to "judge" every non-Christian (Romans 3:23). To deny this is to deny the whole spectrum of Christian doctrines, including the depravity of man and the necessity of redemption.
Our interest here is whether Christians should shun all immoral non-Christians. Paul gives a negative answer, but this comes within the above context and cannot be universally applied without discrimination or qualification. Also, what reason does he offer? And what does his explanation imply? Again, Paul states that it would be impossible to shun all immoral non-Christians, because all non-Christians are immoral people, and they are everywhere. The only way to avoid them is to leave this world. At least in this passage, he does not say that to shun non-Christians is morally wrong in itself — he states only that it is practically impossible to do so. And at least in this passage, he does not say that to associate with non-Christians is in itself a desirable thing, but only that it is a practical necessity. Therefore, based on this passage, one cannot assert that the opposite of not shunning non-Christians is to befriend them and to have intimate and meaningful relationships with them.
Of course there are other reasons to associate with unbelievers. Besides the practical impossibility of avoiding them completely in social and business transactions, God has commanded us to bear witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ before all people by our words and deeds, through which God will summon to faith those whom he has created and chosen for salvation, and harden those whom he has created and chosen for damnation. But nothing in the entire range of our activities before the world requires us to become intimate friends with unbelievers. And in fact, it would be a spiritual, intellectual, ethical, and practical impossibility to do so — again, unless either the Christian or the non-Christian compromises his deepest commitments, in which case either the Christian is no longer a Christian, or the non-Christian is no longer a non-Christian. Therefore, although it is indeed possible for a Christian to be on friendly terms with a non-Christian on a superficial level, an intimate and profound communion is completely out of the question.
NOTES
1 See Vincent Cheung, "The Problem of Evil."
2 Blessed is the man who knows even one church that obeys this biblical command. Is there among us someone who "calls himself a brother," but who is "sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler" (v. 11)? Is there anyone among us who calls himself a Christian, but who is a homosexual or an adulterer, or who is dishonest in his business, or who gets drunk? Scripture commands us to throw him out. I suggest that any church leader who refuses to teach and enforce this command should himself be thrown out of the church.
3 See Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount.
RECOMMENDED