The Church is More Like Its Persecutors Than Its Lord (Introduction to Preparing for the Underground Church, Part III)

Posted on January 24, 2017 by Pastor Foley

(Part III of VII of Pastor Foley’s introductory essay to Rev. Richard Wurmbrand’s Preparing for the Underground Church. To order a print or electronic copy of the bilingual Korean/English edition of Preparing for the Underground Church, including Pastor Foley’s introductory essay and a foreword by Voice of the Martyrs historian Merv Knight, visit Amazon or click here to visit the bookstore page on our website. For Part I of Pastor Foley’s introductory essay , click here.) 

Homosexuality and transgenderism are expressions of sexuality which Christians (rightly) identify as sin. But the sin of self-creation–the idea of the body as modeling clay shaped by us according to our wills and attractions–is one many Christians engage in daily without protest. As the Apostle Paul reminds us in Romans 2:3-4, God brings us to recognize sin not first so that we may judge it but rather so that we may recognize that same root at work in ourselves and earnestly repent of it, in full assurance of God’s forbearance and patience.

As Christians, we must become aware of how we ourselves treat our own bodies as blocks of clay. This is especially true for us in Korea, where plastic surgery—the epitome of treating the body as a block of clay to be shaped according to our desire to be desired—is so common that it is given as a graduation present to high school girls.

But there are far more prosaic forms of self-design that come from the same root, even going to the roots of our own hair. “Gray hair is a crown of splendor,” we are taught in Proverbs 16:31; “it is attained in the way of righteousness.” We are called to wear our age as a crown—a martyr’s crown testifying to a Christ-centered life given for others, in fact—but we hide our age in in an effort to portray vital energy. But the Bible does not call us to amaze and attract the world with the vital energy available to Christians. Instead, it calls us to soberly accept in our bodies the reality of death, not as something to be feared or avoided or denied, but as something to be remembered and meditated on daily so that our focus remains on the new creation, not the present one. As the Apostle Paul says, “We who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may also be revealed in our mortal body.”[1] Our Christian bodies, in other words, are not intended to serve as lifelong deceptive advertising for the vitality of this world. Instead, our appearance is designed to openly display that all human beings are mortal creatures whose confidence is not in the vitality of this world but in the vitality of the world to come.

The Bible is actually far more direct in its admonitions against displaying this-worldly vitality—through, for example, braided hair, gold, pearls, and expensive clothes[2]—than it is about gay marriage. But we pay almost no attention to these instructions, even though it is through following these that we learn to be faithful to the greater matters concerning the body. Thus we fail to see how these desires come from the same root as the sexual expressions that concern us far more. The great early Korean church father Kim Kyo Shin, upon discovering his daughter’s bottle of imported cold cream, smashed it against a rock in a rather vivid reminder of the importance of Christians seeking to adorn ourselves with good deeds rather than makeup. He challenged her, “Since the rock is covered with cream, do you see the natural appearance of the rock?”[3] It is hard to imagine that Kim Kyo Shin would not find many such things in our lives to smash against rocks today.

Even our contemporary understanding of Christian marriage draws its nourishment from the same root as gay marriage, based as it is on spiritual companionship, mutual fulfillment, and romantic love. But as Stephen Adubato notes, it is not the romance in marriage that mirrors the relationship between Christ and the church but rather the martyrdom:

[This is what] man and woman are called to do in their marriage: ultimately, to die to themselves, and become united to Christ through their spouse. In this sense, they are replicating the heroic act of the martyrs, who literally die for the sake of union with, and glorification of, Christ. Thus, perhaps in a less dramatic way, the married man and woman are giving witness to the fact that the value and meaning of their marriage, and of human life as a whole, belongs to Something other than themselves.[4]

Even children are molded from the clay of our individual design and desire today, rather than received when and as God gives. Sociologist Paul Yonnet explains:

[T]he essential giftedness of life has today become instead the product of human will: children are conceived, brought to term, and then given life in the world, according to schedules and means ordered by the parents, and not necessarily through the physical engagement of the biological mother and father of the child. Thus, to be a child is now legally defined by being “desired” rather than by being “given.”[5]

Children are birthed by our design into a society we Christians have had a hand in designing—here in Korea, a “seven give-up” society[6] where children grow up into increasingly insurmountable barriers to finding fruitful work, supporting themselves in marriage, or having a child, let alone several. It is no wonder that, blocked by the flaming swords of our own selfishness from even the consolations granted to us east of Eden, they consider as worthless and repressive the identities given by God and instead fashion themselves from the clay made of KPOP and Korean drama. The result is a birth rate so low that the Korean population decay to half its present size in the next hundred years, with even half of that remaining half over the age of 65.[7] Only Muslims, who still regard childbirth as sacred gift and duty, will be around to puzzle over the fruits of a society bent on the self-destruction of self-creation.

[1] 2 Cor. 4:11, NIV.

[2] “I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.” —1 Timothy 2:9-10, NIV.

[3] Recollections of Kim Kyo-Shin. http://www.biblekorea.net/articles/Recollection_of_Kyo-shin_Kim.doc, p. 200.

[4] Stephen Adubato, 2016. “A Revolutionary Attraction.” Homiletic and Pastoral Review. http://www.hprweb.com/2016/06/a-revolutionary-attraction/.

[5] Ephraim Radner, 2016. A Time to Keep: Theology, Mortality, and the Shape of a Human Life. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, Loc. 2291.

[6] Hyung-A Kim, 2015. “The seven-give-up generation: The crisis facing South Korea’s youth.” APPS Policy Forum. http://www.policyforum.net/the-seven-give-up-generation/.

[7] Yoon Ja-young, 2016. “Population to halve in 100 years.” Korea Times. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/common/vpage-pt.asp?categorycode=488&newsidx=219771.

Posted in gay marriage, marriage, marriage equality, persecution, Preparation, Rev. Richard Wurmbrand | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Why was it Necessary for Jesus to be Baptized?

Posted on January 20, 2017 by Editor

Matthew 3:13-17

Jesus tells John that his baptism is necessary to fulfill all righteousness. But what does Jesus mean by all righteousness? In the Bible, righteousness is all about setting things right—that is, fixing something that is broken. But what does Jesus’ baptism fix?

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. He made trees, chickens, and human beings. But God also made seeds, eggs, and babies. Life on earth is always in motion. An egg becomes a chick, and a chick becomes a hen. Movement is natural. When God says that human beings are “good,” God does not mean that human beings are complete.

Like seeds and eggs, human beings are constantly in motion. That motion is not only physical but also spiritual. At every moment, we are either advancing toward or regressing away from God. Adam and Eve were created in the image of God. They walked with God and they talked with God. But God did not live inside of them, and so they were not complete.

Why would a loving God create incomplete human beings? If human beings had been created complete, they would not have turned away from him! But a loving God does not force his presence into his creation. Because he is a good God, he waits to be invited into created beings. Human beings only become complete when they invite God to dwell within them.

Adam and Eve had the opportunity to become complete in the Garden of Eden. There was a tree in the garden called the Tree of Life. This tree was Christ. If human beings ate the fruit from this tree, God would live inside of them. But Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil instead. Because they ate from this tree, they set themselves permanently in motion away from God. The word for “moving away from God” in the Bible is ‘sin’.

We sin when we contemplate and partake of creation without simultaneously contemplating and partaking of the God who created it. Creation is not evil. When God looked over creation, he said it was good. This is why Christians teach that God’s character may be seen in the creation. But creation was designed as a place for communion with God, not as a substitute or replacement for that communion. Because human beings regard creation as a substitute or replacement for God, this is why Romans 8:22 says that all of creation is groaning. The place designed for communion with God has become a place of seclusion from God.

When our focus marginalizes or excludes God, we begin to rot. Acts 17:28 says that we live, move, and exist in God. We cannot live, move, or exist outside of God. When we move away from God, our lives lose purpose and no meaning. We begin to decay and disappear.

We are saved from nothingness by Jesus’ baptism.

Through his baptism, Jesus made it possible for human beings to invite God to dwell inside of them. How is this possible? Human beings have one nature: human nature. However, Jesus has two distinct, unmixed natures: he has a human nature and a divine nature.

Because Jesus is God, he is always in the presence of the Father and the Holy Spirit. But readers of the Bible are often confused when they read that the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus after his baptism and the Father’s voice says, “This is my beloved son in whom I am most pleased.” If Jesus is always in the presence of the Father and the Holy Spirit, how can this scene make sense?

Because Jesus is one of the three persons in the Trinity, he is never separate from the Father and the Holy Spirit. But when Jesus became a human being, he also takes on a human nature. This is important because all of human flesh can only be fixed if Jesus has a human nature that is not mixed with his divine nature.

John tells Jesus, “You do not need to be baptized,” because as God Jesus does not need to be baptized. Jesus’ nature as God is already complete.

But Jesus also has a human nature, and this human nature is just like ours except without sin. Jesus takes that human nature to the Cross, laying it down unto death as a sacrifice for our sins. This is what is revealed in his baptism, as he goes down into the waters of death and is raised up to new life, where human beings can become indwelled by the Holy Spirit. In other words, Jesus is not being baptized for himself. He is being baptized so that every human being can become fixed.

Through baptism, the Holy Spirit rests on Jesus’ human nature, which becomes our nature, too, when we are baptized into his death and resurrection. The Holy Spirit can then rest on us also. We human beings who through sin became to focus only on the visible creation have now had our focus lifted up again to the heavens. Our creation as human beings is completed through our indwelling fellowship with God the Trinity.

When we are baptized, we are imitating Christ who not only showed us the way but who is himself the way. Baptism is a change in spiritual motion: instead of moving away from God, we return to him. Through Baptism, our human nature is rescued and restored from the decay of sin. When we ascend from the waters of baptism, we do not abandon our body. We do not become spirits. Instead, God lives within us. His presence begins to change even our physical body.

Never forget the glorious victory Christ has won through your baptism. And never think of it only in terms of the past or the future. Christ lives and reigns in your body now. The Holy Spirit rests upon your body now. The Father’s voice speaks to your body now. Forevermore, God lives within your body.

And it is very good.

To watch other Voice of the Martyrs videos, visit the Voice of the Martyrs Video Page!

Posted in Lectionary Year A | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How the Church’s Mere Existence is Cast as Oppressive (Introduction to Preparing for the Underground Church, Part II)

Posted on January 10, 2017 by Pastor Foley

(Part II of VII of Pastor Foley’s introductory essay to Rev. Richard Wurmbrand’s Preparing for the Underground Church. To order a print or electronic copy of the bilingual Korean/English edition of Preparing for the Underground Church, including Pastor Foley’s introductory essay and a foreword by Voice of the Martyrs historian Merv Knight, visit Amazon or click here to visit the bookstore page on our website. For Part I of Pastor Foley’s introductory essay , click here.) 

 

Even in the midst of today’s emerging skirmishes between Christianity and the sexual revolution, it is still hard for many Christians in the free world to grasp that our churches could be driven underground simply because our views on sex differ from the society at large. Yet as early as 80 years ago many enemies of the church were each drawing exactly this conclusion: only sex, not socialism, could destroy Christianity. As the French Surrealists wrote in their manifesto, “The decisive battle against Christianity could be fought only at the level of the sexual revolution.”[1]

But why is the sexual revolution the one revolution capable of a decisive battle against the church in the free world? It is because differences in sexual ethics go much deeper than questions about economics or politics. They go to the heart of our understanding about God and human beings. Christianity does not need a particular political or economic system in order for it to function. But it does require a particular understanding of sex. As John Rist puts it, human history is always “conflict between a monotheistic God and a race of men inclined to will their absolute autonomy.”[2] Sex either humbly and faithfully serves God’s purposes, or it accords humans the most arrogant, virulent autonomy.

Sex’s alliance with science and with atheism was its declaration of independence. During the Enlightenment, science narrowed its domain of inquiry to “empirically verifiable facts.”[3] No longer would science consider the teleological cause (that is, the final end or purpose) for which God made a thing. In fact, no longer would science consider God at all, since God is not an “empirically verifiable fact.” This gave rise in short order to the philosophy of scientism, which asserted that not only would God not be considered in science, science—in order to be faithful to the full extension of its principles—must assert that “nothing exists apart from empirically verifiable facts, nothing at all.”[4] When sex is studied in this way, as it was most famously first by the Marquis de Sade and then later by Wilhelm Reich, then sex can’t be for procreation. In fact, according to scientism, sex can’t be for anything.  When science examines sex in this way, as Augusto del Noce notes with concern, “all that is left is vital energy.”[5] Any restraint on that vital energy must be regarded as “repressive.”[6] As Stephen Adubato notes, that “discovery” cast the church decisively in the role of oppressor:

A largely “puritanical” moral worldview was accused of having reduced the human person’s horizon of freedom and fulfillment…. Supported by scientific and psychological evidence that aimed to prove that sexual repression caused damage to the human person, they defended a “free” expression of sexuality that rejected any moral implications: “sexuality is a pleasurable experience and nothing but that… The therapeutic task consisted in changing the neurotic character into a genital character, and in replacing moral regulation by self-regulation.” The Sexual Revolution was preparing to ring in a new era of utopia.[7]

Just as the communist revolution called workers to join in the “struggle against repression” at the hands of their capitalist oppressors, now the sexual revolution calls all people to join in the “struggle against repression” at the hands of their sexual oppressors, the church.[8] Peter Leithart says that the battle cry of the sexual revolution is, “Any limit on our drives is an assault on our dignity. Sexual inhibitions are unnatural, every prohibition a threat to human freedom”:

Sexual revolutionaries thus turn sexual morality upside down. Earlier ideals like modesty, purity, and restraint are now seen as repressive and abnormal. The category of “sexual perversion” must be eliminated. Behind this is the anti-teleology of the new sexual metaphysics: Sex best expresses its essence when it has no goal (e.g., procreation) beyond itself, and so “homosexual expressions, either masculine or feminine, should be regarded as the purest form of love.”[9]

When sex is shorn of (or as scientism would contend, liberated from) any goal, then its physical and emotional aspects—which have historically been “but a tiny part of what we in fact experience as our sexual beings and meanings”[10]—become our experience of sex in total. And since sex is the “vital energy” at the center of the person, the physical and emotional experiences of sexuality become the locus of personal identity. In an act of liberation from the church’s sexual repression, the sexual revolutionary is encouraged to “self-identify” with the physical and emotional characteristics they experience most strongly or attractively. The body becomes “modeling clay,” “raw material at the service of our wills.”[11]

[1] Matthew Hanley. 2016. “Modernity as Metaphysical Collapse.” The Catholic Thing. https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/07/28/modernity-as-metaphysical-collapse/. Emphasis in the original.

[2] John M. Rist, 2014. Augustine Deformed: Love, Sin, and Freedom in the Western Moral Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 10.

[3] Michael Cook, 2016. “Why Did the Sexual Revolution Happen?” Intellectual Takeout. http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/why-did-sexual-revolution-happen.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Peter Leithart, 2015. “Sex and Tradition.” First Things. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/10/sex-and-tradition.

[6] Stephen Adubato, 2016. “A Revolutionary Attraction.” Homiletic and Pastoral Review. http://www.hprweb.com/2016/06/a-revolutionary-attraction/.

[7] Adubato, 2016.

[8] Michael Cook, 2016.

[9] Peter Leithart, 2015. “Sex and Tradition.” First Things. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/10/sex-and-tradition.

[10] “It is the ordering of our entire life spans that in fact and properly defines our sexuality in the

sense of ‘setting it up’ and providing the constraints and channels for sexuality’s enactment.” Ephraim Radner. 2016. A Time to Keep: Theology, Mortality, and the Shape of a Human Life. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, Loc. 979.

[11] Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., 2016. “Address at Brigham Young University: Awakenings: Living as a Believer in the Nation We Have Now.” Archdiocese of Philadelphia. http://archphila.org/address-at-brigham-young-university-awakenings-living-as-a-believer-in-the-nation-we-have-now-2/#_ednref4.

Posted in persecution, Preparation, Rev. Richard Wurmbrand | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment