Guns And Athenagoras: Inverting The Order (part six)

Quoting from:

http://www.npr.org/2014/03/10/287311237/kentucky-southern-baptists-draw-crowds-with-gun-giveaways

That article provides an example of a church appealing to people's self-empowerment drives, and calling it evangelism. 

It's an hour before suppertime, and the line outside Lone Oak First Baptist Church in Paducah, Ky., is wrapped around the building. The people are waiting for more than a Bible sermon; there's a raffle tonight. Twenty-five guns are up for grabs.

There's nothing new about gun raffles in Kentucky, even at a church. Last year, there were 50 events like this one in the state. The Kentucky Baptist Convention says it's a surefire way to get new people through church doors....

In attendance is Tom Jackson, who's not a particularly regular churchgoer. "I do believe in God and I do believe in living the way that he wants you to live, let's put it like that," he says.

Jackson says he believes in turning the other cheek, but also in the right to defend himself and his family how he sees fit. You can turn the other cheek, he says, only to a point.

"[If] somebody kicks your door down, means to hurt your wife, your kids, you — how do you turn the other cheek to that?" Jackson asks.

"Turn the other cheek, only to a point."  I don't recall that being the theme of Christlike response to abuse and threats.  And back when Judas led to Gethsemane the Roman soldiers who kicked down the door with intent to hurt Jesus, the one man who fought back was rebuked by Jesus.

The early churches, who faced real kick-the-door-in mobs as well as hateful magistrates and emperors, provide us with a refreshingly different but very difficult answer to Jackson’s question, “How do you turn the other cheek to that?”

Let’s return to the Epistle of Diognetus for help first, then I will introduce a new early church writer.

Christians are in the flesh, but they do not live according to the flesh [so much for shooting people]. They live on earth, but their citizenship is in heaven [if they don’t take up arms for Lord Jesus (do medieval crusaders get some exemption?), why would they take up arms for Lord Caesar?]… They love everyone, and by everyone they are persecuted [they don’t shoot them].  They are unknown, yet they are condemned; they are put to death [they don’t shoot back], yet they are brought to life…  They are dishonored, yet they are glorified in their dishonor [glorified by God, not by Smith and Wesson].  They are cursed, yet they bless; they are insulted, yet they offer respect [they don’t get even].  For doing good, they are treated like evildoers [they don’t pull the trigger]….  Epistle to Diognetus 5:9-16a

The author then moves into a lengthy analogy, which I think is very relevant to provide:

In a word, what the soul is to the body, Christians are to the world. The soul is dispersed through all the members of the body, and Christians throughout the cities of the world. The soul dwells in the body, but is not of the body; likewise Christians dwell in the world, but are not of the world. The soul, which is invisible, is confined in the body which is visible; in the same way, Christians are recognized as being in the world, and yet their religion remains invisible. The flesh hates the soul and wages war against it (even though it has suffered no wrong) because it is hindered from indulging in its pleasures; so also, the world hates the Christians (even though it has suffered no wrong) because they set themselves against its pleasures. The soul loves the flesh that hates it, and Christians love those who hate them [love is not expressed with gunfire]…. The soul, which is immortal, lives in a mortal dwelling; similarly Christians live as strangers amid perishable things, while waiting for the imperishable in heaven. The soul, when poorly treated with respect to food and drink, becomes all the better; and so the Christians when punished daily [by someone kicking in the door looking to cause harm] increase more and more. Such is the important position to which God has appointed them, and it is not right for them to decline it [it is not right for them to shoot].  Epistle to Diognetus 6

The entire feel, theme, intent, and message of the preceding words flies in the face of the idea that we turn the other cheek only to a point.

The new writer I will introduce is Athenagoras, who wrote Plea On Behalf of the Christians to the emperor around 177 AD.  After commending the emperor for allowing the multitude of religions in the empire (yet 200 years later Christians revoked that openness toward the others), he turns to making a plea for equal openness toward Christianity:

While admiring your mildness and gentleness and your peaceful and benevolent attitude towards all, everyone enjoys equal rights; and the cities, according to their rank, share in equal honor; and, through your wisdom, the whole empire enjoys profound peace.

But you have not cared for us who are called Christians in this way; and although we commit no wrong, but as it will be shown in this discourse we are of all people most piously and righteously disposed toward God and your reign, you allow us to be harassed, plundered, and persecuted – the mob making war upon us only because of our name….

The injury we suffer from our persecutors is not aimed merely at our money, or our civil rights, or our honor, or anything of less importance – after all, we hold these things in contempt (although they appear of great importance to the masses), for we have learned not only not to return blow for blow, or to bring to court those who plunder and rob us, but to those who strike us on the one cheek to offer the other, and to those who take away our shirt to give also our coat – for when we have given up our property, they plot against our very bodies and souls….  Plea On Behalf of the Christians 1:2b-4

These statements from among the great cloud of witnesses point so clearly to Christlikeness.

Compare them with the words of the main speaker at the gun raffle evangelism show:

"I brought a gun with me tonight," McAlister says. "I know that's very controversial."

...And he welcomes the controversy; the best seats in the house are reserved for reporters. On stage, he cocks what he calls his most valuable gun.

"There's no government on the face of this earth that has the right to take this gun from me," he says to thunderous applause.

The closing line of the article quotes the speaker's own justification of his message:

"If simply offering them an opportunity to win a gun allows them to come into the doors of the church and to hear that the church has a message that's relevant to their lives, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that," he says.

Your “relevant” message would have no relevance at all to a persecuted church, like those who lived and died the Christlike way 1900 years ago.  Your message feeds the virus of self-empowerment.

Does Mark X the Spot?

Mark 16:18  ...they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them...

News spread several days ago that the "reality TV star" of a show about snake-handlers had died after being bitten by a snake during a religious meeting.  We looked up a few news videos about the fellow; he had been bitten several times in the past, and even lost a portion of a finger due to a snake bite.  He never sought treatment for the finger as it rotted on his hand, nor when it had finally broke off.  His wife insisted on keeping the finger chunk, and it was displayed proudly on camera to the reporter.

It reminded me of a quote from a preacher who was very influential to me early in my adulthood.  He would say, "You can take the Word of God and preach yourself."  Meaning:  using the Bible, a preacher can exalt himself and not God.  Such is epidemic these days, as selfish ambition and pride are at the root of many hearts.  It is not limited to snake handlers.  For my own purposes, I have labelled such things rather broadly by the term "self-empowerment."  Self-empowerment is an antonym of martyr cross racing, and I plan to blog a series of thoughts on it in the not too distant future.

But today, I want to point out that it is a fact, though not overly expressed in churches, that the oldest Greek manuscripts of Mark do not contain 16:9-20.  And further, the ending contained in verses 9-20 is not the only competing ending to Mark;  there are other different and somewhat shorter endings that are known to exist.  None of them have a strong case for being original.  In fact, it may be that 16:8 really is the final verse of Mark as originally written.  The Gospel of Mark has a theme known as "The Messianic Secret," mainly because Jesus is so often shushing people about his identity throughout the Gospel of Mark.  Ending his gospel with an empty tomb may have been Mark's stylistic intent; we just do not know for sure.  Possibly, as later scribes copied the gospel of Mark, and being confused that their source did not feature a post-resurrection appearance, a few scribes may have uniquely and individually scribbled in different conclusions to round out Mark to make it similar to the other three gospels.

Given that situation, why would a scribe include a line about taking up snakes and drinking poison?  I am suggesting two stories that would yield those scribal interpolations.

First, there is the account in Acts of Paul being bitten by a poisonous snake while assembling firewood, but being unharmed.  Notably, Acts does not mention that what had happened to Paul was a fulfillment of Jesus' words; therefore, it is possible that the story about Paul became the source of a later scribal interpolation to conclude Mark, namely, 16:9-20.

Secondly, among the Apostolic Fathers is a fellow named Papias, who lived roughly from 70-150 A.D.  He apparently wrote a five volume work on the sayings of Jesus that has since been lost to us, except for parts quoted by later ancient Christians. One such writer who quoted Papias was Eusebius, the church historian from the era of Constantine. Eusebius wrote:

"That Philip the apostle resided in Hierapolis with his daughters has already been stated, but now it must be pointed out that Papias, their [the daughters'] contemporary, recalls that he heard an amazing story from Philip's daughters. For he reports that in his day a man rose from the dead, and again another amazing story involving Justus, who was surnamed Barsabbas, who drank a deadly poison and yet by the grace of God suffered nothing unpleasant."

Notably again, there is no mention from Papias that this occasion fulfilled any words of Christ. Thus it is possible that this story in Papias' books was an inspiration for a later scribal interpolation known today as Mark 16:9-20.

What is further striking is that both the occasion of Paul being bitten, and the occasion of Justus swallowing poison, are accidental occasions.  It was not Justus' intent to drink poison, but miraculously by the grace of God he wasn't harmed.  It was a one time thing, just like Paul being bitten while assembling fire wood. If intentionally handling snakes and drinking poisons was normative and routine worship in the apostolic churches, Papias would not write about an "amazing story" handed down by word of mouth about how surviving poison graciously happened to one guy one time. 

Therefore, since these two stories are closely related to Mark 16:18, and both of these stories are about accidental, one-time occurrences, then the actions of intentionally and routinely handling snakes and drinking poisons in religious meetings -- and refusing medical care upon being bitten or overdosing -- is not even fairly defended by Mark 16:18.  It is much more akin to jumping from the pinnacle of the temple:  putting the Lord your God to the test.  The devil suggests that doing so will help your ministry grow and bring glory to God.  Jesus counters that it is a sin. 

Acts, Papias, and Mark together "X" out that interpretation, whether 16:9-20 is a scribal interpolation or not.  What we have instead, then, with snake-handling, is a drive for self-empowerment: taking the word of God and exalting yourself.

Don't get smug; "biblical" self-empowerment is expressed by you and me too.  Martyr cross racing is about putting it to death.

Aborting an Abortion: A Martyr's Life

There is a certain blog I occasionally visit because it is sometimes good, sometimes troubling, and always very honest.

A few years ago, I was troubled by one post and its subsequent discussions. Seems a seasoned, well-known mega-pastor in the western U.S. took a call on his radio program from a young woman seeking advice on going through with an abortion. She was carrying conjoined twins who shared the same body but had two heads. The doctors had advised abortion because of the high risk of complications and because such children rarely live for more than a day outside the womb. After hearing the situation, the pastor assured the woman that if she were to choose abortion the Lord would not condemn her. Something of an online war ensued about the pastor's counsel.

Some commenters on that particular blog thread claimed "This abortion can be justified using the self-defense argument," while others made strict pro-life arguments that condemned the woman and pastor, while still others had nothing more to say than "The Bible is silent here."

One pastor commenting in the discussion thread wrote something like, "Given the difficulty of her plight, I have no specific Biblical counsel to offer her." But he went far enough to say that if she were in his congregation, he promised "love and compassion" and he wouldn't permit anyone to condemn her for having an abortion. When I read that, I felt that he was probably using the term "condemn" with little if any differentiation from "rebuke" and "reprove." I marvel that the notions of Biblical rebuke and reproof are often presented as the opposites of love and compassion. Yes, we all know that church can be notorious for self-righteous judges and prideful condemnations. But this commenter was a pastor who would have nothing to do with loving her enough to rebuke and reprove her in Christ. Much more needs to be done to correct the "fire-at-will" crowd than to command a congregation to say nothing at all in opposition to her choice. But that issue is not what I am treating here. (But for future reference, that same pastor in the comments section is known to have a particular doctrinal affinity for theologian Ben Witherington, whom I plan to quote in a future post).

Back on topic, I think the comments in that discussion are partly a symptom of our overt short-sightedness as a whole. Part of what helped me to see it that way were some statements I read a short time later in William Gurnall's devotional, "The Christian in Complete Armor." For example:

Temptation is never stronger than when relief seems to dress itself in the very sin that Satan is suggesting.  [As in "abort the twins" or "eat the pork" or "curse the name"?]

And again,

 Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Of all his plots, this is perhaps the most dangerous to the saints, when he appears in the mantle of a prophet and silver-plates his corroded tongue with fair-sounding language. In this manner, he corrupts some in their judgment by interpreting gospel truth in such a way that God appears to condone questionable behavior. These Christians get caught up in the world's morality under the disguise of Christian liberty....  How we need to study the Scriptures, our hearts, and Satan's wiles, that we may not bid this enemy welcome and all the while think it is Christ who is our guest!  [Christ has no rebuke of your abortion. Your circumstances exempt you. Divine justice will excuse you for fearing the doctor when you are under compulsion (4 Maccabees 8:22).]

And again,

Some martyrs have confessed that their hardest work was to overcome the prayers and tears of their friends and relatives. Paul himself expressed those same feelings when he said, "What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? For I am ready, not to be bound only but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus!"  [I am ready, not only to live destitute for this child, but also to die in the hospital for him as a demonstration of the grace of the Lord Jesus!]

What I saw was that the twins' mom wasn't thinking, "Dying (figuratively or literally) for these twins is the most Christlike and God-rewardable thing I can do, as a testimony to the greatness of the name of Him whose love compels me."  The commenters on that blog weren't thinking this way either. And I don't think this way either.  That must change!

Can you, can I, can the twins' mom say,

"O Lord God Almighty, I bless You because You have considered me worthy of this needy child by whom I will likely be exhausted of everything I am and have, so that I might receive a place of 'martyrdom' in the cup of Your Christ"?

Or say,

"God has judged me worthy to be found with this child. It is good to be setting from this world to God, in order that I may rise to Him"?

Or say,

"I know that many have lived destitute lives so that they might ransom others. I will do so for my baby"?

If God works all things together for the good of His people, and if He works all of our weakenings together for our strength, then all things should be viewed as happening for our faith. And suffering with faith is suffering for your faith:  a daily martyrdom grounded in loyal adoration of our sovereign God, even in the bitter providences. Especially in the bitter providences. Call it a martyr's life.