DeYoung, Wilson, & Biblical Rhetoric

The current debate between Kevin DeYoung and Doug Wilson provides ample opportunity for Christians to consider the subject of rhetoric. 

On November 27, DeYoung published an essay critiquing Wilson and Moscow on his site Clearly Reformed. In short, DeYoung’s critique is that Wilson’s approach, and Moscow’s approach after him, is too sarcastic, too inconsiderate of other Christians, too focused on the cultural zeitgeist, too egotistic, too combative, and too vulgar. At best, Wilson’s error is an error of degree, and his emphases are simply out of balance; he should talk about certain things less and certain things more, and he should talk a certain way less and a certain way more. At worst, Wilson’s error is an error of kind. In other words, there are certain emphases he has that he shouldn’t have, and there are certain things he says that he shouldn’t say. 

On December 4, Wilson published a response to DeYoung’s essay on his site DougWils. In short, Wilson’s response is that the fruit of the Moscow approach is significantly good and blessed, that it’s not prudent to focus on one’s reputation, that the Moscow side has given many invitations to cooperate with other Christians, that influential evangelical organizations aren’t so evangelical anymore, that his and Canon Press’s emphases have been right on point, and that all (or almost all) of his uses of sarcasm and strong language have been defensible and necessary.

It was not my original intention to wait these several months to publish this essay. However, I think I’ve benefited from the time I’ve had to think about these issues and learn from reading and study I’ve done elsewhere. I hope my analysis and argument proves to be helpful and persuasive.

Offline Fruit vs. Online Fruit

I think an important distinction needs to be made in this discussion, and this is the distinction between offline fruit and online fruit. Offline fruit would be the good works and Christlike attitude that Wilson, Rigney, Longshore, and others perceive in their families, friendships, and churches. Online fruit would be the good works and Christlike attitude (or lack thereof) from fans of Moscow that those on social media more readily perceive. I would argue that Wilson and DeYoung talk past each other a bit because this distinction was not clearly made.

Wilson and his friends see clear gospel fruit from their ministry, which DeYoung notes: “Wilson has a family that loves him and loves Christ.” So they’re confused when DeYoung talks about his concerns with the long-term effects of the Moscow Mood: “My bigger concern is with the long-term spiritual effects of admiring and imitating the Moscow mood. For the mood that attracts people to Moscow is too often incompatible with Christian virtue, inconsiderate of other Christians, and ultimately inconsistent with the stated aims of Wilson’s Christendom Project.” But there’s nothing to be confused about. In the first instance, DeYoung lauds the practical, offline fruit of Moscow. In the second instance, DeYoung questions the virtual, online fruit of Moscow. 

Longshore argues that DeYoung is clearly wrong about the spiritual health of Moscow: “Kevin could not be more wrong about his supposed detrimental and long-term spiritual effects of the Moscow mood.” He later says, “It has had good spiritual effects for some time and it looks to be on a trajectory to continue to bear some great long-term spiritual fruit.” Jared delineates some of this fruit: singing the Psalms, reading the Bible, prayer meetings, as well as good mirth and cheer. Wilson concurs: “For any reasonable person who has spent any time here in Moscow, or who knows anything at all about us, it is evident that many remarkable blessings are taking shape here.” But this reply misses the point because Jared and Kevin are not talking about the same thing. Kevin is emphasizing the vices of online Moscow, while Jared is emphasizing the virtues of offline Moscow. And I don’t think either of them is being deceptive or disingenuous. I believe Jared when he says that there’s a lot of good fruit from their ministry. And I believe Kevin when he says that the online reputation of Moscow is concerning.

Parkison also finds the online Moscow sphere concerning: Moscow has “a tendency to aggravate a hyper-critical judgment on all things woke: a messaging that might be crudely summarized as, You’re right: all your leaders have failed you and it’s time to start burning bridges. Come hang with us and those like us.” There seems to be great practical fruit locally in Moscow, but online Moscow seems to have a bit of rot in their fruit. Parkison continues, “The ‘Moscow Mood’ online certainly appeared to be marked by a delight in scorning. Rigney and others may counter that they are merely mocking evil, but the thing I’m describing – the immature trolling and constant snarky put downs – appears to me to be less like Elijah laughing at the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:20-40), and more like offering a seat to scoffers (Ps 1:1).” Parkison further notes a degree of ungracious, vicious trolling in the online Moscow sphere. 

Murray Campbell, in his response to this debate, explicitly shows this trolling. Karen S Prior (a progressive Christian) tweeted “Thanks for speaking up,” in response to DeYoung’s essay. Some of the responses of Moscow fans included:

• “Jezebel herself gives this article the stamp of approval @RevKevDeyoung, congrats.”

• “Oh look it’s the slander who stabbed Tom Buck and his wife in the back. Repent and shut up lady.”

• “Do you still endorse the Revoice conference? I’d love it if you spoke up on their dangerous errors.”

• “I’m a Presbyterian from Indiana. So was Jim Jones – another showman. Do I expect mass suicide from Wilson? No. Violence directed outward? Perhaps. This article is erudite pundrity that fails to acknowledge current harm and potential danger.”

• “Hey @RevKevDeYoung, when this apostate praises you, you should really do some reflection.” 

Campbell rightfully points out that responses like this simply prove DeYoung’s point and demonstrate that his concern is justified.

Generally speaking, then, while I have no doubts about the good fruit in the local community of Moscow, the fruit in the online community is mixed at best. The adversarial stance and frequent trolling of Moscow appears to unhelpfully encourage a lot of people, particularly young men, to embrace an unforgiving, irreverent attitude.

Sarcasm

One of the main points of contention between DeYoung’s side and Wilson’s side is the proper use of sarcasm. Both sides acknowledge that Scripture employs a sarcastic tone sometimes, and both sides agree that sarcasm can be used by Christians in some contexts. But it is clear that the Moscow side employs this tool much more liberally than DeYoung would advise.

What’s DeYoung’s case? In his essay, he argues that the 2023 No Quarter November promo video is a good example of what he finds concerning and also a good encapsulation of the Moscow Mood. As a quick summary, NQN is designed to be a period in which Doug Wilson writes directly and forcefully, with little to no qualification. Wilson lays out his complete opinions on the culture with no reservations. DeYoung says that this video “strikes a tone that is deliberately sarcastic and just a little bit naughty.” But he doesn’t think this tone is unique to NQN. DeYoung argues that the sarcastic tone is a mainstay in Doug’s blog, and elsewhere in Moscow: “And with so many of Wilson’s videos and blogs, what he’s winning an audience with is a spirit of derision, cavalier repartee, and the drinking down of liberal tears.” DeYoung also notes that there seems to be a tension, if not a contradiction, between the seriousness of the matters Wilson writes about and the tone Wilson uses when writing about them: “Wilson wants us to believe that the stakes could not be higher … At the same time, Wilson’s online persona is almost always Wodehousian fun and games.”

DeYoung makes clear that sarcasm can be used well: “Sarcasm can be a holy weapon in the Lord’s army.” But he thinks it should not be used frequently: “But sarcasm and satire by the minister are best used sparingly and against those whose hearts are set against the truth. But Wilson makes fun of those who could be allies and loves to troll people who disagree with him.” DeYoung asserts that, while he knows Wilson can strike a “wise, gracious, resolute” tone, it doesn’t appear that Wilson wants to primarily use a tone like this.

Toby Sumpter’s response to this is that a readily sarcastic spirit is necessary for a healthy ‘biblical immune system.’ “I mean that the Moscow Mood of not giving up, not giving in, and determining to fight for a Christ-honoring culture is strategic and necessary because it is central to a healthy and thriving biblical immune system.” For Sumpter, an irreverent wit is part of our Christian toolkit: “And too irreverent? If only we could topple more idols. If only we had more sarcasm for the Goliaths that taunt the armies of the living God.”

The concept of an immune system is important to Sumpter. This is partly because he thinks the absence of such an immune system leads to doctrinal defection in universities and churches: “But after a hundred years of losing our denominations, colleges, and seminaries, you’d think some folks might realize that what we’ve been doing hasn’t worked.” Related to this is the predominant tone and style of Doug Wilson. By his own admission, Wilson is known as a more acerbic and spicy voice than your R C Sproul, Mark Dever, or Paul Washer. But Sumpter thinks Wilson’s voice is exactly what we need: “DeYoung suggests that Wilson be more like Al Mohler … But Al Mohler, for all the wonderful good he has done (and there is a great deal to praise), has not kept the woke virus out of Southern and he submitted to the worldly zeitgeist of face masks.”

For Joe Rigney, satire is both an appeal to reality and a form of rebuke: “At one level, satire is an appeal to reality over against the absurdities of sin and rebellion. It often appeals to those who live amidst corruption and hypocrisy, while provoking those who practice them. But satire is also a form of rebuke and admonition, deployed to correct and reprove someone when they’re heading down a sinful or foolish path.” Sarcasm can be used with varying levels of severity: “Like other forms of rebuke, it operates on a dimmer switch: light rebuke … heavy rebuke … heaviest rebuke.” Moreover, like Sumpter, Rigney points to the value of an immune system: “Could it be that the satirical element in the Moscow Mood is part of a healthy immune system, preventing certain respectable kinds of ideological rot from ever taking root?”

Regarding sarcasm, Rigney asserts that “outside of Moscow and the Babylon Bee, I can’t think of anyone attempting to deploy that kind of biblical speech in confronting worldliness and rebellion.” Rigney critiques DeYoung because the latter gives off the impression that there is little to no place for sarcasm in the sphere of biblical speech. He asks the rhetorical question here: “What’s the right ratio, and how do we know?” He notes that, given the many words that Moscow has written over the years, sarcasm makes up only a small portion of them.

I think DeYoung is right here. Sarcasm is used in Scripture from time to time: it’s used by God in his rebuke of Job (Job 38), by Elijah against the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:27), by Micaiah against Ahab (1 Kings 22:15), and by Isaiah against Israel (Isaiah 1:10, 6:9-10) – and these aren’t the only examples. However, to be honest, I think sarcasm’s primary use is comedy, not rebuke. For this reason, I usually find the No Quarter November videos to be funny and entertaining because of their combination of quality production and over-the-top style. The NQN videos themselves don’t bother me, but the fact that this style and tone figure prominently in other areas of Moscow’s material is cause for concern. In other words, the use of sarcasm is disproportionate; there’s too much of one flavor in Moscow.

Moreover, I disagree with Sumpter regarding the value of sarcasm for a biblical immune system. Obviously, I think it’s important that Christians guard against error, wickedness, and hard-heartedness, but I don’t think the use of sarcasm is necessary for this task. Sarcasm is a delightful gift from God and I feel bad for those who don’t get to enjoy the comedic fruits of it, but surely a lack of satirical wit doesn’t inhibit sanctification. If the use of sarcasm is necessary for a biblical immune system, and an immune system is necessary for holiness and sanctification, then sarcasm starts to become pretty important. However, if the tool of sarcasm is truly this important, then why don’t Jesus or Paul have any commands pertaining to sarcasm? Jesus and Paul use sarcasm occasionally, but they don’t command the use of it.

Combativeness & Mockery

Another concern DeYoung has regarding Wilson (and Moscow) is the fairly persistent use of combative language: “The strategy is not to link arms with other networks, but to punch hard and punch often … And that means always meming his critics, always tweaking his opponents, and never (that I’ve seen) cultivating a broken-hearted and courageous contrition for the remaining sinfulness in our own hearts.” He continues later in the essay: “And with so many of Wilson’s videos and blogs, what he’s winning an audience with is a spirit of derision, cavalier repartee, and the drinking down of liberal tears.”

Toby Sumpter clearly expresses the need for combativeness: “We sing Psalms in four part harmonies while we mock the prophets of Baal and the schoolmarm Pharisees of our day, just like Jesus did and all of the faithful prophets.” Just as Sumpter says we’re not irrevent and sarcastic enough, we’re also not combative enough: “Sure, we must not be jerks; and the fruit of the Spirit must be vibrant in all that we do and say. But I’m sorry: too pugnacious when the forces of globalistic sexual fascism are surrounding us and gunning for our children? No, if anything, we are not pugnacious enough.” For Sumpter, we are past the time for more diplomatic measures: “Of course there is a kind of callousness that is utterly unchristian, but when the Titanic is sinking, this is not time for niceties and platitudes.” Furthermore, Christians, at least in this time and place, should have a wartime mindset: “It is strategically necessary and biblically necessary for our children and our children’s children, that we might not forget how to war (Jdg 3:2).”

Joe Rigney argues that there are several legitimate rhetorical devices (which, according to him, DeYoung conflates) that Christians can use: “writing with Chestertonian joy and Wodehousian verve, playfully mocking other Christians through memes, derisively mocking the folly and compromise of Christian leaders, shockingly indicting sin and idolatry through carefully employed obscenities and vulgarities.” Rigney maintains that an insult like “Wokey McWokeface” is legitimate in the same way Elijah’s mockery of the prophets of Baal is legitimate.

Samuel Parkison maintains that Moscow is brash and combative, and they know it: “When the Canon Press twitter account exists almost solely to troll others, or when your promotional material begins with ‘Hey, Wokey McWokeface,’ you are not allowed to plead innocent and say, ‘We’re not trying to be known as pugnacious – that’s the label we’ve been given and we can’t control what we’re known for.’” According to Parkison, this disposition indulges in a form of worldliness: “It’s not ‘worldly’ in the sense that it is trying to get accolades from the world; it’s ‘worldly’ in the sense that it appeals to a worldly, carnal, and vicious delight in scoffing.” Moreover, it doesn’t seem that the Moscow tribe ever thinks they’ve mocked and derided too much: “Is it genuinely possible (not just ‘theoretically so’) for the Moscow tribe and its spokespeople to actually cross a real line into sinful sneering? If so, when has that ever happened or been acknowledged?”

Murray Campbell makes the case, rightfully so, that a combative spirit should not be the norm, and it shouldn’t be what we’re known for: “If Jesus overturned tables and made a whip that’s what we’re going to do. If Jesus can call Pharisees ‘vipers,’ then let’s make sure we stick that in our rhetorical rifle and fire off a round every day. After all, if we do it often enough we will aim true at some point. Friend, not every word is meant to sound as though we’re Elijah or Ezekiel in their boldest moments.” Though there are occasions for anger and severity, Campbell argues that “surely this cannot be our only sustained note in public. We musn’t gather around rage and all we find problematic, but around the Gospel of grace.”

As with sarcasm, DeYoung is right when it comes to mockery and combativeness. These tools are disproportionately used by Wilson and the Moscow crowd. As I’ve argued before, mockery should rarely be used by Christians because mockery is usually sinful. Mockery almost always has a negative connotation in Scripture: “How happy is the one who does not walk in the advice of the wicked or stand in the pathway with sinners or sit in the company of mockers!” (Psalm 1:1; see my previous essay on this). Mockery usually goes hand in hand with blasphemy, rebellion, scorn, malice, arrogance, and foolishness. Examples from Elijah or Jesus are exceptions to the rule. 

One thing I find frustrating with the Moscow crowd is the apparent lack of acknowledgement that Elijah’s or Jesus’ use of mockery is exceptional. We have to remember who they were mocking. Elijah mocked hundreds of demon worshipers while they prayed to their god in the context of a dramatic confrontation between God and Baal. Furthermore, after God sent fire down on Elijah’s altar, Elijah himself executed all the prophets of Baal. This is clearly a unique case. Before we mock like Elijah did, we should pause and consider whether the stakes in our situation are anywhere close to what they were in 1 Kings 18.

The case of Jesus’ woes in Matthew 23 is similarly unique. Jesus pronounces woes on false, hypocritical teachers (the scribes and Pharisees) who are full of self-righteousness, arrogance, greed, self-indulgence, and more. And these same teachers lead others astray in their error and immorality and thus prepare them for judgment: “‘Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to make one convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as fit for hell as you are!’” (23:15). Moreover, these are the same scribes and Pharisees who are responsible for the death of Jesus and those following him: “‘Snakes! Brood of vipers! How can you escape being condemned to hell? This is why I am sending you prophets, sages, and scribes. Some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town’” (23:33-34). Should we give a similar treatment to fellow evangelicals who shortsightedly put their foot in their mouth? Those don’t seem like equivalent situations.

Also, if it is truly so essential to be pugnacious, I would say (as with sarcasm): why didn’t Jesus and Paul encourage pugnacity as a virtue? From what I can tell, they encouraged the opposite: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God” (Matthew 5:9). “But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace” (Galatians 5:22). “Let all bitterness, anger, and wrath, shouting, and slander be removed from you, along with all malice. And be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving one another, just as God also forgave you in Christ” (Ephesians 4:31-32). “And let the peace of Christ, to which you were also called in one body, rule your hearts. And be thankful” (Colossians 3:15). I’ve argued before that military themes are prominent in both the Old Testament and New Testament. In other words, the people of God have real enemies; in the new covenant, these enemies are primarily spiritual. Christians, then, should be equipped to do battle (since they are in a war), but not in a needlessly provocative or aggressive manner. The primary weapons of God’s people are truth, righteousness, peace, faith, and salvation (Ephesians 6:13-17), not sarcasm, mockery, and pugnacity.

Strong Language

My argument regarding strong language is much the same as my arguments regarding sarcasm and mockery. Is the use of strong language, in some cases, defensible? Yes. Is the use of strong language necessary? I’m not convinced.

DeYoung makes his position clear on this issue: “Even more troubling is Wilson’s deliberate decision to use uncouth (at best) and sinful (at worst) language, especially language of a sexual nature.” He further argues that if he were to use language like this, his elders would confront him. “Rightly so, for such language constitutes filthiness, foolish talk, and crude joking (Eph 5:4). Which of the Puritans, or Southern Presbyterians for that matter, would have dared to speak this way?” DeYoung admits that the Old Testament prophets used extreme language at times, and the prophet Ezekiel occasionally has some vivid sexual language. However, as I argued above, these instances in Scripture are exceptional, not normative. The idolatry of Israel is not in the same ballpark as institutional drift or ambiguity from Reformed Christians. DeYoung says, “Likening a study committee of a confessionally Reformed denomination to Dolly Parton’s anatomy is none of these things [that is, not akin to Ezekiel]. It’s juvenile, sensuous, and entirely without biblical warrant.”

Sumpter believes that Wilson’s sexual language in this instance is justified. “Read the article. Follow the links. He used extreme language in an extreme situation to call out an extreme wickedness.” I read the article, and I followed the links. While the practice of the Presbyterians in this case (those Wilson critiqued) was lamentable, I am not persuaded that this can be called extreme to the third degree. And, again, even if I’m underestimating the problem that Wilson is critiquing here, I can’t imagine that great Christian men from history that I respect, such as John Calvin, John Owen, Stephen Charnock, Archibald Alexander, Samuel Miller, Charles Hodge, and B B Warfield, would have ever considered using language like Wilson did in this instance. Godly men, especially godly ministers, should know how and when to use severe language, but godly men do not need to know how and when to use obscene language. 

Wilson points to the Gospel Coalition in his response to DeYoung: “Kevin, and the men in his circle, do not mind being associated with certain words. They embrace that association. They recommend that Christians go to movies that are filled with it. But they do mind that kind of language being deployed against the sins of the age by a fellow Christian.” This argument misses the point. I have zero confidence that DeYoung and any other author at TGC condone the use of explicit language in the movies they see and review (I don’t either). Many movies would clearly be made better if there was no explicit language in them. Moreover, the fact that a Christian watches a movie or listens to a song that has explicit language doesn’t mean that said Christian enjoys or wishes to promote such language in said movie or song.

Wilson elaborates on his approach to strong language: “In my cooking, over the course of millions of words, I have on occasion put in a red hot one. True enough. I have done this deliberately, seeking to be obedient, mindful of the context, and with great care concerning what kind of dish it is supposed to be. The way I use it, the pepper is not a sin, I am not arguing that it is okay to sin if you only keep the ratios right. Rather, it is not a sin if it is being deployed righteously.” 

I’ll say a few things on this: (1) I simply don’t think that the reward is worth the risk. The potential reward is that the use of strong language will make a rebuke a little more incisive and convicting than it would be otherwise. The potential risk is that the use of strong language would be inappropriate and insensitive, and would lead some to dismiss the argument and others to foolishly follow suit and use more strong language. (2) The use of strong language is not necessary, for personal sanctification or rebuke. When I was younger, I generally held that it would be permissible to use words like “f**k” if the situation was extreme enough (for example, on the frontlines of war). But, at this point, I still don’t think it would be necessary. Urgency and immediacy can be effectively communicated without the vocabulary of General Patton. (3) As aforementioned, Wilson’s approach would be foreign to many exemplary Christians of the past. This argument alone isn’t absolutely conclusive. But, anecdotally, if there’s little to no precedent for your approach, it would be better to err on the side of caution and reservation. In other words, we may get to heaven and find out that all of Wilson’s uses of explicit language were justified and even righteous, but I don’t think DeYoung and others will be faulted for failing to use such language in their toolkit.

Campbell helpfully calls attention to some relevant verses for this discussion. Each one should encourage us to pause before using strong or explicit language:

• Matthew 12:36 “I tell you that on the day of judgment people will have to account for every careless word they speak.”

• Ephesians 4:29 No foul language should come from your mouth, but only what is good for building someone up in need, so that it gives grace to those who hear.

• 1 Timothy 4:12 Don’t let anyone despise your youth, but set an example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, and in purity.

• James 3:5-6 So too, though the tongue is a small part of the body, it boasts great things. Consider how a small fire sets ablaze a large forest. And the tongue is a fire. The tongue, a world of unrighteousness, is placed among our members. It stains the whole body, sets the course of life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

Invitation

This essay has been critical of those in Moscow. But one thing I especially want to highlight and promote is their willingness to meet face-to-face and discuss these issues:

• Rigney says: “And so the offer is still open, to DeYoung, to the guys at G3, to Rod Dreher, to any other critics who think these issues matter. Just shoot me a DM.”

• Wilson says: “Responding in writing would be fine, but I believe that person-to-person, face-to-face, would be far preferable. Uri Brito, presiding minister of the CREC, has offered to broker something like that, and I would be delighted to participate in such an event, or in anything like it. Uri would be a faithful moderator.”

I think DeYoung should take them up on the offer; I agree that resolution would probably be more likely and more complete if a discussion happened face-to-face. Based on my knowledge, it would be unfair for DeYoung (and anyone else who agrees with his case) to write a serious critique of Moscow but simultaneously be unwilling to engage in further discussion. A lot of clarity and unity could come out of such a discussion.

Conclusion

I’d like to conclude by drawing attention to a couple of passages from Christian men in history that I respect, which have helped me in my reflection on biblical rhetoric. First, I think R L Dabney’s advice on preaching style has application for us beyond the pulpit:

“But the style of the pulpit must surpass that of secular orators in seriousness or gravity. The moral, spiritual, and divine truths which exclusively occupy the preacher, the sacredness of his professed motive, and the momentous stake which his hearers have in the transaction, – all show that levity of thought or manner would here be an odious fault. Jocular images, satire, and sarcasm are not the sword of the spirit. They may amuse or irritate, but they do not make the heart better” (Dabney, p. 288).

He goes on:

“Satire and sarcasm are inconsistent with that pitying love, which should animate the appeals of a sinner saved by grace to his doomed fellow-creatures. Sarcasm is usually the language of malice. It is claimed as an exception, that we hear Isaiah satirizing the folly of idol-worshippers, Elijah mocking the priests of Baal, and our Saviour scourging hypocrisy with the lash of sarcasm. This is true; but they were inspired and extraordinary preachers: our more humble position should teach us to resort very sparingly to such weapons” (Dabney, pp. 288-289)

Second, I think Samuel Miller’s remarks on John Newton should encourage us to follow Newton’s excellent example:

“Scarcely any religious letter-writer ever exceeded Mr. Newton. Those in question, in particular, have one excellence which renders them a model in this class of writings. Forty-nine fiftieths of all the controversial writings on the subject of religion, that I have ever met with, in the course of a long life, have been by far too polemical in their language and spirit. That is, they too often reminded the reader, however decent, and even polite the style, of ‘the tug of war.’ Newton had the rare talent of arguing with an errorist with so much paternal benignity, as well as force, and of conducting all his controversial arguments with such constant practical appeals to the heart, as entirely to disarm the polemical spirit. This is a happy art; or rather, I should say, a precious gift of grace, which nothing but a large measure of the Spirit of Christ can enable any man with entire success to exhibit. We are never so likely to convince and win an adversary, as when we can so address him as to make him forget that we are arguing against him, and open his whole heart to our affectionate appeals. Newton had this talent in as great a degree as almost any man ever had” (Miller, pp. 390-391).

What a good it would be if all the rhetoric of Christians today was guided by these passages. Let us take care then to have our speech be appropriately marked by gravity and solemnity, as well as affection and compassion.

References

Christian Standard Bible. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers (2017).

Campbell, Murray. “How we speak does matter” (Nov 29, 2023). https://murraycampbell.net/2023/11/29/how-we-speak-does-matter/

Dabney, R. L. Evangelical Eloquence: A Course of Lectures on Preaching. Edinburgh, UK: The Banner of Truth Trust (2019).

DeYoung, Kevin. “On Culture War, Doug Wilson, and the Moscow Mood” (Nov 27, 2023). https://clearlyreformed.org/on-culture-war-doug-wilson-and-the-moscow-mood/

Longshore, Jared. “The Moscow Mood for DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed” (Dec 4, 2023). https://jaredrlongshore.com/2023/12/04/the-moscow-mood-for-deyoung-the-restless-and-the-reformed/

Miller, Samuel. “The Force of Truth” from Princeton and the Work of the Christian Ministry: Volume I. Edited by James M. Garretson. Edinburgh, UK: The Banner of Truth Trust (2020).

Parkison, Samuel. “DeYoung, Rigney, and the Moscow Mood” (Dec 5, 2023). https://samuelparkison.wordpress.com/2023/12/05/deyoung-rigney-and-the-moscow-mood/

Rigney, Joseph. “On Satire, Moods, and What We’re Known For” (Dec 1, 2023). https://americanreformer.org/2023/12/on-satire-moods-and-what-were-known-for/

Sumpter, Toby. “The Hole in Kevin DeYoung’s Holiness” (Dec 1, 2023). https://tobyjsumpter.com/the-hole-in-kevin-deyoungs-holiness/

Wilson, Douglas. “My Rejoinder to Kevin DeYoung” (Dec 4, 2023). https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/novembers-done-kevin-deyoung.html

Biblical Authority

Why do so many self-described Christians explicitly or implicitly deny the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? That is, why are the doctrines of the authority, infallibility, and inspiration of Scripture mishandled, distorted, or abandoned altogether in the 21st century, even among purportedly Bible-believing Christians? To begin to answer this, we must define our terms. First and most crucial, what is Sola Scriptura? “Sola Scriptura means that only Scripture, because it is God’s inspired Word, is our inerrant, sufficient, and final authority for the church” (Barrett, p. 23). Thus, the Bible, particularly according to the theology of the 16th century Reformers, is our ultimate authority for faith and practice. 

Why should the controversy surrounding the doctrine of Sola Scriptura interest us? Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says that “without the authority of Scripture, our theological convictions are merely conjectures and our preaching becomes nothing more than a display of human folly” (Barrett, p. 15). This is because only an orthodox, reverent attitude toward Scripture results in preaching and discipleship that is true to the Gospel. Christian teaching has always been attacked, but only in the previous two centuries have key doctrines been criticized and rejected within the visible church, testifying that we are “by nature children under wrath as the others were also” (Ephesians 2:3) and therefore must constantly abide in the truth of Scripture. Finally, if we ultimately appeal to science, logic, or reason as functional arbiters by which Scripture should be judged, then we have determined science, logic, and reason to be of higher authority than the very words of God. Thus, the reasons people deny Sola Scriptura are numerous. False teachers and reprobate philosophers have historically replaced the authority of Scripture with the authority of their own reasonings or observations. Moreover, whether out of ignorance or willful spite, many believers don’t recognize the weight Scripture has on Christian practice and not simply Christian doctrine. In the end, the reality is that the fallen, unregenerate hearts of men and women want human beings, not God, to be the final authority. “You have never heard; you have never known; for a long time your ears have not been open. For I knew that you were very treacherous, and were known as a rebel from birth” (Isaiah 48:8). 

We’ve established the definition of Sola Scriptura, but the truth of this doctrine needs to be established. First of all, Scripture should be our highest authority and final authority because only the Bible is the written Word of God. “The ultimate source of every prophecy was never a man’s decision about what he wanted to write, but rather the Holy Spirit’s action in the prophet’s life” (Grudem, p. 75). Secondly, God, being the transcendent Creator, Lawgiver, and Governor over creation, necessarily holds a greater authority over the faith and practice of human beings than any other person or creed. The divine law is not binding on a man if it is “bound” upon him by his equals, since that man, made in the image of God like every other human, has an equally valid voice, opinion, and standard of his own that cannot be challenged unless one appeals to a universal, transcendent, immutable standard. “Lord, your word is forever; it is firmly fixed in heaven” (Psalm 119:89). Thirdly, not only is Scripture God’s very words and not only is God’s law the only eternally binding standard, the Word of God is perfect in its character and its content. That is, it’s moral beauty far surpasses that of any human making and it is utterly infallible, since it comes from a God who is Truth and Wisdom. “How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping your word. … I understand more than the elders because I obey your precepts” (Psalm 119:9, 100). 

This is in contrast to both the Catholic view and the Anabaptist view. “Just as [the Reformers] had to combat the Roman Catholic position which effectively made the church autonomous and the Radical Anabaptist position which effectively made the individual autonomous, so we too must combat both of these defective views” (Mathison, p. 14). Indeed, the Reformers, the exemplary proponents of Sola Scriptura, did not seek to abandon tradition entirely but rather to return the church to the orthodox tradition of the early church. In fact, the Reformation debate was not Scripture vs. Tradition but Tradition I vs. Tradition II. In other words, Reformed theology teaches that only Scripture is the source of divine revelation while Catholic dogma holds that both Scripture and tradition are sources of divine revelation, which erroneously gives man’s words the same weight as God’s words. Tradition is useful, but tradition is man-made and thus errant. 

Moreover, on the other side of the spectrum, Sola Scriptura has been distorted into Nuda Scriptura, the latter implying that Scripture is the only authority rather than the only infallible authority. This results in another form of heterodox autonomy, except in this case it is not the church that is autonomous but the individual that is autonomous. Those who hold to Nuda Scriptura mistakenly view the Reformation debate as Scripture vs. Tradition, choose Scripture as the victor, and therefore consign tradition to the waste-bin. But, as aforementioned, this is neither spiritually healthy nor does it conform to the message the Reformers sought to send. The ability to read Scripture for oneself is a great privilege, but it cannot be abused to the point of ignoring all tradition. Thus, we already see reasons why the doctrine of Sola Scriptura may be rejected; the errors of Catholicism and Radical Anabaptism demonstrate that man often seeks autonomy and stridently resists the sovereignty and authority of God and his Word.

In order to further answer the question of why Sola Scriptura is explicitly or implicitly denied, it is essential to look at the historical context. Moreover, it is helpful to begin with ancient Greek philosophy since it helped lay the groundwork for much of ancient and medieval Christian philosophy. “It is rather the total attitude fostered by the Platonic philosophy -- I refer to the belief in transcendental Reality, eternal values, immortality, righteousness, Providence, etc…, and the characteristic mental and emotional attitude that is logically fostered by such belief -- rather than any specific arguments which helped to lead up to the acceptance of Christianity” (Copleston: Volume I, p. 502). Furthermore, Neoplatonism, which arose out of Platonic philosophy and was later adopted by Saint Augustine, promotes a moral/spiritual ascent to God based on transcendentally based standards. Thus, when Christians dove more deeply into the realm of philosophy, they already possessed or had access to a great number of dialectical tools and metaphysical concepts. This is the atmosphere in which early Christianity was accepted, an atmosphere much different than those of later times, as we’ll see.

The need for a more developed theistic philosophy made itself apparent when, as Christianity developed and thrived, suspicion from Jews, politicians, and pagans grew. Christian interest in building a more thorough, philosophically literate theology came about, particularly in the era of the church fathers, for two reasons: the first “was clearly due primarily to a cause external to Christianity, namely hostile attack; but there was also another reason for this growth … The more intellectual Christians naturally felt the desire to penetrate … the data of revelation and also to form a comprehensive view of the world and human life in the light of faith” (Copleston: Volume II, p. 14). Moreover, since the philosophy and theology of most Christians of the Patristic period was less developed than their medieval - and certainly 16th Century - counterparts, they borrowed terms and theories from, and showed preference for, the predominant philosophy: Platonism.

The pinnacle of such philosophical integration is arguably found in Saint Augustine, preeminent theologian of the early church. Compared to previous theologians in earlier centuries, Augustine had a deeper understanding and clearer exposition of select doctrines of the faith, such as original sin, the existence of God, and the nature of grace. What does this have to do with Scripture? Though his opinion on Sola Scriptura is certainly not as explicitly and exhaustively developed as the Reformers, Augustine declares that “I do not want the holy church proved by human documents but by divine oracles” (Mathison, p. 40). One difference between him and Luther, for example, is that Augustine possibly believed in the inspiration of certain apostolic traditions. Yet it seems reasonable to assume that he would have held apostolic tradition high because he believed it to be divine, and that he would have removed it from a position of divine authority if he was convinced of its purely man-made quality. In other words, his priorities are still correctly arranged because the words of God are, in his view, more binding than the words of man. Thus, the Platonist focus on transcendental grounding may be found in Augustine’s emphasis on divine authority.

In the Middle Ages, concerning philosophy and theology, we find a similar case to the Patristic period but with noticeable differences. St. Thomas Aquinas, the most eminent theologian of the late Middle Ages, distinguished between theology as emphasizing divine revelation and philosophy as emphasizing human reason unaided by revelation. “The theologian … although he certainly uses his reason, accepts his principles on authority, on faith” (Copleston: Volume II, p. 312). This is in contrast to earlier Christian thinkers who integrated philosophical language into their theology but didn’t necessarily treat philosophy and theology as separate fields. “St. Augustine could make no very rigid distinction between philosophy and theology, even though he distinguished between the natural light of reason and supernatural faith” (Volume II, p. 243). However, it’s still true that “owing to the common background of the Christian faith, the world presented itself for interpretation to the mediaeval thinker more or less in a common light” (Volume II, p. 8). In other words, Christian medieval thinkers had essentially the same worldview even if their philosophies were more systematic than in the past.

During the Middle Ages, the issue of the relationship between philosophy and theology was intrinsically tied to the authority of Scripture. “In the tenth and eleventh centuries the beginning of a trend away from the Augustinian concept of reason and revelation may be detected” (Mathison, p. 69). This trend was resisted by philosophers such as Aquinas who critically accepted Aristotelianism as largely true but supplemented this relatively complete and autonomous philosophy with theology. The problem was that “once philosophy was recognized as an intrinsically autonomous discipline, it was only to be expected that it should tend in the course of time to go its own way and that it should, as it were, chafe at its bonds and resent its position as handmaid of theology” (Copleston: Volume III, p. 7). This was essentially consummated in the thought of William of Ockham who drove the metaphorical wedge between philosophy and theology; “the nominalists left faith hanging in the air, without any rational basis” (Volume III, p. 11). Naturally then, an appeal to and reverence for divine scriptural authority was seen as less necessary or perhaps trivial at worst. 

The next period of history involves two important movements: the Renaissance and the Reformation. We must remember that in the thirteenth century, prominent thinkers did critique each other’s opinions, but on the whole, they accepted the same faith and the same metaphysics. However, during the Renaissance, “texts were read in a new light. It was a question of appreciating the texts and the thought therein contained for themselves and not just as possible resources of Christian edification” (Copleston: Volume III, p. 18). The development of the human personality thus took on a more naturalistic light. Christian philosophy began to better favor the study of nature since the material world was taken as real and as God’s creation. “God was certainly not denied; but the emphasis was placed, in varying degrees with different philosophers, on nature itself” (Volume III, p. 20). Furthermore, the Renaissance brought about the maturity and autonomy of physical science; scientists explored and established laws that guided natural events. Thus, science was soon to break loose from its role as a field of philosophy just as philosophy broke loose from its role as a tool for theology. “The development of science made it much easier than it formerly had been to consider the world from a point of view which had no obvious connection with theology” (Volume III, p. 421). 

This explains some of the context behind the Reformation. What Martin Luther and John Calvin butted up against was the autonomy of man in the church. What later Reformers butted up against was the autonomy of man in the individual. In both the separation of philosophy from theology and the separation of science from philosophy, the autonomy of man was made more prevalent. Luther fought against this fiercely. He argued that in contrast to church councils and popes, “the Scriptures alone, could not and do not err” (Barrett, p. 40) since the Scriptures are divinely inspired. Again, church tradition was not meaningless or inherently false, but its role was ministerial rather than magisterial, “a handmaiden to the biblical witness” (Barrett, p. 45). Moreover, it is easy to see how the Reformers wanted to restore theology to its original status as principal academic/spiritual study, as opposed to chains that inhibited the autonomy of man and thereby the independence of science and philosophy. At the same time, the Reformers grew weary when the abandonment of Catholic tradition led to radical individualism that completely disregarded tradition. “As far as the fathers and councils were consistent with Scripture, Luther said, they were to be listened to and obeyed” (Barrett, p. 55). 

John Calvin, along with Luther, was a staunch defender of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Calvin made clear that every matter of church dogma and Christian practice needs to be tested by the Word of God. “The church did not create the Word, but rather the Word, by the power of the Spirit, created the Church” (Barrett, p. 64). For him also, Scripture is from God and whatever it says is directly the words of God. Calvin held not only that Scripture is our ultimate authority but that this authority is not determined by the church but by God himself. “The church receives that which God has already put in place, bearing witness to that which God has declared in his Word” (Barrett, p. 67). Furthermore, he put great emphasis on the fact that our most credible proof for the inspiration of Scripture is the Holy Spirit, not “human reasons, judgments, or conjectures” (p. 67). Similar to Luther, the reason Calvin put Scripture above church tradition and councils is because God does not err; only man errs. “Where a council departs from Scripture … that council’s authority is not to be heeded” (p. 70). Calvin sought to restore the relationship between divine authority and human reason to its correct form.

While the Protestant Reformers may have put a considerable dent in Roman papalism, a new papalism emerged; rather than the pope or church being infallible, the biblical scholar became infallible. “Where the Reformers urged interpreters to approach the text with reverence and hermeneutical humility, the reader was now encouraged to approach the text as its lord and judge” (Barrett, p. 77). In sum, reason won the day and the Bible came to be treated as fallible. Rome’s problem was considering too many things to be divinely inspired, but the problem of the Enlightenment was that many of its thinkers considered nothing to be divinely inspired. According to Enlightenment philosophy, “reason was the golden ticket to a life of total objectivity, free from bias” (Barrett, p. 79). This manifested in a few stages: First, philosophers such as John Locke asserted that Christianity is rational and should supplement natural philosophy. Later, it was claimed that if Christianity is rational, it could be derived from reason itself. Consequently, religion became an unnecessary restatement of natural philosophy. Finally, reason superseded revelation and became the judge of everything. As a result, the Bible was seen to be full of errors.

What followed the eighteenth century Enlightenment was nineteenth and twentieth century Liberalism. “Protestant Liberalism was an intentional renovation of Christian orthodoxy to accommodate Enlightenment thought” (Barrett, p. 91). It sought to tweak Christianity so that it might meet issues raised by the Enlightenment. Sola Scriptura theology sees special revelation as the standard for Christian thinking, but the “theology from below” (p. 92) of Liberalism sees human experience as the standard. In other words, instead of human reason being judged by Scripture, Scripture was to be judged by human reason. Thus, in the Protestant Liberal strain, one can never reach the conclusion that the Bible is inspired and inerrant.

As Liberalism pushed into the 20th century, theologians such as J. Gresham Machen and B. B. Warfield established themselves as the primary opponents of Protestant Liberalism. In fact, Machen believed that “Protestant Liberalism … is not a different type of Christianity, but another religion altogether” (Barrett, p. 112). He also challenged the idea that it doesn’t fundamentally matter whether Jesus was a historical figure or not, quoting from 1 Corinthians to buttress his point. “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins” (15:17). Furthermore, Machen argued that the inspiration of Scripture goes hand in hand with the inerrancy of Scripture; they both flow out of the full doctrine of Sola Scriptura. If the Bible is the Word of God and completely truthful, it should logically be our ultimate authority for faith and practice. Finally, he declares that if we claim to be Christians and yet disagree with Christ’s reverent attitude toward the Scriptures, are we really who we claim to be? “Christianity is founded upon the Bible. … Liberalism … is founded upon the shifting emotions of sinful men” (Barrett, p. 114).

The 20th century also contained the controversy between Modernism and Fundamentalism. The modernists aimed to basically make Christianity and the Bible less offensive to the modern world, despite the fact that the Christian faith is “a stone to stumble over, and a rock to trip over” (1 Peter 2:8). Fundamentalists responded by defending Christianity as it is and as it should be, along with all the miracles and politically incorrect commands that it contains. As the century progressed and new attacks on or distortions of orthodox Christianity were raised, conservative evangelicals took a stand for the authority and inerrancy of Scripture: “The whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration” (Barrett, p. 28, referring to Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy).

The latest challenge to the authority of Scripture has been postmodernism. This new movement consists of two tenets: 1) “For the postmodernist, there is no such thing as objective truth” (Barrett, p. 131). Truth is only relative or subjective. 2) “Second, postmodernism is characterized by deconstructionism” (p. 132). There is no singular meaning for life or reality. What happens when this view is applied to the text of Scripture? The result is hermeneutical non-realism. Thus, postmodernism is, by definition, an enemy to biblical authority “which not only asserts that the reader is subservient to the author [God] … but also holds that meaning and truth are determined by God, not by us, the readers” (pp. 135-6). Moreover, postmodernism has not had its final say and many books critiquing the essential doctrines concerning Scripture continue to be written, even within apparently evangelical circles.

So, why is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura implicitly or explicitly denied in the world today? We can list several reasons.

1. Man has often sought autonomy either in the church or in himself.

2. As philosophy became autonomous and distinct from theology, it soon broke from theology and biblical authority.

3. Similarly, as science matured and became autonomous, it separated from philosophy and theology.

4. The Enlightenment brought about the exaltation of human reason and the advent of modernism and postmodernism led to the emphasis of subjective experience over objective truth.

Fundamentally, the problem arises when man looks to himself for reliance and ultimate knowledge and not the triune God of the Bible; this is man’s natural tendency because we live in a Genesis 3 world.

Sola Scriptura has never enjoyed long periods of assent in Christendom without faithful Christians having to battle against those that would undermine it. Sola Scriptura has never known peace; it is a garrison of orthodoxy that is persistently challenged. Fallen humanity has always been - and will always be - tempted to echo the words of the serpent in the garden, “Did God really say?” Sola Scriptura stands with the ready answer: “Yes.”

References

Christian Standard Bible. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers (2017).

Copleston, Frederick. A History of Philosophy: Volume I, Volume II, Volume III. Westminster, MD: The Newman Press (1946, 1950, 1953).

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press (1994).

Barrett, Matthew. God’s Word Alone: The Authority of Scripture - What the Reformers Taught … and Why It Still Matters. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan (2016).

Mathison, Keith. The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Moscow, ID: Canon Press (2001).

Mockery

The people of God have been mocked for most of history. And mockery almost always has a negative, sinful association in the Bible. Mockery often goes hand in hand with blasphemy, rebellion, scorn, malice, arrogance, and foolishness.

In 2 Kings 18, when Jerusalem is besieged, the messenger of the king of Assyria mocks Israel’s reliance on God. “Who among all the gods of the lands has rescued his land from my power? So will the Lord rescue Jerusalem from my power?” In the next chapter, God responds through Isaiah and says, “Who is it you mocked and blasphemed? Against whom have you raised your voice and lifted your eyes in pride? Against the Holy One of Israel!”

In Job 17, Job laments the mockery of those around him: “My spirit is broken. My days are extinguished. A graveyard awaits me. Surely mockers surround me, and my eyes must gaze at their rebellion.” In Chapter 30 he says, “Now I am mocked by their songs; I have become an object of scorn to them.”

Asaph describes the detestable behavior of the wicked in Psalm 73: “They mock, and they speak maliciously; they arrogantly threaten oppression.” And Psalm 74: “Remember this: the enemy has mocked the Lord, and a foolish people has insulted your name.”

The most obscene act of mockery in history was the murder of the Son of God. Jesus predicts this in Luke 18: “Everything that is written through the prophets about the Son of Man will be accomplished. For he will be handed over to the Gentiles, and he will be mocked, insulted, and spit on.” This is exactly what happened. King Herod, the religious leaders, and the Roman soldiers all mocked him.

It is interesting, then, that there are a few exceptional cases in which God or his people rightfully mock.

In Proverbs 1, Wisdom calls out and offers knowledge and instruction. When this offer is refused, Wisdom says, “I, in turn, will laugh at your calamity. I will mock when terror strikes you.” And Proverbs 3 tells us that God “mocks those who mock but gives grace to the humble.”

A recurring pattern in the Prophets is condemnation of idolatry. God says in Jeremiah 10: “Everyone is stupid and ignorant. Every goldsmith is put to shame by his carved image, for his cast images are a lie; there is no breath in them. They are worthless, a work to be mocked. At the time of their punishment they will be destroyed.”

The prophet Elijah, in 1 Kings 18, asks Israel to commit themselves to Baal or the Lord. Elijah has two bulls prepared, one for him, and one for the prophets of Baal. Elijah says, “Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the Lord. The God who answers it with fire, he is God.”

For several hours, the prophets of Baal shout and cut themselves to try to please Baal. And Elijah mocks them: “Shout loudly, for he’s a god! Maybe he’s thinking it over; maybe he has wandered away; or maybe he’s on the road. Perhaps he’s sleeping and will wake up!”

We can learn a couple things here: (1) God has every right to mock what is worthy of ridicule in this fallen world. Those who continually reject wisdom, love mockery, and worship idols are certainly worthy of ridicule.

(2) Christians may rightfully mock idolatry. Elijah mocked Baal and his prophets because Baal doesn’t exist and his prophets devoted themselves to nothing, to mere human imagination. Similarly, any spiritual power that blatantly and destructively opposes God is worthy of our mockery.

(3) Christians should not be known as mockers. And Christians should not be better at mocking than pagans. 

Pastor Mike Winger, in a video called “Pop-Atheism and Its Problems,” applies this idea well. Pop-Atheism may be defined as a cynical, irreverent, and rhetorically powerful form of atheism that lives and breathes mockery and has a pronounced impact on young people. 

Winger says this: “The truth is, as Christians, we cannot win against the atheists. You can’t win against them when the contest is who can scoff better or who can mock better. Mocking and scoffing is not a good way of finding truth.”

This aligns with Proverbs 14:6-7: “A mocker seeks wisdom and doesn’t find it, but knowledge comes easily to the perceptive. Stay away from a foolish person; you will gain no knowledge from his speech.”

Winger continues: “Ridicule is the Alpha and Omega of modern pop atheism, because ridicule is a rhetorical technique of manipulating people to agree with you or disagree with someone else.”

Proverbs tells us that mockers are difficult or impossible to effectively rebuke: “The one who corrects a mocker will bring abuse on himself; the one who rebukes the wicked will get hurt.” “A wise son responds to his father’s discipline, but a mocker doesn’t listen to rebuke.” “A mocker doesn’t love one who corrects him; he will not consult the wise.”

The Bible Is Militaristic

Scripture is militaristic, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament. The key difference here is that this militarism is primarily expressed in the physical or material plane in the Old Testament, but primarily expressed in the spiritual or immaterial plane in the New.

Militarism is primarily expressed in the physical plane in the Old Testament, but primarily expressed in the spiritual plane in the New Testament.

One reason that many of the Jews were confused or repelled by Jesus is because he didn’t fit their concept of the Messiah. They expected the Messiah to be a courageous and powerful military leader like Joshua or David who would physically overthrow Roman rule. Obviously, these Jews were incorrect, and there are plenty of Messianic prophecies that prove Jesus would be who he was. 

Yet, in one sense, this Jewish perspective is understandable because much of Israel’s history is focused on great military exploits working in tandem with God’s awe-inspiring power. 

In Deuteronomy 7, God says this to the Israelites: “You must destroy all the peoples the Lord your God is delivering over to you and not look on them with pity. Do not worship their gods, for that will be a snare to you. Don’t be terrified of them, for the Lord your God, a great and awesome God, is among you.”

Listen to King Jehoshaphat’s prayer in 2 Chronicles 20:

“Then Jehoshaphat stood in the assembly of Judah and Jerusalem in the Lord’s temple before the new courtyard. He said: 

Lord, God of our ancestors, are you not the God who is in heaven, and do you not rule over all the kingdoms of the nations? Power and might are in your hand, and no one can stand against you. Are you not our God who drove out the inhabitants of this land before your people Israel and who gave it forever to the descendants of Abraham your friend?”

Psalm 18 is one of several warrior psalms:

“I pursue my enemies and overtake them; I do not turn back until they are wiped out. I crush them, and they cannot get up; they fall beneath my feet. You have clothed me with strength for battle; you subdue my adversaries beneath me. You have made my enemies retreat before me; I annihilate those who hate me. They cry for help, but there is no one to save them  — they cry to the Lord, but he does not answer them. 

“I pulverize them like dust before the wind; I trample them like mud in the streets. You have freed me from the feuds among the people; you have appointed me the head of nations; a people I had not known serve me. Foreigners submit to me cringing; as soon as they hear they obey me. Foreigners lose heart and come trembling from their fortifications.”

In addition to this, one of the primary names of God in the Old Testament is “The Lord of Armies” (or, in other translations: “The Lord of Hosts”). “The Lord of Armies” is used 268 times in the Old Testament, but only 2 times in the New.

The New Testament, in contrast, expresses spiritual principles in militaristic terms.

Jesus says in Matthew 10:

“Don’t assume that I came to bring peace on the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.”

Paul famously describes the armor of God in Ephesians 6:

“Put on the full armor of God so that you can stand against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this darkness, against evil, spiritual forces in the heavens. For this reason take up the full armor of God, so that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having prepared everything, to take your stand. Stand, therefore, with truth like a belt around your waist, righteousness like armor on your chest, and your feet sandaled with readiness for the gospel of peace. In every situation take up the shield of faith with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit  — which is the word of God.”

According to Philippians 2, Christians are not simply brothers and sisters but fellow soldiers: “But I considered it necessary to send you Epaphroditus  — my brother, coworker, and fellow soldier, as well as your messenger and minister to my need  — ”

2 Timothy 2 has similar language: “Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one serving as a soldier gets entangled in the concerns of civilian life; he seeks to please the commanding officer.”

OT & NT Distinctions

Modern American Christians are often quite ignorant of the Old Testament. One symptom of this ignorance is the belief that the character of God changes between the testaments. Some view the Old Testament God as primarily judgmental and the New Testament God as primarily merciful. 

Psalm 9 tells us that “the Lord sits enthroned forever; he has established his throne for judgment. And he judges the world with righteousness; he executes judgment on the nations with fairness.” But Jesus, while he is indeed our counselor and friend, is also our judge. Peter proclaims in Acts 10: “He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that [Christ] is the one appointed by God to be the judge of the living and the dead.”

We are familiar with New Testament passages about God’s mercy, such as Ephesians 2: “God, who is rich in mercy, because of his great love that he had for us, made us alive with Christ even though we were dead in trespasses. You are saved by grace!” Yet God has always been merciful. The psalmist writes in Psalm 116: “I love the Lord because he has heard my appeal for mercy.”

Along similar lines, some view the Old Testament God as primarily wrathful and the New Testament God as primarily loving.

Psalm 7:11 says that “God is a righteous judge and a God who shows his wrath every day.” But Jesus is clearly full of wrath in Matthew 23 when he proclaims, “‘Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to make one convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a child of hell as you are!’”

Jesus tells his disciples in John 15, “‘As the Father has loved me, I have also loved you. Remain in my love.’” Yet the entirety of Psalm 136 praises God’s love. Verse 26 says, “Give thanks to the God of heaven! His faithful love endures forever.”

God has appeared to man in different ways throughout history. But the contrast between the Old and New Testaments is not justice vs. mercy, or wrath vs. love. Rather, the Old Testament draws special attention to the immense power of God, while the New Testament draws special attention to the sacrificial humility of God. 

This is demonstrated by the fact that nearly every time someone encounters God in the Old Testament, God appears in an overwhelmingly supernatural way. Whereas, in the New Testament, the primary way people encountered God was through Jesus Christ, the Son of God who took upon himself the weaknesses of human nature. 

Many stories in the Old Testament clearly show God’s magnificent power. When God speaks to the Israelites on Mount Sinai, he appears as smoke, fire, and thunder:

“On the third day, when morning came, there was thunder and lightning, a thick cloud on the mountain, and a very loud blast from a ram’s horn, so that all the people in the camp shuddered. Then Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain. Mount Sinai was completely enveloped in smoke because the Lord came down on it in fire. Its smoke went up like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain shook violently. As the sound of the ram’s horn grew louder and louder, Moses spoke and God answered him in the thunder.”

When God responds to Job, he appears as a terrifying whirlwind:

“The Lord answered Job:

Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?

Let him who argues with God give an answer.

Then Job answered the Lord:

I am so insignificant. How can I answer you?

I place my hand over my mouth.

I have spoken once, and I will not reply;

twice, but now I can add nothing.

Then the Lord answered Job from the whirlwind:

Get ready to answer me like a man;

When I question you, you will inform me.

Would you really challenge my justice?

Would you declare me guilty to justify yourself?

Do you have an arm like God’s?

Can you thunder with a voice like his?”

When God calls Isaiah, he appears as a majestic, holy king:

“In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne, and the hem of his robe filled the temple. Seraphim were standing above him; they each had six wings: with two they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they flew. And one called to another:

Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Armies;

his glory fills the whole earth.

The foundations of the doorways shook at the sound of their voices, and the temple was filled with smoke.

Then I said:

Woe is me for I am ruined

because I am a man of unclean lips

and live among a people of unclean lips,

and because my eyes have seen the King,

the Lord of Armies.”

In contrast, several passages in the New Testament describe Christ’s humility, and his setting aside of divine glory. Jesus describes himself as lowly and humble:

“Come to me, all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take up my yoke and learn from me, because I am lowly and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

Paul describes Jesus as humble, servile, and obedient in his letter to the Philippians:

“Adopt the same attitude as that of Christ Jesus, 

who, existing in the form of God,

did not consider equality with God

as something to be exploited. 

Instead he emptied himself

by assuming the form of a servant,

taking on the likeness of humanity.

And when he had come as a man,

he humbled himself by becoming obedient

to the point of death—

even to death on a cross.”

Peter describes Jesus as one who suffered and entrusted himself to God the Father:

“For you were called to this, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. He did not commit sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth; when he was insulted, he did not insult in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten but entrusted himself to the one who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree; so that, having died to sins, we might live for righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but you have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.”

The Christian Life

What are the core elements of the Christian life? 

If you met a man who knew his Bible very well, had extensive knowledge of church history, theology, and philosophy; if he prayed passionately and worshiped fervently; but he was harsh and cruel to those who disagreed with him, arrogant toward fellow believers, and abusive to his wife; you would rightfully recognize that something is greatly deficient in this man’s life.

If you met a man who had memorized several passages in the Bible, had a great love for the Reformed creeds and confessions; if he was demonstrably charitable, kind, respectful, wise, and above reproach; but his prayer life was forced and feeble, and he was unmoved by God-glorifying music and worship; you would rightfully recognize that something is greatly deficient in this man’s life.

If you met a man who was noble, honest, humble, and forgiving; if he had a fiery zeal for evangelism, prayer, missions, and worship; but his explanation of the gospel was thin and undeveloped, and he believed that Jesus was only a powerful man and not God, he had vast ignorance of the Old Testament, and he knew next to nothing about the roots of his Reformed denomination; you would rightfully recognize that something is greatly deficient in this man’s life. 

Each of these three men have significant problems in their Christian life. But each man has a distinctly different problem.

• The first man has a moral lack.

• The second man has an emotional lack.

• The third man has an intellectual lack.

From this, it is easy to see that there are at least three core elements of the Christian life:

1. A Christian mind

2. A Christian heart

3. A Christian will

With our minds, we reason. With our hearts, we feel. And with our wills, we act. This has direct correspondence to the three transcendentals: truth, goodness, and beauty. As Christians, we should defend truth with our minds. As Christians, we should enjoy beauty with our hearts. As Christians, we should pursue goodness with our wills. Scripture tells us that reasoning, feeling, and acting are all key components of the Christian life.

Proverbs 19 warns us of an intellectual lack: “Even zeal is not good without knowledge, and the one who acts hastily sins.”

1 Corinthians 13 warns us of an emotional lack: “If I speak human or angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so that I can move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give away all my possessions, and if I give over my body in order to boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.”

James 2 warns us of a moral lack: “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Can such faith save him? … But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without works, and I will show you faith by my works. You believe that God is one. Good! Even the demons believe – and they shudder. Senseless person! Are you willing to learn that faith without works is useless? … For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.”

Based on these verses, it is fair to conclude three things: 

• The grace of the gospel doesn’t give us the excuse to be worldly.

• The precision and depth of the gospel doesn’t give us the excuse to be cold toward God and his people.

• And, the simplicity of the gospel doesn’t give us the excuse to be ignorant. 

Each of us should strive to the fullest to think critically, feel deeply, and act righteously.