When Jesus Said "Do Not Judge," Did He Mean Not to Judge Wonky Theology?

 There are some pastors and priests who are teaching un-Biblical theology these days.  But should the real church that teaches orthodoxy stand up and question them?  Unlikely to happen.  In our PC society, culture does not give us a pass to judge anybody—especially not to judge someone who calls themselves “Christian,” which many of these false teachers do.    But the fact is, our society is morally going down the wrong road.  When the “fruit” of the vine (John 15) is bad, we need to call it out. That’s what Paul did. The root of the vine is Jesus, and the vines are the real Christian church. But most of them have taken a muzzled condition these days.  Christians who really know Scripture need to speak up.

Our Bible has some crucial things to say about the subject of "judging."  Why crucial?  Because bad pastors lead people to hell.  Would we not yell “fire,” even if we were the only one who knew there definitely was a fire; or would we be reluctant because we might offend or inconvenience somebody? Even a decent person would warn. Our mature people spiritually should speak up, even though the world believes that the worst thing we could do would be to say, “you’re wrong”—because they believe that everyone “has their own truth.”  Has this post-modernism culture bled that much into the orthodox church to make us so timid?  Are we that fearful to express The Truth as we know is contained in Scripture?

Todd Friel, speaker and writer for TV’s “Wretched” program, and author of five books, cites an interesting current case of a German pastor by the name of Latzel who was not afraid to speak The Truth boldly and without compromise.  His standing on the Bible did not come without cost—as you’ll see, the German culture (as ours) believes that much of gospel Truth is bigoted, hateful, and, ironically, “un-Christian.”

Pastor Latzel, by speaking the truth, has been attacked in the media, investigated by the local government, even condemned by fellow pastors.  Seventy of them, behind a banner calling for “diversity,” denounced him.  The public prosecutor investigated him for hate speech.  The officers of the city of Bremen have condemned him.  His crime in all of this?  He quotes the Bible, showing the Scriptural error of other religions, and attacks the spirit of compromise that he sees infecting society.  The latest controversy that he faces today is, “do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?”  Our German pastor, Latzel, says that Allah, as portrayed in the Qur’an, and our Christian God, are not the same.  The biggest difference, only one among many, is our God has a Son—Jesus Christ.  Muslims assert that that is an infidel’s statement, insisting that Allah-god did not have a son.  That is not only non-Christian, it offends God—our God. Allah and the Christian God are not the same God, even with that.  So in Germany, as here, society calls itself “Christian,” but won’t stand up against the cultural winds.

This kind of clash has been going around a long time.  Check out the words of Charles Spurgeon, great gospel preacher of the 1800s, who would be a Latzel fan today for sure:

“It makes me indignant when I hear another gospel put before the people with enticing words, by men who would gladly make merchandise of souls; and I marvel at those who would have soft words for such deceivers.  I would to God we had all more of such decision, for the lack of it is delivering our religious life of its backbone and substituting for honest manliness a mass of the tremulous jelly of mutual flattery.”

The irony here is that German pastors are judging Latzel for his “crime” of judging others—by simply pointing to Scripture.  (Did you read that twice?  It has the taint of hypocrisy, does it not?).  It seems that you can’t call people in Scriptural error, but it’s a “free for all” to judge the Christian—telling him he’s in error.  Latzel has estimated that over 80% of pastors in the national German state church are not born again (whoops, used another hateful phrase).  They make their own doctrine—selectively ignoring the Bible when they feel like it doesn’t say what they want.

The Bible has many sections that make modern society uncomfortable.  American pastors know how to handle “uncomfortable” sections of the Bible—but by timid means--they simply avoid preaching on those subjects.  They play games with words in TV interviews, too, when one rarely comes around--they avoid the core argument.  They play God, ignoring "embarrassing" Words of God in their sermons.  I hardly ever run into a pastor nowadays whose sermon delivery consists of going through a a book of Scripture, verse by verse.  Most pastors deliver sermons by topic.  It’s too bad, because going “by the book” means the pastor will have to cover certain controversial passages.  (Such as what Paul has to say about women’ roles.  I have a blog on that, by the way).

Now, there are some knowledgeable folks out there who are saying ”wait a minute, didn’t Jesus say “Judge not?”  My answer is, True, but let’s look at the context of His Words.  Let’s give the whole phrase, not just the first two words.  From Matthew 7:1-5:

“Judge not, that you be not judged. ² For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. ³ And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? ⁴ Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? ⁵ Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye

As you can see, Jesus is pointing out that people who judge have hypocrisy—and poor humility.  People need to empathize, to admit that they, too, have problems defeating sin. And here is what helped me...Jesus  hates hypocrisy.  But He does not rule out all judging:  I’ve got five reasons for stating that:

1. 1.  In the same passage, Jesus judges some people to be “dogs” and “swine.”  You say, “What?  Where?”  Oh, yeah, I forgot to give you verse 6 of Matthew 7.  Here it is:

⁶ “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

By deciding that some people, with their reactions to the Bible, are “dogs,” isn’t that judging them? Yes. (but don’t treat them like a dog). This usually has to do with the timing of when it is a good idea (or a bad idea) to give out the gospel of God’s love.  Some people will sneer at God’s love—they are the “dogs,” etc—so for them, you just, for now, give the story of God’s judgment seat, and the reality of sin and hell.  Maybe you can dislodge a little misplaced confidence that they might have. It’s still possible to do that lovingly. Jesus did tell us to love our enemies, as well as our friends. Tell them that you, too, were on the way to hell…but here’s how the Lord got me out of it.

2. In John 7:24, again in the same sermon, Jesus told us to “judge with righteous judgment.”  I hope you believe, as I do, that Jesus, being God, cannot contradict Himself.  In the face of this clear statement permitting judging, we must look again at Scripture  to figure out what He really means.

3.   Scripture tells us that, as saints, Christians will judge the world (I Corinthians 6:2).  There are many verses that instruct us who, what, and how we are to judge.  An example is Romans 16:17:

 Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them

“Note those” implies judging. Did the rules change?  No.

4.  Jesus was very judgmental when He called some Pharisees “sons of hell,” “blind guides,” “hypocrites,” and “whitewashed tombs” (Matthew 23:15, 16, 27).  If we want to be Christ-like, and if we detect scoffing in another person's words about Jesus, that is affecting people’s eternal lives dangerously, shouldn’t we get fervent as He did about it?  Are we allowed to speak up about it—or should we just lie back and say, “well, evidently this works for them.”  That’s uncaring.
5. Never judging is entirely impractical.  You could not even order food from a menu if all judging is a sin. Nor pick the “right” woman or man to decide to marry.

So those are five Scriptural reasons for judging wisely.

First, understand that there are levels of importance in theology.  The Apostle’s Creed, is worth debating over, for instance.  Here it is:
“I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to hades. The third day he rose again from the dead.  He ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.  I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic*(i.e., true universal) church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.”

Beyond those major doctrines, there are still many theological differences as there are denominations—but really, the church is split apart on minor points, in many cases.  So there are points of difference that won’t send anybody to hell.  The point I am making is, it’s not a great idea to judge another pastor or priest on a minor point.  But--fire away if they call themselves “Christian” and waffle on any of the major requirements of the Apostles Creed.  Because then they are not really Christian.  They are deceiving people, possibly sending unwitting people to hell.  Consider Matthew 7:15:

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.  

You have to exercise judgment to obey God’s commands as to who to listen to, right?

So, what was Jesus saying in Matthew 7?  Possibly these things:

1. Don’t nitpick people to death.  Yes, we’re talking again about the minor points.  Look carefully at Jesus’ words in Matthew 7: “…why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye…”

2. Only judge others after you have judged yourself using the same standard.  Again from Matthew 7:

First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

3. Do not judge with a self-righteous attitude.  Jesus called people “hypocrite” in Matthew 7—why?  Because they judged without seeing their own flaws.  There’s a lot of that going around.

I would urge all of us to mature in the Word, and know when to speak up.  No reason for timidity today, especially since our freedom to proclaim the gospel may be soon taken away from us. Let us consider right motives for judging.  Here are a few:

1. We judge because we love God and want to obey His commands.  Consider His command in Jude 1:3:

…contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

 “Contend” means being ready to debate to uphold the truth. But be firm but in a loving and humble way. Remember, a crime against God is the greatest crime there is.  Messing with God’s theology, messing with His Book, can win you a spot in hell.  Look at Revelation 22:19, almost the last words in the Bible, so they’re important:

 ^…and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

2. We judge because we love the truth.  John Calvin once said that a dog will attack somebody who attacks his master.  Our master is God, who gives us Truth.  Are we as smart as dogs?  Don’t we love Him and His truth as much?  Paul even named names of those who disappointed him.  To quote again Charles Spurgeon:

“He who does not hate the false does not love the true; and he to who it is all the same whether it be God’s Word or man’s, is himself unrenewed at heart. ..I beg the Lord to give back to the churches such a love to His truth that they may discern the spirits, and cast out those which are not of God.”

3. We judge because we love people.  People who follow false teaching can’t grow spiritually, and may end up in hell.  If we sincerely believe we have the Truth, can we stand by and say nothing?

4. We judge because we love false teachers too.  Even if they’re an enemy of God, Jesus commands us to love them too.  Don’t we love them enough to say, “you’re doing it wrong, you’re sending people astray, and you must give account on your own on judgment day if you keep doing this.”  Consider Matthew 5:44-45:

I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, ⁴⁵ that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. 

I pray we get all this right, and pray and speak boldly for His truth.  Who knows how much time we have left to speak His Word freely?

Acknowledgement:  Todd Friel, writer, speaker, "Wretched" TV

 

Is the God of the Old Testament the Same as the God of the New Testament?

 When asked, “Is the God of the Old Testament the same as the God of the New Testament?”, people have strange views. Even among people who claim to be Christian, I suspect the majority would answer “no.”  The reason, I think, is emotional.  They think God in the Old Testament is mean-spirited and bloody, and they don’t want that kind of God judging them in the last day. Pastors must feel the same way, since I have only heard a sermon from the Old Testament a couple of times.  They would prefer Jesus (whom they selectively portray as soft on sin in the New Testament) doing the judging, since He was a healer, wasn’t afraid to be with sinners, and defended the common people against the stick-in-the-mud Pharisees.  The “good” guy, right?

But we’re here to study All of Scripture, not just guided by emotional response.  See II Timothy 3:16-17:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, ¹⁷ that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Scripture is God’s voice of unchanging truth to us.  It contains the advice for godly behavior. Old Testament as well as New.

We begin with the truth that God doesn’t change, James 1:17:

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.

So, God doesn’t change, or “evolve,” from Old to New Testaments.

Yes, it is true that He has covenants by which He deals with different people in different promises.  But they have one common goal, and it is an oversimplification to argue that the Covenant of Law in the Old Testament means He dealt harshly with sin, while the Covenant of Grace in the New Testament "says" that He is non-judgmental on “non-serious” sin if you accept Jesus.  Life is not that simple; as I argue in another series of blogs (Escaping Hell).  It is necessary to obey Christ’s commands (which go well beyond the Ten Commandments) to continue to be saved.  For instance, He commanded that You must abide in Christ, as was presented in John 15:1-6:

“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. ² Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit… ⁴ Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.

⁵ “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. ⁶ If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

This clearly says that your judgment likely is hell if you don’t have a regular relationship with Him (as the word “abide” says). So God—and Jesus--don’t ignore sin like some might hope, in the New Testament.  On the other hand, God can be forgiving in the Old Testament—and in the New.  He can send you to hell for unrepented sin—in the New Testament as in the Old.  As Paul argues (Romans 4), Abraham, an obviously Old Testament guy, was saved by staying close to God through faith in His promises through trials.  I think God's most challenging command was telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. It was a test, and his potential sacrifice of Isaac was a type, with God the Father and Jesus the Son being the antitype. He knew, with His knowledge of the future, that Abraham would be willing to do it. This was to teach us great lessons about agape love and sacrifice. None of that was because He was capricious, or primitive in His dealing with people.  Abraham obeyed God--he got up early the next morning to do it.  I think he believed that God would raise him from the dead, since God had promised that a new nation would come through Isaac. And he believed that promise was still good.

Obedience to His command is also necessary in the New Testament (John 14:21). Too many people break God's commands in something significant, yet don't worry--"I accepted Jesus, so I'm saved."

Many people have these countervailing feelings, I’ll call them “biases,” about the Old and New Testament.  Let me try to balance both of them out, by pointing out the opposite of their expectations in each. We will look at God's kindness and mercy in the Old Testament, and His harsh side in the New—as stated by Jesus, who is God.  We’ll start by looking at God’s mercy in the Old Testament.  Let’s begin with Numbers 14:18-19, where Moses is interceding for the sinful people of Israel:

‘The Lord is longsuffering and abundant in mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He by no means clears the guilty…¹⁹ Pardon the iniquity of this people, I pray, according to the greatness of Your mercy, just as You have forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.”

If you read the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Old Testament) carefully, the children of Israel traveling in the desert had one miracle after another shown to them (the plagues mostly did not hit them). They lost no life by obeying the Passover, while Pharaoh’s disobedience led to all Egyptian families losing their firstborn. Not only that, his army was wiped out. God gave the Jews food, their shoes never broke down, the miracles were so many I can’t name them all.  Yet they still didn’t trust God or Moses for leadership.   God redeemed the nation later, when they finally obeyed Him. See Acts 7:39b-42, where Steven is summarizing the hard-heartedness of most of these people:

And in their hearts they turned back to Egypt, ⁴⁰ saying to Aaron, ‘Make us gods to go before us; as for this Moses who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.’ ⁴¹ And they made a calf in those days, offered sacrifices to the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. ⁴² Then God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the Prophets

But they had to obey His commands to escape His anger--and almost all adults in the early days did not, and died in His anger, and never got to the Promised Land. They were supposed to rely on Him. Their children were obedient, and fought for it—and made it.

But isn’t that the same story in the New Testament?  Jesus was completely innocent, yet He was killed by the insistence of the Jews. Their people were screaming for His blood. The Gentiles (Romans) were accessories. Yet His redemption, and heaven, are still available!  He was, and is, longsuffering—but there comes a point where He gives up a person committed to sin—as indicated in the Acts 7 verse above. But there are conditions to avoid His anger--which most people have missed.

Consider Ezekiel 18:20-24, another Old Testament passage:

The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son….²¹ “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. ²² None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. ²³ Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live? ²⁴ “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.

These verses explain, first of all, that God does not carry a grudge against a sinful man’s son or his grandson.  (But the sins that the father unfortunately taught his son, the son tends to copy). God judges them individually.  Secondly, the verses show a truth also taught in the New Testament--God loves repentance (v. 21: “turns from”).  If you repent, believe in what Jesus did, and live righteously, He will forgive you and forget your earlier sin.  But if you were first righteous, then became set in sin, He forgets the earlier days too--that means hell for that person.  (Keep in mind when you read: “live” means heaven, “die” is hell.)  And these verses, despite being in the Old Testament, are repeated in the New Testament, where we are urged to continue abiding in Him and not fall away.  Falling away, failing to abide, failing to obey Him, amount to denying Him; and means hell (John 15 above).  The words from this Old Testament passage that I want to inspire you with are in v. 23: “Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God.  God does not love to send people to hell.  But the majority go there because they are disobedient or care nothing for God or His commandments (Matthew 7:13-14).

Read this self-description of God in the Old Testament. Does this sound primitive and bloody?  You can see that He is merciful in Exodus 34:5-10, the Old Testament:

Now the Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him (Moses) there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord. ⁶ And the Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, ⁷ keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.” ⁸ So Moses made haste and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshiped.⁹ Then he said, “If now I have found grace in Your sight, O Lord, let my Lord, I pray, go among us, even though we are a stiff
-necked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us as Your inheritance.”  And He said: “Behold, I make a covenant. Before all your people I will do marvels such as have not been done in all the earth

Isn’t it wonderful that God calls Himself “merciful, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness?”  Thank you, God!  Now keep in mind, these blessed words happened immediately after the sin of Israel in making a golden calf idol.  Yet God here proclaimed His longsuffering mercy.  Don’t get the idea that God ignored their sin; notice the phrase, "by no means clearing the guilty."  Soon after this, He set a plague against the guilty ones of another sin--but He also set up a tabernacle of meeting where He showed Himself to Moses, and renewed His Covenant with the Jews.

So…I hope I balanced out your image of God that you may have felt was a “bloody God” in the Old Testament. You still may say, "why did God tell the Jews to kill all the people of Canaan, women and children as well?"  The answer to that question is, to assimilate at all with the Canaanites would have a strange result--it would infect their DNA with a demonic presence.  My strange charge can be explained in my blog on the Nephilim and with the word "DNA" in the title.

So let’s balance things out in the New Testament now, by showing His sternness there. Remember, Jesus is God; and their character is the exact same. Was Jesus all-forgiving in the New Testament?  Was He as nonjudgmental as it seems, since we like to remember when He forgave the woman in adultery, and entertained sinners?  And when He scoffed at the law (the "law" as defined by the Pharisees)?  Here I would like to quote David Limbaugh, author of Jesus on Trial, about the Gospel of Mark:

Jesus tells people to repent.  He tells people to quit their jobs and follow him.  He tells a demon to shut up.  After He heals a leper, He swears him to silence, too.  Then He picks a fight with Sunday School teachers, He tells His mom He’s busy, He rebukes the wind, He kills two thousand pigs, “he offends people but doesn’t go to sensitivity training.”  He calls people hypocrites (ed, this is spoken to regular people, not just the scribes or Pharisees), and seems to call Peter Satan.  He curses and kills a tree, He tells people they’re going to hell, and He rebukes the disciples for falling asleep on Him.  

Not exactly the view of Him in your mind, I suspect. A careful reading of all the Gospels will show the truth of every one the author alludes to.  Jesus was blunt! Upon careful reading of all the Gospels, you’ll see that Jesus had a lot to say about hell--a subject we avoid.  In Matthew 6:15, He told people God would not forgive them if they didn’t forgive people.  In Luke 16, He tells of a man is on his way to hell, with no reason explicitly given for it.  One can only surmise it was because he, a rich man, cared nothing for the poor—and thought he was better than them; he repeatedly ignored a poor man in his daily path, begging for bread (for further proof of the danger of ignoring the poor, see James 2:15-17). In Matthew 11:23, He pronounces judgment on an entire city (Capernaum) because they did not believe in Him.  He predicts their judgment will be worse than Sodom (which reeked of rapist homosexuals).  In Matthew 5:30, He recommends that we take extreme measures to prevent sinning, lest we go to hell.  In Matthew 23 He calls scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, a brood of vipers, and sons of hell.   He asks them, “How can you escape the condemnation of hell?”

Lest you think His harsh judgmental words were for the scribes and Pharisees only, He has an extensive argument stretching over three chapters (John 6-8) He tells his brothers that the world hated Him because “I testify of it that its works are evil.”  A rather critical view of people.   He tells all those listening that “none of you keeps the law.”  He tells them that “He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know.”  He tells them “I go to Him who sent me…and where I am you cannot come.”  He tells all of them “you do not know where I come from and where I am going….You know neither Me nor My Father….you will seek me, and will die in your sin… you are of this world…you do not believe that I am He…you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you…you do not hear, because you are not of God…you have not known Him…And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you…you are not able to listen to My word.  I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father… You are of your father the devil.  Again, these candid, undiplomatic statements were for everyone to hear and be warned.

I hope you’re as surprised as I was, when I first really read those words.  Jesus the bare-knuckler. God/Jesus has harsh penalties for those who persist in sin. God/Jesus hates sin.

I’m not being sarcastic when I say, in faith, that He is The Master Teacher, and knew the right evangelistic skills. He wasn’t just blowing them off, out of anger.  His approach, I suspect, is:  He forces them to make a decision about Him—do you believe I am God, being that I have performed miracles that no man can do, if I judge you at present?  Do you believe that I hate sin so much that I am willing to use harsh language to wake people up?  Or am I going to make you so angry that you’ll rage within, “I hate you!”--and reveal your own condemnation to yourself?  No lukewarm preaching here.  No one skids blissfully to hell on ignorance--such as is happening in today's soft-sell, never mentioning hell, "preaching".  If you were for Him, you were hated by many, just like He was made to be.  He was killed because He was too radical for them. Yet He and His followers evangelized thousands and turned the world upside down--so His "tough love" method worked.  What does that say for us, and our evangelistic methods?  His method of talking about sin definitely would not work in seeker-friendly churches.

These three chapters in John 6-8 also have His discussion with the adulterous woman.  The woman was repentant, so Jesus forgave her.  But, a lot of people forget that He also said to her, “Go, and sin (i.e., this sin) no more.”  God hates divorce and adultery. And He scoffed at the Pharisee “laws” because they were not God’s laws, but man’s laws--“supplements” to God’s law—too often a burden.  Such as their not wanting Jesus to heal people on the Sabbath.

Thus, Jesus is no milquetoast, and He doesn’t display the words for today—“tolerant and nonjudgmental.”

Now I hope I balanced the New Testament like I did with the Old.  Thus, since the "rough" Jesus is also God, this is the same God, with the same qualities—love and a hatred of sin—occupying both Testaments.  Judgment and hell hang over each of us from the day of our accountability.  God provided a way of redemption for you, to get rid of the penalty and power of sin.  In careful Scripture reading, especially the Master Teacher in the Gospels, with an eye to getting a comprehensive view, you can find your way to heaven. Don’t assume since you’ve been “pretty good” that you’ll pass. Even one sin will keep you away from God for eternity. We all should be humble before Him, confessing our sins—not just once, when we “got saved.” Salvation is a path—a path of sanctification. God bless your Scriptural searching--keep in mind, few people are interested.  They just assume they’re “good enough.”  Let Matthew 7:13-14 ring in your ears, and try to make it ring in their ears:

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. ¹⁴ Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.  

Yes, the New Testament tells us that few find their way to heaven.  Be one of the few.

Acknowledgement:  David Limbaugh, Jesus on Trial

 

The Most Ignored Doctrine in the Bible

 

I would like to take four sections of Scripture and analyze them together, since they are all on the same subject—namely, the woman’s role in the family and in the church.  A hot topic, for sure.  Scripture is crystal clear on several points, but churches and families are not being taught this by their pastors. 

First, let’s look at I Corinthians 11:3-5, 7:

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. ⁴ Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. ⁵ But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head... ⁷ For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 

Here are the facts clearly taught regarding the role of women from these verses:

Verse 3 “the head of woman is man.” This says the man is the head of the home.  This is affirmed by v. 7, where the man does not cover his head, but she does, since covering is a sign of submission, and being under an umbrella of protection.

V. 5 says that women could lead in a prayer, or could prophesy in church, in their weekly meetings.  The earliest church had services which encouraged congregation participation—someone could lead in a song, another could lead in a prayer of intercession, protection, etc; another could speak in a tongue—and another could “prophesy.”  Prophecy is not just foretelling the future; it’s also, as Vine puts it in his Expository Dictionary “telling forth the divine counsels”—i.e., as I Corinthians 14:3 says, speaking “edification and exhortation and comfort.”  These two gifts, prayer and prophecy, had great meaning in the early church—but the prophetic gift has fallen into disuse, along with congregational participation.

V. 5 says that a woman should have her head covered in service.  This is because she is the “glory of man.”

My question is, have you ever heard a sermon pointing out the obvious facts of submission in these verses?  I doubt it. Have you ever been to a church where the women covered their heads?  I’ve visited a Mennonite church (so said the online yellow pages), but they hired a Baptist pastor and only one very old woman was covered.    I’ve been to a Plymouth Brethren church, which only had maybe five women covered, and covering wasn’t mentioned in the many sermons (I was a member).  They realized that head coverings were a symbol of women's acknowledgement of this Scriptural truth.  Many women, even in progressive Plymouth Brethren churches, refused to cover; perhaps they did not even have a clear idea what the covering was for.

Next, let’s go to I Corinthians 14:33-34, 36-37:

For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. ³⁴ Let your women keep silent in the churches...they are to be submissive, as the law also says....³⁶ Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? ³⁷ If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.

v. 36 has an interesting phrase, “…Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?”  This suggests that they knew the Word, yet kept it down and listened to another word—a culturally acceptable word. In V. 34, it also gives the women’s role: “they are to be submissive.” This is also taught in Ephesians 5:22-23a:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.  For the husband is head of the wife…”

This confirms I Corinthians 11 above. Getting back to I Corinthians 14 again:

Vv. 34: “Let your women keep silent in the churches…”  A command from God.  Yet we saw above that women could pray or prophesy in church.  What this verse means, then, is that in accordance with submissiveness, women were not to be teachers or take on any speaking sermons, or leadership role over men. (Note: in 2024, St. Andrew’s Chapel, in Sanford FL, whose pastor was the great RC Sproul, left the Presbyterian Conference—because the PCA would not totally support women not having a role in teaching men.)

Vv. 36-37:  Paul’s tough words here suggests that the Corinthian church was in violation of this; they had a superior attitude, it appears.  Maybe they even called themselves "progressive" on this, advancing women's worldly cause.  But they were teaching the opposite of God's clear word to Paul.  They were thus challenging that his words came from God. He took that very seriously.  I think his opening sentence in v. 33 about “confusion” has to do with this—confusion is what happens when God's rules of order are violated by those who were supposed to believe in them.

Why this "dictator" order?  Why is the Bible "sexist?" Perhaps is to preserve unity at home.  What if father wants to discipline the children differently than the wife?  Today, she feels she has the right to perform opposite from his thinking.  That brings up many problems of lying or deception.  What it also might do, is develop children who learn how to manipulate two parents to get what they want.  Play one parent off against the other.  They grow up with this.  But this is not a Christian response to how your relationship with your spouse should be. Another one:  what if both parents have jobs?  Both enjoy their productivity.  One gets a hard offer to move to another location.  Shall they move? This will cause a great number of problems. Someone will feel resentment.  Related to that is, if the wife is working, she gets pregnant, is she going to have someone else watch her children grow up 9-10 hours a day?  Does a small child develop the proper attachment to mother with such a massive absenteeism?

Now, are THESE problems being preached on today?  And their solution, under God--the wife should submit. Again, I suspect, No.  Is Paul (or God, actually) "sexist?"  No, His rules are always for our best, because He loves us more than we know.  Don't ask me to agree with you if anyone is making accusations like that to our loving, sovereign God.  He has His reasons for doing what we now call "sexist."  Don't even wonder why, don't look for escape from the rule by twisting His Word—or His character.  Just trust that He does all things for His children out of total love.  These were--and are--the best guidance for our lives as married couples.

Next, I Timothy 2:9-12:

In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, ¹⁰ but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. ¹¹ Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. ¹² And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. .

Vv. 9-10 The women are urged to be “modest” in their apparel, with “propriety” (another version reads “discreetness”).  This suggests not rousing up lustfulness in men.  (Hey, I'm not saying women are at fault in rape, even if she dresses sexy. Possibly being sexily dressed does lead to more rape--though porn is more likely at fault.)  Not using “gold or pearls or costly clothing” suggests that they are expressing that their thoughts in life are sober and God-fearing, not gaudy or worldly. So the men hopefully could learn more about their spiritual beauty, instead of being attracted by worldly lust. Unfortunately, it’s true that if a church or youth leader were to teach about sober-minded clothing to teenage girls (along with these other verses on submission to men), the keening and whining would be big and the youth group would be small.  You’ve got to be “sexy,” says the modern young women. Youth group leaders should do everything they can to disabuse that thought and train the opposite. Do we yield to cultural authority, or God’s Word?

Vv. 11-12 She is to “learn in silence with all submission,” and “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence” confirms our earlier discussions.  Paul (or, really, God) is driving home this point several times.

Finally, let’s look at I Peter 3:1-6:

Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, ² when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. ³ Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— ⁴ rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. ⁵ For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, ⁶ as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

Vv. 1-2 Anothe reason given for submitting to husbands:  it’s an evangelistic effort to win an unbelieving husband to Christ.  I can't believe that this idea is a huge “turn-off” to so many women; but that reaction suggests how far we are from the spirit of sacrifice that real Christianity demands.  I might add that you could oftentimes avoid this particular problem if you obey another Scripture that says not to marry an unsaved person.

V 1-2 Wives are to “be submissive,” be in “chaste conduct,” (no flirting) and “accompanied by fear.” This is NOT fear of the husband; it is a fear of God's judgment on the sin of not obeying His commands, enough to cause her to submit herself to His commands.  I have a blog on “Fear of God” that point out that this attitude toward God is beneficial to the possessor. P.S: Many men, when their wife finally trusts him, will do an amazing turnaround and act more responsively and away from their weakness. Many will also become Christians.

V3:  Again, Scripture is against outward adornment, “arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel.”  Our women are urged to be God’s adornment, the “hidden person of the heart…beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God.”  Being submissive to husbands, and the beauty you show because you are gentle and godly, was an adornment to God.  And we are in business to please God, right?  (as a Catechism says,   

Q. 1. What is the chief and highest end of man?
A. Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever.)

Sarah was given as an example of proper womanhood, calling her husband “lord.”  I’m not saying we should do THAT, but the woman’s mind should have the same vibe.

Note that in all four of the Scriptures above, which are all focusing on the teaching on the role of women at home or at church, emphasizes submissiveness, being under his headship—that quality is stressed every single time. Thus it is a crystal-clear commandment of God.  But, in all honesty, it is never stressed in sermons that I've heard, or else watered down beyond all efficacy.  This subject is without question the most ignored important doctrine today.

If men or women read their Bible with the intent to obey it, it would be clear to them as well, so they too are at fault when they casually ignore it. The symptoms of this disease?  Confusion over leadership at home.  This results in fights over leadership, and marriage is stressful.  A family with two heads (especially working heads) doesn’t work in a situation, let's say, where the decision is extremely important to both, and they differ in opinion.  (Simple example:  Wife thinks only of higher position in her field, so she indicates at work that she is willing to move. THEN, when such an offer presents itself, she offers an ultimatum to the husband, who doesn't agree--let's move, or we must separate. “The kids will get used to it”).  The result of this opposition to God?  As every current study shows, divorces are the same high percentages in “Christian” homes as they are in pagan homes.  Yet we should all know, God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16)—and provided narrow guidelines where it was allowed.   Divorce is never the best solution; it is only allowed.

So here’s what I’m saying in response to this elephant in the room that nobody sees:  Do you believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible?  That phrase means, every and all words are as if written by God—it is written exactly as how He intended it.  Now you could argue that Scripture has been changed over the years due to flawed copying, but examples from the Dead Sea Scrolls and others show that only a few occasional, minor changes have happened--NONE affecting any major doctrine.

If you do believe in God-breathed inspiration, then you can’t accuse Paul as being a sexist for writing what he did, because the words he wrote came from God.  It wasn’t like a dream, where God gave him the general idea and let him fill in the rest—and then he did so crudely.  We’re saying, every meaning was really from God.

So, you say, OK, based on these “rules,” then God is a sexist.  We're so culturally past submission, you say.  If you believe that God, or Paul, wrote every Scripture as biased males, then you don’t really believe in the all-goodness of God.  But His commands are for one purpose:  For everybody to live our lives to the fullest.  As Jesus said in John 10:10:

I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly

This is certainly what God, who loves you beyond your mother, your husband, even you, could ever love you, wants.   Would you reject that intense love?  You say you want to live your own life as a female, make your decisions based on your perspective?  This “revolution of independence” is not new:  any such "independence" (in the fullest definition of that word) is a movement away from God. Trust Him.

Here’s a little different argument you may have.  You believe that the Bible has many truths, but many indefensible culturalisms (like its position on womanhood).  But you say that relationship to men has evolved beyond that ugly culture, so you will choose which Bible verses are proper to live by, and which are better for you to ignore.  In response, I say this:  First, you are denying that the Bible is God’s Word for all time.  Secondly, for you to pick and choose your verses that are "culturally relevant," that means you are judging God.  You are a better judge of what’s moral than God?  That's on a slippery slope toward Judgment Day.

It is amazing to me that so many people claim they believe the Bible, but in a critical situation, they cave in to self-will.  I Will decide this one, they say, since this one is important, and the solution seems obvious--never mind what Scripture commands.  But this is sin; this is doing the same thing Eve did, doubting the goodness of God.    Consider I John 2:3-4:

Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. ⁴ He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

The role of women outlined here is clear--and it is a commandment of God.  So does I John 2:4 apply to you? But are you aware what the Scripture says about the eternal destination of those who continually live a lie, and do not embrace fully God's truth?

To get back to the question I posed at the very beginning:  Why don’t pastors preach on this?  Why do pastors refuse to stand with Scripture—and don't encourage men to step up and act like leaders at home?  I have a theory as to the reason.  The theory is surrounded by greed, covetousness, and self-gratification.  This whole thing started with women going to work and making some serious money.  From 1950 to 1990, according to the 1996 Green Book, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the percentage of working mothers with children under 6 (not a good time to avoid bonding) achieved its greatest growth—it quintupled—from 12% of all working age women to a horrendously high 60%. A straight-up chart. In May 2025, it was slightly higher yet—68%. To me, that means that 68% of young mothers have walked away from their main job, supporting and bonding with the kids, in favor of making more money for the family to spend.  I realize I’m stomping on some nervous threads here, but let’s get it all out:  They’re saying, “I have money!  Now, let’s buy, buy!  Yes, enjoy life more, and we'll give the little ones toys and entertainment, not empathy or closeness when they need us.  Yes, Possessions are more important."

If you’re thinking, well, since there are unemployment males, the women have to pitch in to support the family--but that doesn't explain this huge move.  The actual unemployment rate for the same period is a roller coaster, up and down, for the period—between 3% and 7.5%.  That certainly does not explain why the women-with-small children chart is straight up, no pauses or backing up.  It's not like women are supporting the men, getting jobs when they're off, then dropping that gig when husbands get back to the grindstone.  If that were the case, both charts would be acting like a roller coaster—but no, it's straight up.  They get caught in the greed of wanting the extra money all the time, and the kids are left behind.

For another slice of data, from 1973 to 2012, women went from contributing 26% of family earnings to 37% of family earnings (again from BLS data). What do we draw from it?  Women are contributing more to family income.  But is this good?  Consider: The wives have more "skin in the game;" so, they could simply feel that that entitles them to make their desires known on important decisions, whether conflicting with their husband or not--again, ignoring Scripture.  I'm not saying ALL women, just the total of women from one date to the next.

So if you were thinking, the earlier 60% could be minimum hours a week, just some pin money added, on average, not a real sacrifice for wives—but these data will disabuse you of that notion:  wives in 1973 contributed 25% of family income; that's not "pin money," that's a significant percentage—and a significant sacrifice to family time and their well-being.  But that wasn't good enough--as of 2012, the wives contribute 37% of family income. Yet a greater sacrifice of children to greed for money.   Scripturally, in the interest of real family, this is going the wrong way.

Do the husbands want to fight this upward trend?  Apparently not.  The data also so that men are dropping out of the labor force in a bigger way (from 87% participation to 72% from 1950 to 2019).  This is before Covid came along to screw it up.  A steady drop. (I'm sorry this website won't let me show the charts). The women participation in the same period rose, then flattened--almost like they're re-thinking whether this was a good idea. It looks like some men are willing to stop fighting with the women, give up and drop out of the rat race and let the wives be the primary breadwinner, and she's not sure if she likes how all this is turning out.

It would help to know that if there were a real revival, and women dropped out of the labor force, then what would happen? Men would take the available jobs. With more jobs needed than men available, the wages would rise faster. A simple economic fact of supply and demand. This would draw additional men off the unemployment rolls, to perform their duties as a breadwinner for their family. Incomes per household don’t take a big hit after all--the total family incomes would decline, but not as much as you think (especially after taxes). With one person at home, they wouldn’t have to spend as much—they might not need a second car, they would spend less on child care, less on clothing and eating out, less on paying Uncle Sam.  but this would work only if a substantial number of women realized the importance of bonding with their child. All the more reason to preach this aspect of God’s Word.

Full time parenting would be an exploration for these women. Hopefully, they would really love their growing children more. Who knows? Maybe they would have more of them. The present trend of having children is so low, it is gradually snuffing out Western civilization.

Moms could have other goals besides isolating herself and the children at home.  Consider the state of public schools (again, non-Covid).  They teach evolution, and refuse to allow Bibles or prayer; they ban lots of t-shirts that don't toe their party line.  Well, why not use your talents to rescue your kids from this godless wasteland?  Go back to the way this country was educated in the early 1800s—by families or paid teachers--teachers that meet the families’ approval. Ideally, independent of government interference. Have you ever read the letters that common men in the Civil War wrote home? Unbelievably great grammar, critical thinking--two key elements missing today with public “education.” So think about home-schooling too.  It's getting downright dangerous to be in school.  Homeschooling wouldn't be so bad, considering how bullyness, rebellion, and anti-learning kids are rising in schools.  Kids are so poorly trained in school, that they often fail in college, or lose their purpose in life and Christian faith among all the immorality and agnostic teaching. And let’s not forget the student debt monster.

Getting back to my point: this trade-off.  They might even do a lot more things around the house as a family, like dinners or games together.  What’s wrong with family talks at dinner, reading the Bible together?  Throw out the multiple phones, multiple TVs and have the computers and pads close for monitoring.  Have one computer in the house, in a major traffic area, if you ask me.  If a child wants to do his homework from it, while the TV is going nearby, he can put on silencers—or the TV watchers can.  Anyway, less porn results, less dangerous connections.  Let the kids develop normal thoughts about people of the opposite sex.

You’re not going to argue here, to tell me that the trends in kids and young marrieds are terrific, so you want to defend the status quo.  You’re not going to tell me that “money buys me happiness” when divorces, child suicides and even genetic confusion are at all-time highs.  Teenage grads of high schools are not sure if they like men, even. A Pew study in 2023 revealed: a third of 12th-grade girls saying they either have no intention or have "no idea" if they'll marry. Girls don’t find lasting satisfaction in messing with sex. You’ve got to take the long view on this, and train everybody to endure the peer pressure for an upstanding lifestyle.

Getting back to my original theme, God really does know what’s best for you, as families.  Forget the grab for more dollars—grab for the husband.  Submit.  Yeah, he might be churlish and make lots of dumb mistakes.  But that’s where you can ask God to fight for you, rather than nagging the husband.   God won’t kill him, like you want on some days (there is virtue in patience), but God is very effective in answering prayers of righteous women.  Oh--and righteous men.  Yes, we need more men to step up.  Another subject for another blog.

May God help us to obey ALL His commandments.

 

The Unorthodox, yet Popular Theology and "Science" of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

 Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was born in 1881, and died in 1955.  He was a French Jesuit priest, paleontologist, theologian, philosopher and teacher. But he was also a spiritual father of the New Age movements.  He was the fourth of 11 children of a librarian and naturalist, Emmanuel.  His mother, Berthe, was the great-grandniece of Voltaire, a famous Enlightenment writer and hater of Christianity. Pierre’s spirituality was awakened by his mother. When he was 12, he went to a Jesuit college, became a novitiate, and made his first vows in 1901. In 1902, the French premiership began an anti-clerical agenda. Religious associations were forced to submit their properties to state control, which obliged the Jesuits to go into exile in Britain. Teilhard did much of his early work on their island Jersey, but he was a world traveler, and Paris and New York were also his home bases later on.

He was Darwinian in outlook, and his early teaching on Original Sin was so unorthodox that he got himself banned by the Superior General of the Society of Jesuits in 1925.  But that didn’t stop him. He still prepared to teach in China on evolutionary geology, also a no-no—so he was fired by his Jesuit Superiors in 1926 from any teaching at all.

He still went to China and dove into paleontology.  He took part in the discovery of Peking Man in 1926.  The problem is, Peking Man likely did not confirm evolution.  The site contained fragmented skull bones, teeth and tools, supposedly from rock layers 750,000 years ago. This was trumped up as a missing link to apes.  But in a 1959 book, a Catholic Chinese missionary, Patrick O’Connell, accused the scientists involved with fraud.  He claimed that the actual skulls (which disappeared in 1941) were just baboons, but the photographs and casts and measurements were tampered with to make them appear more human.  This was from his observations of the site; his theory had enough evidence that it was circulated by Duane Gish, Christian creationist scientist in 1979.  (P.S. Neither Wikipedia nor Catholic writings have anything negative to say about the Peking Man; it has not been proven as a fraud).  But it is also noteworthy that de Chardin was also previously at the scene of Piltdown Man, discovered in 1912.  But this was definitely a proven fraud, and, since the evidence didn’t disappear this time, it was confirmed as a hoax in 1953. It was really an “altered mandible and some teeth of an orangutan deliberately combined (there’s the fraud) with the cranium of a fully developed, though small-brained, modern human.”  Shall we hint that the M.O. of the crime was very similar to the Peking Man, and both were under de Chardin’s watch?  Both of these “proofs,” though they were likely hoaxes, were offered for the defense at the “Scopes Monkey Trial” in 1925.  To show you how the U.S. has changed, Mr. Scopes, a science teacher in Tennessee, was sued because he taught evolution, when Creationist teaching was the only one legal in Tennessee at the time.  Scopes, with the help of the Peking and Piltdown exhibits, and the help of the famed defense attorney Clarence Darrow, was judged not guilty, and in fact, he was offered a new teaching contract—so, he got off easy, partly based on this “evidence” at the time.

Getting to theology, one of de Chardin’s controversial theories was a mixture of science and religion, seldom done at the time, since most “approved” scientists were agnostic.  He conceived of the “vitalist” idea of the Omega Point. Omega Point, to him, means that “everything in the universe is fated to spiral towards a final point of unification…the Omega Point resembles the Christian Logos.” Logos is another word for Jesus Christ, but de Chardin’s version of Logos was quite different.  His” theory” was presented publicly in 1922.  This was also reflected in a book he wrote in 1919, “The Spiritual Power of Matter.”  Vitalism is the belief that “living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities (in that they) contain a non-physical element.”  That mysterious element he referred to as the “vital spark,” which some equate to the soul (he was cagey on this, but that was ultimately proven to be his intent).  But he maintained that plants, since they are a living organism, have a conscious soul.  In the 18^th and 19^thcenturies a similar theory of vitalism was actually discussed among biologists.  They tested the hypothesis but found no support (Benjamin Franklin and Franz Mesmer actually studied it).  It is now regarded as a pseudoscience. 

Perhaps his biggest works was The Phenomenon of Man, 1959 (English).  This posthumously published book set forth a sweeping account of the evolution of matter to attain humanity, then upward again to an ultimate goal of a reunion with Logos. In the book, Teilhard abandoned literal interpretations of creation in Genesis in favor of allegorical and theological interpretations. This  is an example of one of his false teachings:  In Matthew 5:17, Jesus actually said:

 I have come, not to destroy, but to fulfill the law

Teilhard blasphemously re-interpreted His quote as: "I have come not to destroy, but to fulfill Evolution.”

Unlike other Darwinians, he believed that evolution occurs in a directional, goal-driven way. He believed in the following evolution procession: evolution of matter into a geosphere, into a biosphere, into consciousness (in man), and then to supreme consciousness (the Omega Point).  No mention of the crucifixion, and no mention of our Rapture to get to that “Omega Point.”  Oh, yes, he does mention Salvation—but it’s a collective and universal one, as we all evolve to get there.  As he says, “no evolutionary future awaits anyone except in association with everyone else.”  Also, evolution was "the natural landscape where the history of salvation is situated.”  He uses two Bible verses to defend himself:  Colossians 1:17b: 

And He (Christ) is before all things, and in Him all things consist (KJV, “hold together”).

And I Corinthians 15:28: 

Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

In one speech, he asserted that these Scriptures were “pan-Christicism,” or that Christ was tolerant of other ways to get to Omega Point besides orthodox Christianity.  This is now two re-definitions of Jesus Christ and His purpose he has come up with.  His tinkering with Christ to achieve his ideal should engender a fear of God in him, but it doesn’t. He wrote further that Christ, to him, does not have two natures:  He has three. He says Christ is not only man and God; he also possesses a third aspect—indeed, a third nature—which is cosmic. The Body of Christ is not simply a mystical or ecclesial concept for Teilhard; it is cosmic. Teilhard describes this cosmic amassing of Christ as "Christogenesis." I.e., according to Teilhard, the universe is engaged in Christogenesis as it evolves toward its full realization at Omega, a point which coincides with the fully realized Christ. It is at this point that God will be "all in all."

You can see where he is taking this:  pantheism.  God/Christ is in all things, now and in that perfect future; in human and even plant, since ALL living organisms have “vitalism.”  This is multiple blasphemy, but it is politically on point for the extremes of the environmental and New Age groups.

Since all evolution involves mutation, he has a warped thinking on that score as well.  As apologist Dr. Martin put it, “From his correspondence, it is clear that Teilhard was not overly shocked by bloodshed, and regarded violence as necessary to Evolution, and seemed to have enjoyed war--what he saw of it. Death, bloody or otherwise, was what he called a "mutation." As he said, "it would be more to my purpose to be a shadow of Wagner than a shadow of Darwin." That means he prefers G6tterdiimerung (i.e., world-altering destruction marked by extreme chaos and violence), than slow, ordinary Darwin.  I might add, here, that many cults speak in this apocalyptic way, hoping that at the end of the violence, a new and better society can be raised from the ruins. In some cults, its disciples die in suicidal events, like bombings, to hurry-up this better end. The ruling elite of the Nazis also believed that; it was their way to the Perfect Man.

Teilhard rejected all fundamental Christian beliefs, since believing it means he must accept that mankind’s evil and violence has erupted from Adam and Eve’s Original Sin—not the things that he wants to blame (below) for these depredations. When he saw the famous cyclotrons (atom-bomb accelerators) at the U.C. Berkley campus, he was filled "not with terror but with peace and joy" at these tremendous "wombs of change." It was apparently not the specter of Doomsday he saw there, but the possibility that Doomsday would be the womb of the Omega Point—which would give us a new, better world. 

Yet always and everywhere he spoke and behaved as the visionary with a rock-solid certainty about the future. But, for all of that, there is not one line of his that indulges the same infectious enthusiasm for things the Jesuits were trained for:  celebrating the Sacrifice of the Mass; for making reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus; for removing sins from sinners; for teaching children their catechism; or for consoling the oppressed. All of him was wrapped up in his version of the "winsome doctrine," in the impersonal glory that would come to every man with the arrival of the "Ultra-Human."  He bemoaned that "no religion explicitly and officially offers us the God we need."  (As if what “we need” has any bearing on Him or His sovereignty.)  He asserted that no faith should be placed any longer in the supernatural, but only in man becoming more than man by his own innate drives. He was critical of God’s revelation of Himself in His Word (especially the Old Testament): he called such a God a "monstrous idea." He also derides the church:  she needed to abandon "juridicism” (this is very modern woke theology, considering the current Bible phase most quoted by non-believers, “Thou shalt not judge”), along with getting rid of moralism, and all things “artificial” in order to live in the very function of the call to love, by a (man-created) God who so elevates our energies. I don’t know how, but he even perverts the meaning of the Cross: he says that the Sign of the Cross was not suffering and death transformed into eternal life and glory, but the Cross is Evolution's triumph. I don’t see the connection. And he had a swipe at marriage and family in his day, too:  He thought God's order to Adam and Eve "to increase and multiply" no longer applied. We should now use eugenics to aim at the optimum in birth, not the self-control in reproduction. Eugenics was later found to be fake science, and in fact, racist.  Hitler passionately believed in eugenics.  Teilhard was a man ahead of his time in not only also prophesying birth control, but asserting that we have "the absolute right to try everything to the end--even in the matter of human biology (sexuality, euthanasia, conception in vitro, homosexuality).” Another of his comments that was scarily dead-on for the wokes today was this: he wanted to offset the excessive "masculinity of Jehovah."

It’s hard to believe that he wrote most of this in the 1950s.

Teilhard, as I said, had a profound influence on the New Age movements as well.  To quote Henry Morris, CEO of Institute for Creation Research: “Although New Agers have a form of religion, their "god" is Evolution, not the true God of creation. Many of them regard the controversial priest, Teilhard de Chardin, as their spiritual father.”  New Agers have been around for decades, stomping on Christian fundamentals, but that is the subject of another whole paper.

He further posits that creation would not be complete until each "participated being is totally united with God through Christ in the Pleroma (don’t you just love all the new words?--very intimidating).  Pleroma is defined as the “totality of divine powers.” (Gnostics like to use the word too.  Gnostics have been around for thousands of years, stomping on Christian fundamentals.  But that is the subject of another paper).  Note that we are all going to have these divine powers at the Omega Point; we are all going to be like God.  (Satan’s favorite lie, Genesis 3).  At that Point, “the cosmos will be transformed; and the glory of it all will be established.”  In one of his conferences, he said that Mankind will acquire “the sudden appearance of a collective humane conscience."

Further, he said “spiritual development is moved by the same universal laws as material development.”  Since evolution, our material development, is “indisputably” moving us up, he has the same optimism of our spiritual development.  He expresses that God is “pulling” is to the Omega Point.   Further evolution, he says, will eventually provide us with “a unification of consciousness.”

Let’s not forget his ideal of unity in another way too:  His alienation from capitalism and his orientation to "the people" meant that evolution should also apply to social justice in the distribution of goods, an equalization of property that capitalism made impossible (he says). "Human society has been more and more caught up in a yearning for true justice ... a liberation from the bonds [of poverty and dependence brought on by capitalism] in which too many people are still held,” he wrote.

The Society of Jesuits have always been in favor of social justice.  Jesuits led the way in liberation theology after his time.  That’s a big part of salvation to them. As Dr. Martin says, “both the Jesuit and Dominican Religious Orders had allowed some of their members to become worker-priests. These men ate and slept, lived and worked in the very same conditions as the ordinary workman. If their fellow workers joined Communist cells, they joined. If their fellow workers rioted in the streets or demonstrated in front of a government building, the worker-priests did too.” They were later forcibly recalled from this by their Jesuit superiors, but half the worker-priests refused to obey the recall order, and opted for membership in the Communist Party instead! As the future Pope John XXIII put it, they had “not gained one soul through this extensive output of manpower, but the Communist and Socialist parties had benefitted enormously.”  The idea of backing a socialist revolution was not repulsive to this Pope—just not gaining new souls for the Church—or keeping the ones they had.  

Teilhard showed his true leanings when he was distressed at Rome's intervention: "Under the circumstances, and in a capitalist world, how does one remain a Christian?" he asked. "Priest-workers find in the face of a humane Marxism not only justice but hope and a feeling for the Earth which is stronger than 'evangelical humanity. '" For Teilhard, Marxism presented no real difficulty. "The Christian God on high," he wrote, "and the Marxist God of Progress are reconciled in Christ." (I did not know that Christ was so political).  Little wonder that Teilhard de Chardin is the only Roman Catholic author whose works are on public display with those of Marx and Lenin in Moscow's Hall of Atheism!

It seems that accepting this theory imposes either the abandonment or the complete transformation of all the basic doctrines of Roman Catholicism/Christian. Creation, Original Sin, the divinity of Jesus, redemption by Jesus's death on the cross of Calvary, the Church, the forgiveness of sins, the Sacrifice of the Mass, priesthood, papal infallibility, Hell, Heaven, supernatural grace-even the existence and the freedom of God-all must be reformulated, and perhaps abandoned in large part.

But none of that stopped him from being championed by many cardinals and even several recent Popes. He scoffed at superiors’ many attempts to muzzle him. Despite the amazing freedom with which he spoke and published, Teilhard thought of himself as belonging to the "brotherhood" for whom, as he bragged, "thinking freely in the Church these days means going underground. Come to think of it, that's what I've been doing for thirty years." In those days, Church vigilantes were working overtime.  In 1962 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Catholic institution, condemned his works (see their quote below), based on their ambiguities and their doctrinal errors.  Pope Pius XII monitored him.  However, despite being banned several times from further writing, he still wrote.  But, after all, none of his works were placed on their Index of Forbidden Books.  Though his warped theology was loved by several priests and cardinals early on, they kept their views private.  He did get one favorable public mention in those days—an influential French priest, Henri de Lubac, in 1962 affirmed his works.  It was finally decided that his home base should be in the United States, not Europe, because of our feeling, I believe, that freedom should be more important than dogma.  But recently, with the degradation of Catholic vigilance (which suggests, to me, that they have lost somewhat of their mission and purpose), the encomiums have come thick and fast.  He has been honored by Boston College, by Villanova University—both Catholic schools, the former a Jesuit school—and by passing mention in several plays and movies.

I should point out that scientists are not excited by all this. To quote one: “ideas that were peculiarly his were confused, and the rest was just bombastic redescription of orthodoxy."  Another called him a “charlatan.”  But he is loved enough by the Episcopal Church that he is honored with a feast day on the Calendar of Saints of the Episcopal Church on 10 April (the day of his death). 

It is only in the presence of death did that confident optimism and surety that was the personal mark of this man seem to fade. "Now what does he 'see'? I wonder," Teilhard wrote after the death of a friend; "And when will my turn come?" On the occasion of another friend's death: "What shall I 'see'?" That he put the word "see" in quotes showed no persuasion that he would see Jesus and the Father and the Saints. It was an uncertain sentiment for whose lack of faith ordinary words are not sufficient. But he still said, “Dying and death were just the means of becoming one with the universe.” But one wonders what sort of shock Teilhard experienced when on that Easter day at last he "saw" the God of his eternal tomorrow, the God-man who by dying had not become "part of the universe" but remained its sovereign Lord--this time, as Judge.

To bring this story right up-to-date:  Here is a summary of the article published in Catholic Culture (November 2017): 

“Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the widely influential Jesuit paleontologist and philosopher whose writings were cited with a “warning” by the Vatican in 1962, may finally have that blot removed from his record.

Participants at the recent plenary assembly of the Pontifical Council for Culture that discussed “The future of humanity: new challenges to anthropology” unanimously approved a petition to be sent to Pope Francis requesting him to waive the “monitum” (warning) issued by the Holy Office in 1962 regarding the writings of Father de Chardin. The participants, which included top level scientists as well as cardinals and bishops from Europe, Asia, America and Africa, applauded when the text of the petition was read.

They told Pope Francis that “on several occasions” during their discussions “the seminal thoughts of the Jesuit Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, anthropologist and eminent spiritual thinker, have been evoked.” They said, “we unanimously agreed, albeit some of his writings might be open to constructive criticism, his prophetic vision has been and is inspiring theologians and scientists.” They mentioned that four popes—Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and now Francis—had made “explicit references” to his work. Paul VI, in a Feb. 24, 1966 speech, while expressing some reservations, praised a key insight of the Jesuit’s theory on the evolution of the universe, pointed to it as a model for science and quoted the author’s statement: “The more I study material reality, the more I discover spiritual reality.”   John Paul II, in 1981, through his secretary of state, wrote a letter to Monsignor (now cardinal) Paul Poupard, head of the Institute Catholique in Paris, in which he praised the French Jesuit in words that were widely interpreted as a sign that his rehabilitation was on the horizon. Cardinal Ratzinger, now known as Pope Benedict XVI, “spoke glowingly of Teilhard's Christology” by tying it into the Mass, no less: “the transubstantiated Host is the anticipation of the transformation and divinization (too close to divination?) of matter in the christological "fullness."  (A partial translation in English: We will all become divine.) Further, in a homily during Evening Prayer in the cathedral in Aosta, in northern Italy, on July 24, 2009, when he was Pope, he commended an aspect of the French Jesuit’s vision when he said: “The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host. Francis (the current Pope) became the fourth pope to have something positive to say about Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. He did so in 2015 in his encyclical in a footnote, in which he speaks about the French Jesuit’s “contribution” to the ultimate destiny of the universe. Moreover, the petition, seemed to find receptive ground in his address to the plenary assembly last week.”

      They concluded by expressing their conviction that “this act not only will acknowledge the genuine effort of the pious Jesuit to reconcile the “scientific” (my emphasis) vision of the universe with Christian eschatology, but will represent a formidable stimulus for all philosophers, theologians, theologians and scientists of good will to cooperate towards a Christian anthropological model that fits naturally in the wonderful warp and weft of the cosmos. 

My final word:  Let’s hope they don’t cave in to another false doctrine by giving this guy credibility.  Let’s be vigilant to obey II Timothy 4:3-4:

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Note:  The Warnings issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office are:

On June 30, 1962, the Holy Office issued a monitum (warning) regarding the writings of Father Teilhard de Chardin. In 1981 the Holy See reiterated this warning against rumors that it no longer applied. Following is the text of both the monitum and the 1981 statement:

For this reason, the most eminent and most revered Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as the superiors of Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth" Several works of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, some of which were posthumously published, are being edited and are gaining a good deal of success.

"Prescinding from a judgement about those points that concern the positive sciences, it is sufficiently clear that the above-mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers.

"Given at Rome, from the palace of the Holy Office, on the thirtieth day of June, 1962.

 

Bibliography

The Jesuits:  The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church, Malachi Martin, 1987 (He was a Jesuit priest and paleographer who asked to be released from certain of his Jesuit vows, seeing that he wrote extensive criticism of their works. He died in 1999).

America, the Jesuit Review, specifically:  www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/11/21/will-pope-francis-remove-vaticans-warning-teilhard-de-chardins-writings

www.catholicculture.org/search/searchResults.cfm?querynum=1&searchid=2083717&showCount=2

https://www.history.com/topics/roaring-twenties/scopes-trial

https://www.icr.org/article/evolution-new-age

www.biblegateway.com

www.wikipedia.com/pierreTeilharddeChardin

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1936-6434-6-27

Title:  Peking, Piltdown, and Paluxy:  Creationist Legends About Paleoanthropology https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-false-teachers

YouTube: Posthumanism, Omega Point, Noosphere Theory, and Teilhard deChardin

The Holy Bible

YouTube:  POSTHUMANISM, OMEGA POINT, NOOSPHERE THEORY, AND TEILHARD DE CHARDIN