White Middle-Class, Middle-Aged Males - The Beatitudes

Is the Progressive Church movement challenging orthodox Christianity? Yes, but it’s concealed inside the language of equity and social justice. It’s “the wolf in sheep’s clothing” conveyed in Matthew 7:15 where the objective appears to be more about challenging orthodoxy than anything else. Does Christianity have anything to be concerned about, most definitely, and this commentary addresses a recent sermon that focussed on social injustice, with all the hallmarks of progressive ideology. I’m mindful that those reading this don’t have the benefit of hearing the sermon itself however, we need to be aware of the dangers progressive Christianity represents, and pay attention to the content of sermons because subtle deviations from orthodox theology might sound compelling, but misrepresent the truth.

This speaker exploited the Beatitudes to underscore a message about inequity and social injustice and singled out one particular group for scrutiny, which appeared convenient under the current social climate. Remember, this message was addressed to a congregation of believers and opened with Jesus at the beginning of his ministry in Matthew 5, and he was teaching about a higher standard embedded in the Law. It’s also important to remember that the Beatitudes are located in the New Testament writings however, the context is in the times of the Law, and the New Covenant had not begun, the disciples were not yet Apostles, and they were not yet saved. Jesus had not died, and the Holy Spirit had not been given.

Therefore, when Jesus begins to teach, he’s teaching from a position under the Law, but elevating the heart of the Law to an even higher standard. The emphasis is that if we can’t meet any standard for righteousness under the Law, we certainly can’t meet this higher standard, without someone meeting it for us. In Matt 5:20 Jesus states, “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven”. Jesus is speaking to Israel about something they had never understood or lived by. However, the entire narrative should be received today as an exposure of our hearts, rather than suggesting a set of new standards that must be met to achieve righteousness, or standards we judge others by.

Jesus is conveying penalties for sin under the law, but penalties that HE WILL PAY to secure our rightness with God. Faith alone secures our eternal security (John 10), but this was yet to be revealed. Jesus didn’t do away with these penalties, and he didn’t water them down. The consequence of murder, pride, adultery, divorce, covetousness and judgment, is still eternal separation from God. And by way of example, Jesus elevated the standard of righteousness so high that even looking at a woman lustfully, was the same as committing the act of fornication itself. Therefore, the only way we truly appreciate the impact of this "blessing" is to recognise our unworthiness to receive it in the first place. The heart of the Law is “love” (agape) which stood in stark contrast to the religious laws and regulations that defined and controlled Jewish life ever since the Law was given. Jesus begins his ministry here because God's love is the heart of the Gospel message and the source of ultimate joy and blessing.

The word “blessed” is used rather flippantly today, in that its meaning is depreciated into something like being happy or content. But happiness is fleeting and sometimes superficial because it largely depends on physical or emotional circumstances. It’s a physical experience rather than an internal revelation of who we are in God. The point is, that the Beatitudes explain what the rules and laws could never achieve, and Jesus was explaining the foundations of eternal security, that would change lives forever.

Therefore, The Beatitudes are about Jesus exposing our poverty in God’s eyes. Jesus teaches them in the context of recognizing our depravity. He’s not preaching against the tyranny of Rome as suggested in the sermon, nor is he trying to justify or incite political activism against those who might persecute us. They shouldn’t be taken or applied as a means of retaliation against groups in the Church, or within society. The speaker was building a non-biblical narrative, nested inside a biblical construct. Secondly, the speaker stated that after teaching on the Beatitudes Jesus went away from the ungrateful crowds, along with the disciples, because all the crowds wanted was the miracles, but not the change of life he was suggesting. This statement is partially true but the emphasis on "ungrateful" is subjective and appeared somewhat loaded, in so much as it misrepresented what Jesus said later in Matt11:20-24, and Matt11:16-17. Far from suggesting any particular group, he implicates the spiritual condition of the entire nation. However, because the narrative was around social injustice rather than spiritual poverty, he chose not to convey that none of those present, including the disciples, had a clue about the implications of Jesus's discourse, any more than the crowds present. Why, because none of them were born again, the new Covenant had not yet come? If we read the texts with care, the truth reveals itself. When a sermon inserts a false narrative and politicizes it to distract from the truth, it becomes dangerous, but sadly, common among Progressive Churches today.

Matt 5:4 “Blessed are they that mourn” – The text refers to those who feel their spiritual poverty and mourn after God, lamenting the sin that separates us from God the Father. Here “mourning” is not about wanting the world to change, confronting oppression, or sympathy for the oppressed, as suggested by the speaker. Further, the speaker referenced Matt 5:4 and Exodus 2:11, where Moses was watching the hard labour of his people and used this as an example of the mourning referred to in the Beatitudes. The speaker used this to emphasize activism towards social injustice, but the Beatitudes refer to a personal heart attitude toward God. The Bible does not encourage Christians to become social activists or confront oppressors, it suggests the exact opposite. We might consider this in light of Matt 5:38-42.

Mat 5:6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. What does the “hunger and thirst” refer to, if not “righteousness”? The text is talking about “hungering after the righteousness of God”. Unfortunately, the speaker was suggesting righteousness as a virtue found in social activism, that Christians are blessed if they fight the injustice experienced by others. Standing beside someone unjustly treated is not wrong, but activism is discouraged and not the emphasis in the Beatitudes.

I suspected a statement would eventually come that tied everything together, and identified those he saw as responsible for this injustice. It came in the form of an inflammatory statement about “white middle-class middle-aged males”, which seemed incomprehensible coming from a leader in a Church. He effectively accused many of those in his congregation and raised questions of motive and integrity. By making such a woke case for the idea of injustice he successfully undermined everything he had said concerning the Beatitudes, and we can rightly ask the question, was he being a peacemaker, was he being pure in heart, or was he thirsting after the righteousness of God? Was he exhibiting the higher standard of love (agape), as he separated and judged others (Matt7:1)?  At times it can be difficult to confront entrenched social mores, without reverting the same tactics as those we speak against. The bullied become the bully, the robbed become the robbers, the poor become the greedy, and so on. Such things are witnessed, even today. We will be judged by the same standard that we judge others. Sadly, I think we might all fail this test. But let’s be clear, Jesus didn’t concern himself with the politics of the world, he separated himself from it repeatedly, and emphasized the point by saying, "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.". He didn’t try to change Rome, nor did he seek to confront its leaders concerning Rome’s oppressive control of the Holy Land. He didn’t change the position of women in society, try to set slaves free, cure every sickness, or change the political climate of the Jewish ruling class. Jesus preached the opposite of what the disciples thought he had come to do.

Some will say, “But there’s no such thing as the perfect sermon”. I agree all sermons convey something significant for at least one person listening. But if the standard of preaching attacks or leads the body away from the truth, is one person enough to dismiss dialogue? Political agendas are not uncommon in many sermons today, particularly where Covid or Trump is concerned.

I would argue this example exposes an ideological change that's occurring in the Church wherein the salt has indeed lost its saltiness (Matt5:13). As the influence of social change undermines orthodoxy, the Church as a religion is losing its distinctive difference, to the point where no one cares what the Church thinks anymore? Can we ignore the fact that many Christians, have very little zeal or passion for God, and see Church more as a prelude to Sunday lunch? There are compelling reasons why this has happened, some of which can be addressed easily, or improved. Others might require a messy process of reform. For example, the spiritual gifts and personality traits of those with traditional preaching responsibilities are reasonably consistent across the Church. Therefore the same emphasis, tone, and content are repeated, with only minor variations. Many Elders are content with personality consistency within leadership teams, without realizing the danger this represents. The importance of having a cross-section of gifts in Eldership is a biblical construct. It creates an inherent tension, that should be sought after because it provides spiritual balance and a higher probability that God will be heard. Agree or not, it remains clear that many Churches are in desperate trouble, and many Christians are apathetic and unsatisfied by the constant repetition of religious monologues. The systemic failures that undermine religious institutions are so ingrained in the way we do Church, that even though most leaders might acknowledge something is wrong, there's nothing wrong in their Church. Leaders seem oblivious to the signs of spiritual ambivalence or actively listen to the voice that challenges traditional mores. In the main, they continue to do what they know best, while the Trojan horse walks through the door and destroys from within.

In the coming months, talk of vaccine passports, social discrimination, apartheid, tax exemption status, hate speech laws, and various other laws that control civil liberties might impact everyone, even the Church. The mob will direct the social narrative, families, and communities will become isolated and the rebellious isolated and contained. Even now the Christian Church has less influence than other religious communities, and even the Church isolates its own.

The Church will be increasingly influenced by social justice ideologues who preach sermons that convey virtue by disparaging other Churches, someone out there, or some group over there, but rarely themselves. Trump's leadership qualities might be a recent example I’ve heard. In reality, it’s mostly gossip and innuendo, and second, the pulpit is not the place for political posturing. The general expectation is high-quality spirit-filled renditions of God’s word without scoring political points. If we want a mature and engaged congregation the Church needs to become biblically consistent, by engaging all the ministry gifts, deconstructing denominational mores, and reconsidering the purpose of the Church.

We might start by comparing who we think we are, with a higher standard. For example, how might we rate the quality of sermons today if we compared them with that of the Apostle Paul? I’m not disapproving of the importance of preaching to young Christians; I’m suggesting there’s a desperate need for variety. We need to hear sermons driven by inspiration, zeal, and passion. Those that come from a wide range of gifts and experiences. It might also be time to introduce “conversational sermons” where those speaking can be questioned, and not considered immune from criticism, even in front of the congregation, or protected by Elders. This would take us back to the conversational sermons of the early Church. I believe all these issues contribute to the increasing irrelevance of the Western church, even too its own.