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

Is the Liberal/Progressive Church movement challenging orthodox Christianity? Yes, but it’s concealed inside the language of equity and social justice. It’s like“the wolf in sheep’s clothing” conveyed in Matthew 7:15, where the objective is to use the nuances of biblical texts to pursue ideological change, not the ministry of Christ. Does Christianity have anything to be concerned about, most definitely? This commentary addresses a sermon that exemplifies the subversive but popular appeal of teaching social injustice today—it has all the hallmarks of progressive theology. I’m mindful that those reading this don’t have the benefit of hearing this sermon; however, we need to pay attention, because the content of those before us can sound compelling, but subtle deviations can alter the truth in God’s word.

Exploiting the Beatitudes to underscore a message about inequity and social injustice and single out white middle-class middle-aged males for scrutiny is wrong on many levels, particularly in the Church. This case was not very subtle, and white men are a convenient group to attack in the current social climate. Keep in mind, this message was addressed to a congregation of Christian believers and opened with Jesus at the beginning of his ministry in Matthew 5—Jesus was teaching about a higher standard embedded in the Law. It’s important to remember that the Bible is separated into the Old and New Testaments, but the New Covenant did not begin with the New Testament—it began after Pentecost. Therefore, all four Gospels, and the beginning of Acts, are architecturally situated in the Old Testament period. Jesus ministry was centred on the Jews alone, and most of his teaching was prophetic and transitional, and preparing the Jews to receive Him. The Beatitudes convey something higher than the Law because the one who enables this higher standard has not yet been revealed. The disciples were not yet Apostles—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, and elevating the Law to a level the Jews were spiritually unable to comprehend. The emphasis being that if we can’t meet the legal standard for righteousness under the Law, we certainly can’t meet a higher standard either, 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”. The nuance in this statement is masterful when we read it, but keep in mind, we have the benefit of hindsight. Jesus is speaking to the Jews about something they had never understood or lived by. The entire narrative should be seen as challenging how we get into the Kingdom, NOT like the Pharisees, who focused on attaining a position of righteousness to enter the Kingdom—achieving a standard of righteousness under the Law.

Jesus is conveying penalties for sin under the law, but penalties that HE WILL PAY to secure our rightness with God. Faith alone will secure our eternal security (John 10), but the way had not yet been 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. 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 redemption is to recognise we can never attain it ourselves in the first place.

The heart of the Law is “love” (agape), and this is the higher standard that Jesus raised the Law to. Sacrificial love was antithetical to the religious laws and regulations that defined and dictated Israel’s religious life 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—its meaning has been reduced to something akin to being happy. But happiness is fleeting and often superficial—it largely depends on physical or emotional circumstances rather than a deep internal revelation of who we are in God. The point is that the Beatitudes underpin what the rules and laws could never achieve—Jesus was alluding to the foundations of eternal security, which would change this forever.

Through the Beatitudes, Jesus exposes our poverty in God’s eyes.

This Beatitudes segwayed into a sermon about victims and victimisers, suggesting the Apostle Paul actively preached against the tyranny of Rome. The idea of a higher standard embedded in Jesus’ teaching should encourage political activism against the perpetrators in support of the persecuted victims. Thus, white middle-class middle-aged males, as the dominant predators in the congregation, were cast as the Pharisees and Scribes of today.

The Beatitudes should not be interpreted as a means of retaliation against groups in the Church or separating people into victims and victimisers. The speaker was building a secular argument that hinted at retribution, but one nested inside the language of a biblical construct. He stated that after teaching on the Beatitudes, Jesus and the Disciples left the ungrateful crowds because all they wanted was miracles, but not the change of life he was suggesting. This is partially true, but confining his criticisms to Jesus audience and using words like "ungrateful" was highly emotive and carried a subtle rebelliousness that misrepresented what Jesus said later in Matt 11:16-24.

Jesus was implying a spiritual condition that beset the entire nation—he was speaking about spiritual poverty, and 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 was born again, and the new Covenant had not yet come? If we read the texts with care, the truth reveals itself. When a sermon teaches a secular narrative hidden inside a biblical construct and politicises it for ideological gain, it becomes dangerous, and not uncommon among those with Progressive leanings in the Church 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. In Matt 5:4 and Exodus 2:11, Moses watched the hard labour of his people—this was used as an example of the mourning referred to in the Beatitudes. The speaker used this to promote 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 so-called 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 “being right with God”? The text is speaking to “hungering after the righteousness of God”. Unfortunately, the speaker used this hunger and thirst 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 was waiting for a statement 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 in his congregation and raised serious questions about his motive and integrity. By making such a woke case for injustice, he successfully undermined any good he said about the Beatitudes, and we can rightly ask, 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 (Matt 7:1)?  At times, it can be difficult to confront entrenched social mores without resorting to 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 standards we judge others. Sadly, I think we might all fail this test. But Jesus didn’t concern himself with the politics of the world; he removed himself from it and emphasised, "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.

In challenging this, some will say, “But there’s no such thing as the perfect sermon”. I agree, all sermons convey something significant to at least one person listening. But if the standard of preaching attacks or leads the body away from God’s word, is one person's justification enough to dismiss dialogue? Political agendas are not uncommon in many sermons today.

I would argue this example exposes an ideological shift that's indoctrinating the Church, wherein the salt has indeed lost its saltiness (Matt 5:13). 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 is, ot what it represents 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 for this happening, some of which can be addressed. Others might require serious reform. For example, the spiritual gifts and personality traits of those with traditional preaching responsibilities are, by and large, 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 realising 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 issues that undermine religious institutions are enshrined in the architecture itself—and even though most leaders might acknowledge something is wrong, there's nothing wrong in their Church. Leaders are often oblivious to the dangers and the signs of spiritual ambivalence—they don’t listen to the voice that challenges traditional mores or abuses of the pulpit. In the main, they continue to do what they know best, while the Trojan horse walks through the door and destroys the Church 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 will be isolated and contained. Even now, the Christian Church has less influence than other religious communities—even the Church isolates its own.

The Church will become increasingly influenced by social justice ideologues with a liberal view of moral axioms. They will preach sermons that convey a hint of the truth wrapped in a false virtue—always someone out there, or some group over there, but rarely themselves. The pulpit is not the place for political posturing. A general expectation might be a reasonable standard of spirit-inspired teaching that echoes the word of God. If we want a mature and engaged congregation, the Church needs to become biblically alive—engaging all the ministry gifts, deconstructing denominational mores, and considering the purpose of the assembly.

We might start by considering how we might compare to the higher standard of love. How can the quality of sermons today be improved—maybe a weekly critique? How might they compare with the Apostle Paul? There’s a desperate need for variety—a range of opinion and conversation. We need to hear sermons driven by inspiration, zeal, and passion. Those coming from a wide range of gifts and experiences. It might 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 may help to counter the increasing irrelevance of the Western church.