In the Absence of Persecution

Sub-Culture The secular view of Christianity ranges from mostly indifference to varying degrees of hostility, insomuch as the authority of moral absolutes is concerned. This is not something to dismiss lightly, because it suggests another authority has taken over the spiritual landscape, and the Church has been reduced to something akin to a subculture. Some might disagree with this appraisal, but I'm not sure what metric might be used to suggest otherwise. The question is, has the culture marginalized the Church, or has the Church withdrawn and isolated itself, because, among other things, it fears persecution?

Persecution The biblical account of God, salvation, and redemption is not an inclusive relationship, nor is it subjective, it's an exclusive position we submit to, through Jesus Christ. This alone makes Christianity a counter-culture when compared with any other religion. So if we consider the current culture of self-centred narcissism, and its demands for moral inclusivity, where is the outrage that might be expected against Christians today? Persecution should be a natural consequence for those who carry a message that disagrees with social acceptabilities. Just as creation was subjected to a contest between good and evil, the same continues today, which is why Jesus could say, "If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also". Therefore, in my estimation, it's perfectly reasonable to judge the tenor of the Church, by the degree to which it experiences persecution.

Contextual Reductionism Given its obscurity within the social landscape it's difficult to suggest the Church has any influence. The provocative answer might be that it's spiritually impotent and positionally irrelevant. What I've seen through the years is a reductionist approach to basic theological presuppositions, which has some practical utility when referring to foundational teaching to those new in the faith. However, those considered mature have removed themselves from public discourse by choice, and when Christians dispense with evangelical responsibility, and confine their purpose within the institutional constructs of a Church, it dumbs down the intellectual and theological capacity of its disciples. Therefore, I would suggest the authority, or lack of, in which the Church is held, has been primarily determined by the Church itself. Reductionism has condemned the Church to a position commiserate with the oversimplification of complex theological axioms, which has marginalized the authority of the message. I can't remember the last time I heard a Church speak against a situation where people were suffering as a consequence of authoritarianism, so maybe the Christian influence has become nothing more than diffident rhetoric.

Localization I don't believe the Church has consciously pursued a reductionist approach, but the result has been the same. In many respects, it's been decades of inward focussed localization, that’s reduced the spiritual authority of the institution. This, combined with spiritual overreach, has seen the focus of the Church on the institution itself, and not on the individual purpose of its constituents. However, at the heart of discipleship is building a relationship with God, but its usefulness is tested by walking as Jesus walked. Therefore, the function of the Church is to serve the purpose of enabling the walk of its constituents, not the reverse. I'm not making a case for theological reductionism, I'm referring to the practice of analyzing and describing the complexity of the body in terms of its organizational structures, rather than individuals themselves. Both aspects need each other, and what constitutes the purpose of the body (Church), and the use of gifts, is another discussion. If we're serious about looking for solutions to the current apathy, we might consider the purpose and utility of religious hierarchies. We can examine the Church in terms of its constituents, or, in terms of the institution, but in the final analysis, past decisions have isolated the authority of the whole. We haven't examined the combined achievement of these constituents with the walk that Jesus walked or compared them with the general tenor in which the community holds the moral authority of the Church, so it's not compelling to suggest its disciples are walking as Jesus walked. Even if some choose to disagree, the absence of persecution remains self-evident.

Nothing to say. I've considered that maybe this state of passivity might be the result of a growing elderly population in the Church, but from what I can see teenagers are just as apathetic, and no more persecuted than the old. Therefore, whatever this group are doing it’s not garnering the persecution that might set them apart. Likewise, young adults demonstrate limited spiritual confidence or enthusiasm for facing persecution. It might appear odd to suggest that we anticipate persecution, and it's not that we seek it out, but persecution should be the consequence of conveying a confronting message. Maybe we are a little ashamed of the Gospel? In the last six years, New Zealand has experienced a narcissistic, virtue-signalling descent into false compassion, many have suffered the consequences of totalitarian control, rejection, segregation, financial loss, and in some cases persecution, and the Church has remained silent. Is it any wonder that the world ignores the Christian message when its disciples have nothing to say about far-reaching social issues? Sadly, the Church poses no threat to the current state of moral decline, so can we claim to walk as Jesus walked? I'm not suggesting we stand with placards, shout in the streets, harass the public, or pursue political solutions. We might consider stating our opinion to begin with, and respond to the decline in social mores with something like; maybe the truth. At least we might prophesy into the social conscience, and warn of the consequences of allowing a moral vacuum to be filled with ideas with no positive outcome.

Chosen out of the world Why persecution? For decades the Church has talked about what might constitute the works of salvation, but these works are rarely equated with anything close to persecution. Do we believe persecution should be expected, and when was the last time anyone was seriously persecuted for speaking against the prevailing social narrative, apart from say Brian Tamaki, or some random Evangelist? Jesus conveyed this idea very clearly in John 15:18-19 so let this sink in, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you". Later in verse 20 Jesus is talking to the disciples he says, "If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also". In Matthew 5:10, 5:12, 10:23, and 24:9, we see the inevitable consequences of standing in the place of Jesus.

Wokism. Today we're experiencing a cultural cancer, a battle between wokism and capitalism. We see the weaponization of moral axioms, hijacked by Marxist ideology, to redefine identity and spark a sexual revolution. The nature of this deception is straight from the biblical account of the fall, where the true purpose of evil is the death of God. I don't believe we've seen the worst of this catastrophe, because the Church, as God's representative, is the ultimate target of woke ideology, so it's with some irony that the current withdrawal of the Church is hastening its judgement under its axioms of love, inclusivity, and caring. Woke is first and foremost a seditious attempt to install a narrative that divides people according to their ethnic and cultural background, in the name of achieving equity. People are judged according to their social status, and defined by their inherited privilege. This inherited privilege, whatever that means, categorizes them as responsible for the deprivation of those defined as victims. The means of controlling those deemed to have excessive privilege is the weaponization of language, such as colonialism, safety, caring, love, unity, inclusion, and fairness. All of these have become tropes for victims to exact their narcissistic pseudo-spiritual claims to power and wealth. The Woke have become the slaves of evil, where acts of the flesh are celebrated, legalized, and dangerously close to being made compulsory. While the Church continues to remain silent, the wolf walks through the door and rapes the moral foundations that traditionally protected civil society from extremes. Absolutes have been ripped to shreds, and right and wrong replaced with a vacuum, into which we've seen an escalation of sexual immorality, impurity, idolatry, and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. Meanwhile, the Church contemplates the notion of unity.

The Claim of Unity Through the years I've listened to the calls for unity in the Church, and I imagine that most of those who make this call are genuine, but the context in which the word is applied is erroneous. Unity is not necessarily the same as agreeing. Christians don't agree with each other about most things, this is obvious and won't change I imagine. However, the biblical context of unity was established by God, through Jesus Christ. In other words, Christians, are united with Christ, if we are Christians to begin with. This is not something we do, it's a position in God we assume by faith. Therefore, preaching about unity is like preaching about something beyond our control, but preaching about agreement is far more relevant and elusive. Individual Christians and Churches are no more in agreement than we might expect from any secular group of people, but certainly, something we might strive for. So how many agree with me then? The solution to disagreement is a conversation between disagreeable people.

Reclaiming the high ground Finally the discussion about reductionism and perscution is grossly overdue. The Church is commissioned to demonstrate spiritual authority because we've been called to walk as Jesus walked. But firstly we must be willing participants, reactionary, not simply there to make virtue-signalling statements without rhyme or reason. We need to respond with a clear and combined apologetic discourse. We cannot resort to a defensive apology, or shy away from persecution, insomuch as, our first statement clarifies our position, and it's sufficient to let the public discourse play out, without entering into, or encouraging debate. This is a brief outline for consideration.