A column published earlier this month, entitled “To hell with the dole,” seems to have hit a nerve with some readers. Essentially, these folks took issue with what they saw as my flippant use of a serious theological term. In response to these concerns, I want to be clear that I gave very serious thought to the use of the word “hell.”
I would not have used the word “hell” if it did not have the precision I intended to convey.
Idolatry is a very serious matter. In fact, as we read through the biblical history of Israel, we see very quickly that it was God’s primary concern in the Old Testament. (There’s a reason the first commandment is “No. 1 on the list.”) God was far more concerned about idolatry and right worship than about pretty much any other issue confronting the Israelites in their day.
Naturally, it’s never an easy one-to-one match between the biblical context and our time, but we can draw some broad principles from this Old Testament reality – principles about God’s hatred of “idols.” And my point about 501(c)3 status was simply to assert that when the effective boldness of the church to confront our culture and to address the sin in that culture is compromised because of the financial “benefits” brought about by tax exemption, then the church has in effect become idolatrous. In this case it is far better that our 501(c)3 be banished to the pit of hell, metaphorically speaking, than for us to prosper materially while we sully the purity of our worship and zeal of our mission.
But I appreciate those who took the time to write and to raise concerns about my use of the word. I want to assure them that I wasn’t gratuitously using crude or crass language just to make the point.
However – and this is a big however – I will also not apologize for using strong biblical language to identify a problem plaguing the church simply on the basis that some people found my word choice “offensive.” After all, this column is called “No Apologies” for a reason.
The fact is I do not, nor will I ever, conform to common conventions of politeness or subject myself to the litmus test required by the “nicer-than-Jesus” crowd when I’m addressing cultural issues that impact Christians and non-Christians.
Many of those who took issue with my strong language are caught up with a type of religiosity that is not helpful to the kind of genuine, robust, biblical Christianity that is needed in today’s culture. And if my critics feel that I have been “worldly” in my approach, then they will need to defend their position with sound reason and biblical principles.
My experience, though, is that people are pretty selective about what they choose to get “offended” about. For example, the Bible says that only God is “good.” At one point, Christ Himself told a rich young ruler not even to call Him good. Another example is the word “awesome.” Common usage of that word should equally “offend” the “nicer-than-Jesus” crowd because in Scripture, only God is awesome. Yet the fact is that none of the people who criticized my use of the word “hell” has ever objected to my use of “good” or “awesome” in any of my previous columns.
We Christians need to keep in mind that the sanitized political environment we find ourselves in today, the politically correct culture, is very unique. This is a culture that cares nothing about real polite conversation and the real meaning of words, which is why it is so troubling when Christians spend so much time worrying about minor issues – like whether or not the audience might get offended at the use of strong biblical language.
We don’t have to go back very far in history to see passionate Christians – think Martin Luther, John Knox, John Calvin, John Wesley and George Whitfield – who knew how to use polemic and rhetoric to drive home the very serious points they were making.
And look at the witness of Christ Himself. He used terms like “white-washed sepulchers,” and “brood of vipers.” He told people to hate their family members if they got in the way of their devotion to God. He used a whip! And what about the Apostle Paul? “If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally accursed!” (Galatians 1:9). Or my personal favorite: “I could wish that those who trouble you would even mutilate themselves” (Galatians 5:12-13).
Was any of this for rhetorical effect? Was it also theologically sound? Of course it was, on both counts.
Neither Christ nor Paul felt the need to communicate in academic categories or with sanitized language. So why do we? And more to the point, why do some of you expect me to?
It is apparent Christians need to apply a different standard to our way of engaging the culture if we are going to be effective. “Making nice” certainly hasn’t gotten us very far. And not only that, but if we are going to be consistent we will discover that engaging the culture often doesn’t fit within the neat and tidy categories into which many of today’s Christians like to package the totality of their religion – and this includes the use of language.
In the warp and woof of cultural debate, it is especially important that we remain true to biblical paradigms when confronting a wayward and rebellious culture. And if that means reminding people that their idols are going to lead them straight into the pit of hell, including church people who prize their tax exemption more than faithfulness to God, so be it. I say yet again, “To hell with the dole.”
Related special offers:
“Christianity and the American Commonwealth”
