Beatitudes

One thing that really sticks out is that many of the lines have a "punchline". So it's clear that many of the people who were poor and powerless came to listen to him (and even to be fed by his miracles). So he says things like, "blessed are the poor..." and "blessed are those that hunger and thirst...", as thought he was giving a message about self-denial or the spiritual benefit of poverty or fasting.

In fact, I think there's evidence that the Pharisees spoke like this, judging by the rules about giving money set aside for parents (Matt 15:5) or how Jesus pointed out the widow who gave her last coins to the temple, right after saying that the Pharisees "devour widows’ houses" (Mark 12:40). They likely encouraged giving to the Temple as a "religious duty", as an act of worship to God. In other passages Jesus call out the Pharisees for receiving but never giving, forgetting the acts of charity and care for the poor.

But as he does so often, Jesus takes us from the "external" to the "internal", taking us away from mere outward facts or behavior, and to a deeper truth: "Blessed are the poor... *in spirit*" and "Blessed are those that hunger and thirst... *for righteousness*". It's not outward poverty that is a blessing, but a "humble and contrite heart" that God wants.

And if the above virtues are about the blessings of humbleness before God, Jesus also goes on to speak of other virtues, like being "merciful" and "peacemakers". These seem to be virtues expressed to *other people*.

Jesus goes on to cover other "moral teachings", and likely is directly correcting what that the Pharisees likely taught. Jesus again and again moves "sin" to what is inside of us, to our intentions, such as moving past the simple act of "murder" to the hate and resentment burning inside all of us. Sin and virtue are matters of the heart.

This is all very consistent with how Jesus speaks of the Great Commandments of "loving God" and "loving neighbor", which "fulfill the entire law". They are integral with the "kingdom of heaven" which Jesus mentions in the first verse, but of course also mentions many other times in his ministry. Jesus gives us a much more profound way to think of blessing and virtue and "good deeds".

And of course this whole sermon ends with this: "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock." It's not just trusting the content of these words, but trusting Jesus who speaks them. It's trusting Jesus who exemplifies all of these virtues in himself.

Infant Baptism

So for those that don't baptize infants, I think there's often a misunderstanding -- shoot, also even among those that do it -- about the outcome and expectations around infant baptism.

So to get clarity about this, there's a thought to ponder: is "becoming a Christian" the same thing as having one's sins forgiven before God? 

Or what about this: is the church a community of Christians, or is the church a community of those who have been been forgiven and redeemed by God? Is there a difference?

So I totally respect the simplicity and consistency of those who say that only those who make a credible profession of faith should be baptized, be a member of church, and then to be considered "Christian". They are trying to strongly emphasize the importance of the act of consciously turning away from the world and following the way of Christ. They emphasize the church as "the redeemed by God".

However, we live in a particular modern and rather individualistic mindset, compared to many Christian who lived in the past. The above way of seeing salvation and Christendom makes certain assumptions, and historically there have been different assumptions that were dominant. We don't have to agree, but we should try to put ourselves in their shoes.

So here's the idea: historically, the concept of baptism, plus the concept of being part of a specific church congregation, plus the idea of being called "Christian", have been all very closely tied together. For many (arguably most?) of them, their identity as a Christian was derived from being part of a church, from being a member of a Christian community.

If children are in worship, they learn from their Christian parents and from Christian leaders and teachers, and are associated with those that profess Christ, so even without their assent they are already called "Christians" by those around them and by those outside the church looking in. So in this context, you can think of baptism as merely saying, "yes, this child is part of this community". And in fact, many church traditions and denominations ALSO contain prayers or even confessional statements that look forward to this "presumption", as it were, that their children will one day strongly confess that which they were baptized into.

So okay, for a Bible passage that captures this idea, consider the description of the "kingdom of heaven" in the parable of the wheat and weeds (in Matthew 13). In this passage, a field is seeded with wheat, but also there's a bunch of seeds from weeds. So as soon as it starts growing, the workers are like, "Oh man, look at all these weeds! Should we pull them up?" But the owner says (paraphrasing a bit), "No, at this stage, you might uproot the wheat accidentally. Let both grow together until the harvest, once they show their fruit, it will be easy to distinguish them." If God is the "owner" in this analogy, than we "workers" wait for God's harvest, and we don't start trying to pull out weeds before then. 

All it takes to be a member of a church, is to make an outward profession of faith and to be baptized. This is a really low bar for a "requirement", we KNOW that some people who say this don't understand what they're saying, or don't actually believe it. This is not fundamentally threatening to the church, and this is not fundamentally different from what happens in infant baptism. A Christian church should not be "weeding out" people -- even infants! -- who might one day end up "turning away" from the faith. Baptism and church membership are given generously, all alike are taught and cared for equally, until a person explicitly separates from the community, or is kicked out over egregious unrepentant sin (an example of that "fruit" mentioned before).

So whether you practice this or not, it should surely be helpful for mutual understanding, to avoid uncharitable accusations or hostility from ignorance. But I would also invite you to consider WHY large parts of the Church have held this view, up until the present day. Personally, I greatly appreciate the "wide open invitation" that such a doctrine implies, and I think it's certainly consistent with the biblical picture of the Church -- the Kingdom of God -- is welcoming to people at all stages of maturity, insight, understanding, and sanctification.

What is "Satanic", anyhow?

I something called "Satanic" the other day, and at first dismissed it, but then it made me sit down and consider what "Satanic" actually meant, in a biblical sense. So the word "Satan" has it's origin in words like "oppose" and "accuse", and in Biblical literature it's especially the latter. Satan accuses Job, for example.

I'm not denying that there's a rich history, tradition, and even artistic output examining what the work of Satan consists of. Or consider Jesus' temptation in the wilderness, Satan is described as the "ruler of this age".

So I don't want to minimize or dismiss any of that, but I think it's still useful to say that the most consistent "Satanic activity" is that which opposes the kingdom of God (i.e. the church, with Jesus as the head), and in a related way, especially that which accuses Christians.

Why does Job start with Satan accusing Job of unrighteousness? Because there's a thematic link between what HE does, and what Job's friends do, when they say that Job's suffering are due to his sin or unrighteousness. Job's "friends" are just other accusers, doing what Satan does.

Or think of the serpent in the Garden of Eden. He tempts Eve, but he does it by accusing God of wrongdoing. Even the "evil spirits" in the New Testament directly oppose and accuse Jesus ("Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?").

Or consider how the Pharisees are called the "sons of Satan". The implication is that the Pharisees are called that, specifically because of the ways that they accuse Jesus, like being "from Satan" or that he violates the Sabbath, and so on. And ultimately they even have Jesus killed by falsely accusing him of sedition against Caesar.

The final example is also the best conclusion. In Revelations 12, Satan is thrown down, and the resulting song in heaven sings out, "For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down."

So for us, let this be a warning to us, never to become the accusers of our fellow Christians!

The Ten Commandments are NOT a guide for Christians

Westminster Shorter Catechism Q.14: "What is sin?"

"Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God."

Westminster Confession (excerpt from Ch 19): "[The law] continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness, [...] and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in ten commandments." 

WHY do we still have the Ten Commandments in our creeds? Why is it still thought of as some kind of summary of God's Law for Christians today?

Even the creeds in my own Presbyterian denomination (Westminster Confession & Catechism) tend to talk about sin as a violation of "God's law", as things that we might say, do, or think. Moreover, many of these creeds (including my own) also explicitly include the Ten Commandments in some way, as the core or encapsulation of God's law.

But these are both just plain incorrect. I'm not trying to "clickbait" you all, many pastors and Christians know and preach and live this already, even if they don't say it in exactly this way.

Sin is not about things we do, say, or think, but about intention, about the heart. It makes no difference what outward "good thing" we might do, it's still sin if done without love for others, or without love for God. That's why, "love God" and "love your neighbor" are called the "great commandments", and NOT the Ten Commandments, because they aren't specific, but rather general principles that works with the Holy Spirit in us, to produce actions pleasing to God. And it works the other way too, the Holy Spirit convicts us of how our actions fail to meet that standard, regardless of what the specific actions are.

So it's not that we ignore the command, "do not murder", but for one thing, it's covered by "love your neighbor", and for another, it doesn't NEARLY cover what pleases God. Only by filtering it through the Great Commandments does it then expand in scope, to cover stuff like insulting others or hating them in our heart.

And indeed, in the New Testament, were the Gentiles taught the Ten Commandments (or any other Mosaic Law) to guide their behavior? No! Even when these are mentioned, they are immediately de-emphasized. Paul's words about this form a good way to close this:

"Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,' and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."

The Limitations of the Old Testament Law

I love reading the Old Testament, I deeply appreciate the wisdom of the Old Testament Law, but we should also speak clearly about the limitations of the Old Testament Law. 

The Law simply could not make humans good by itself. Even in the Old Testament, God judges the nation of Israel, and says basically, "Even the ways in which you keep the details of the Law (like sacrifices and offerings) are offensive to me, because at the same time you're taking bribes and mistreating the poor." How are you supposed to have detailed instructions in the Law about protecting the poor? Also in the Old Testament, there are passages like "love your neighbor as yourself", which are clearly trying to give underlying principles for obedience to the Law, but there was still something missing.

So that's why Romans says that the Law in "insufficient" in some fundamental way. Paul points out a bunch of Old Testament people who looked forward in faith to "something better". And then he says that Jesus was that "something better" -- A way of dealing with lawbreaking, AND a way to make people actually understand and follow the principles behind the Law (the combination of Jesus dying in the place of lawbreakers, and the Holy Spirit being part of salvation).

And even the imperfect OT Law couldn't be kept by the Israelites, and they were defeated and carried away in exile. And the New Testament very clearly does NOT look back to the Old Testament Law as the pinnacle of good behavior. The new Gentile converts were clearly not required to know it or follow it. Instead, they were told about the principles like, "love God, love your neighbor," which were expounded on, and also sometimes a letter writer would draw a principle from the Old Testament, but that's it.

Even in the Old Testament, the Law was just a starting point, there was SO MUCH history and teaching after, showing what God considered "good". Literally hundreds of years of accounts of moral or immoral behavior, past where the nation of Israel even exists, through the time of exile. So that's yet another reason we should not "freeze frame" the details of the Old Testament Law and call that the "ultimate standard of Christian morality".

On Trauma

Trauma is often long-lasting, because the victim often (and understandably) feels obligated to revisit it over and over in their memory. If the victim stops thinking about it, who will? Who is going to fix this, if the victim forgets? This makes the victim feel like a witness in some trial that never comes, always ready to give their testimony to the crimes committed against them. This isn't universal in how trauma affects the victims, but it's certainly common.

But GOD can and will remember these wrongs. "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord" is not about how God is angry, in general. It says that people don't need to seek vengeance or stay angry or look for perfect justice here on earth, because God will remember and judge fully in the end. We can ask God to remember and judge these wrongdoers, so that we can be set free from the obligation. Using the previous analogy, the victim is the witness who presents all of their accusations and testimonies to God, and then God says, in effect, "You have no more responsibility for this trial, I will present all the evidence myself when the trial comes." And in fact, some counselling for PTSD has the person walk carefully through their trauma, undermining the "panic response" by breaking the trauma up into multiple small chronological steps, to deal with them one at a time. For the Christian, we can take this and go even further, listing out each offense at each small step, boldly asking God to remember and to judge.
It's probably unavoidable that when trauma happens, it redefines the life of the victim. In fact, they become "a victim", and this identity often follows them for a long time, personally if not legally. Now, everyone heals in different ways, at different rates. We should not burden trauma victims with our own expectations. However, once God receives the "testimony" of those who have suffered wrong, they certainly have the potential to look forward to a time when they no longer call themselves a "victim" or someone "suffering from trauma". Eventually, just living one's life will fill up the soul with other things, and the trauma will occupy a smaller and smaller area of the heart. Sometimes I think about Jesus saying, "I came that they may have life and have it abundantly." The painful parts of our lives don't go away, but they get "diluted" by the abundant experience of life -- even Jesus himself -- that the Holy Spirit pours into our souls. 

Now, it is true that we have a couple of verses that say something like, "God, forgive them, they don't know what they are doing." This is WAY beyond merely forgiving someone for wrongs done to us, this is asking GOD to forgive them ENTIRELY, to ask God to forgive them for the wrong against GOD, against his law. I think sometimes we take these verses as burdens on ourselves, "Oh, if I'm not asking God to forgive them in this way, I'm not truly forgiving them at all." I think this is a recipe for despair, and a bad lesson to draw from these passages. We should think of these statements as basically miracles of the Holy Spirit, exceptional acts that mirror the exceptional forgiveness of Jesus on the cross. But God deals with us where we are right now: "A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench, until he brings justice to victory."

Uncoupling Apologetics and Evangelism

Apologetics has an interesting recent history, especially in the US. There have been some trends stretching back to the Second Great Awakening, and then other trends that kicked off in the 20th century (related to but not synonymous with the rise of fundamentalism) where apologetics and evangelism has had a large priority and focus, especially as "the mission of every Christian". Think of all the university-based Christian groups, where students might see themselves as "missionaries" to a secular campus. You can imagine in that context, "apologetics" would be seen as a way to interact with non-Christians.

This might be a majority view, but this is certainly not the only game in town, or how "Christian groups" have always seen their priorities. For example, there are currently some university-based Christian groups that are not "evangelism-focused", but rather "Christian-focused", as it were. That is, they are meant as a place for Christian fellowship, in a place where regular church attendance is difficult. So you can imagine that in THAT context, Christian students might be faced with difficult information, or even outright hostility, concerning their faith. So in that context, "apologetics" would be for Christians themselves, providing support and context for their faith.

So TL;DR: both sides of "apologetics" in the OP are pretty common, though often in different contexts. It's probably obvious from how I presented the information, but I am a strong supporter of the latter view above, that Christian groups are most effective when their priority is supporting Christians, whether apologetics or anything else.

I actually love apologetics, and in my youth I prioritized it, but these days I'm very much in favor of de-emphasizing it, with regards to evangelism. Christians are better evangelists by showing a genuine interest in the lives and cares of their non-Christian neighbors, than by constantly getting into intellectual head-butting with them (or feeling obligated to answer every challenge that others put to them). So I think that apologetics is best-suited to help Christians (especially new ones), many of whom aren't equipped (or taught by their churches) how to answer common challenges to their faith.