Matt Walsh identifies himself as a “blogger, writer, speaker, and professional truth sayer.” What I cannot determine from his blog is whether he is a Christian. For the purposes of what I want to say, however, it doesn’t really matter, because he has quite a following among Christians, especially those who lean toward the religious right. The following is an excerpt from an article Mr. Walsh posted on his blog in response to President Obama’s executive action on immigration. A fellow Christian called it to my attention.
Dear President Obama, Lord, Sultan, Emperor, Pharaoh, Caesar, God-king, Prince of the Americas, whatever we’re supposed to call you. ‘President’ alone simply won’t suffice, will it, Your Grace? We had a thing called a president once, but that lowly office could scarcely contain your Majesty. You found that you couldn’t effectively govern while constrained by the rule of law, so you superseded it, just as you’ve done countless times before. This time you are waving your mighty scepter and magically granting defacto citizenship to millions of illegal aliens.
Incredibly, even after all of the scandals, corruption, lies, and deceits; even after this past week when we learned about the depth of your Obamacare deception; even after using the IRS to target your political opponents; even after letting your ambassador die in Benghazi and lying about it afterwards; even after dividing the nation and exploiting racial tensions for your own gain; even after six years of incompetence, dishonesty, conspiracy, and illegality; even after every law you’ve flouted, promise you’ve broken, and lie you’ve told, you still found a way to top yourself. In refusing to enforce our borders and uphold our immigration laws, you are now guilty of the most profound presidential power grab since Abraham Lincoln. This is a landmark moment, and I’m sure you’re proud of that fact.
In my first attempt to read the article, I wasn’t able to get past these two paragraphs. My initial response was two-fold. First, I wondered what Mr. Walsh’s purpose was in writing it. The only folks that will find it the least bit persuasive are those who already agree with him. It seems to me that his intent was to stir up a mob of like-minded people. I also asked whether Mr. Walsh was a professing Christian, and added that if so, I hoped he didn’t profess it publicly. This is not the way Christians should be engaging in political discussion or talking about the president.
Christians in the Public Square
In a democracy, Christians have the privilege and duty to participate in the political process for the good of society. The question is what that participation should look like. I am not prepared to suggest what political party or ideology is better for the country or best represents “Christian values.” Neither am I prepared to dispute the substance of Mr. Walsh’s charges against President Obama. I’ve left that to Perry Beam, who has responded here. The important point is that Perry and many others do not agree with Mr. Walsh’s assessment of President Obama. What sort of impression do you think they have of the Christians who endorse the rhetoric and posture adopted by Mr. Walsh? If Christians think it is acceptable to speak of a president elected by American voters with this sort of contempt and arrogance, then what sort of impression will the American public have towards the Jesus those Christians claim to follow? Surely Jesus must be behind this arrogance and contempt.
Mr. Walsh’s posture and rhetoric is not appropriate for a follower of Jesus. As you will see from Perry’s response, Mr. Walsh’s charges are far from established fact. So not only is he posting charges that will seem slanderous to many people, he is doing it with an attitude and language that is unjustifiable. In fact, the language he uses pretty much confirms to them that Mr. Walsh and those who support him are hateful and not particularly interested in truth. They’re not very nice people. I would propose that these conclusions are not the sort of publicity that Christians should aspire to. They don’t reflect very well on Jesus.
Unless, of course, this is the sort of thing Jesus expects of us, which leads me to a second article written by Matt Walsh, In the second article, he argues that his posture and rhetoric are completely consistent with the character of Jesus and are thus justified. Jesus wasn’t a particularly “nice guy” and doesn’t expect us to be either. You can read Mr. Walsh’s article here. Before I get to the arguments advanced in the article about Jesus, I would like to briefly explain why I think Jesus would not approve of either Mr. Walsh’s posture or his rhetoric in his article about President Obama.
The Biblical Story and the Way of Jesus
A big part of the Bible story involves the challenge for the people of God to live in “the way of God,” and in particular, Israel’s failure to live in that way. Called to be the son and servant of Yahweh, Israel falls short of their calling. The gospels pick up this story, telling how one man stepped up and stood in for Israel as the faithful servant-son, utterly dedicated to the way of Yahweh. The entire story of the Hebrew Bible looks ahead to the dramatic conclusion of this epic story, pointing to one central event: The cross of Jesus.
According to the Gospel of Mark, a crucified Messiah is the “secret of the kingdom.” Mark makes it clear: Jesus’ messianic identity was only part of the way the kingdom would come. The rest of the mystery was that the messiah was to confront and defeat evil not with a sword but on the cross This is why Satan offered the kingdoms of the world to Jesus in the wilderness. This is why Jesus rebuked Peter: “Get behind me Satan.” The way of the cross was the way of Israel’s God. It was not to be circumvented. The Gospels are unanimous: Following the servant-son in the “Way of YHWH” is following Jesus in the way of the cross.
If we are living in the Bible story and following Jesus as our model for living out our role in that story, then the cross defines our way of life, our posture, and our message to the rest of the world.
And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, (1 Corinthians 2:1-3)
Mr. Walsh is good with words. He knows how to use them in a way that is attractive to those who already agree with him. That is why his blog is popular with those folks. That is how he has acquired a following. This phenomenon is not unlike those in Corinth that played sophistic, rhetorical word games to enhance their reputation in the public political arena. As we learn from 1 Corinthians, Paul was not playing that game. His message and the manner in which he delivered it was something completely different from the debaters and bloggers of this age. HIs rhetoric and his posture were consistent with the message of the cross..
Posture and Message
When one wants to show that he is serious about an issue, it is a truism that actions speak louder than words. In John 12, Jesus refused to talk to the Greeks that were seeking him. He knew that the cross would say what needed to be said to the unbelieving world.
Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die. (John 12:31-33)
According to the New Testament writers, the cross was how Jesus confronted and defeated the evil power holding this world in captivity. This is the example of Jesus that those writers present for us to follow as we confront evil today. It is the way of the cross, the way of sacrificial agape love.
And he called to him the crowd with his disciples and said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. (Mark 8:34)
Along with the gospel writers and Paul, Peter also understood that the cross was to be the model for the Christian life. Again, actions speak louder than words.
Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation. Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. (1 Peter 2:11-19)
In the context of our present discussion, a couple things should be noted in this passage. First, Peter did not instruct followers of Jesus to take a public stand for truth and morality by condemning Greco-Roman society. Actions speak more credibly than words. Like Jesus, he understood that they would see the “good works” of Jesus’ followers and “glorify his Father in Heaven” (Matthew 5:16). Notice also that Peter did not endorse an arrogant and hostile critique of the emperor. And it should be noted that the emperor at the time was Nero. No matter what you think of Obama, Nero makes him look like a saint.
Gentle and Gracious Words
This is not to say that Christians should not engage in the public discussion and debate. But we need to remember which kingdom has our primary loyalty. What we have to say to the unbelieving world does not focus on politics or public morality. It focuses on Jesus as the basis of our hope. Following Jesus in the way of the cross calls us to persist in doing what is right, to be ready to explain that our hope is in Jesus, and to do so with gentleness in the fear of God.
Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but set apart Christ in your hearts as Lord, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and fear, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. (1 Peter 3:13-16)
Christians are called to speak intelligently in the public arena. But they are not called to speak harshly and arrogantly. If we are reviled by unbelievers, let it not be for our obnoxious behavior and offensive speech. Paul and Peter are on the same page..
Conduct yourselves wisely toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person. (Colossians 4:5-6)
Jesus the Abrasive Trouble Maker
Matt Walsh doesn’t agree. He thinks the Bible presents Jesus as an example that supports his defiant posture and abrasive rhetoric (not to mention an example that contradicts the instructions of Peter and Paul).
I don’t recognize this Jesus.
This moderate. This pacifist. This nice guy.
He’s not the Jesus I read about in the Bible. I read of a strong, manly, stern, and bold Savior. Compassionate, yes. Forgiving, of course. Loving, always loving. But not particularly nice.
He condemned. He denounced. He caused trouble. He disrupted the established order.
First we need to clear up a few straw men. I am not claiming that Jesus was “nice.” That’s not a word I would use to characterize Jesus. Neither am I arguing that Jesus was not a “manly man.” So these are not the issues. The issue is what Jesus calls us to be. The issue is our role in the story for which Jesus provided a model.
If we are going to understand our role in the story, we first have to understand the story. When we really understand the biblical narrative and how the gospels fit into that narrative, then we will understand what parts apply to us. Mr. Walsh wrote,
The believers in Nice Jesus are usually ignorant of Scripture.
I can’t say whether the believers in a “nice Jesus” are ignorant of scripture or not. What seems more likely is that Mr. Walsh knows just enough scripture to justify his approach to public discussion. He is aware of certain facts about Jesus’ behavior and thinks that these are being presented by the gospel writers as examples for Jesus’ disciples to imitate.
And Mr. Walsh is not alone. This seems to be a well-established tradition in American evangelical Christianity. We have heard Paul and Peter say that Jesus is our example, that we are to be “imitators of Christ,” that we are to become “like Jesus,” so we jump from there to the conclusion that everything Jesus did can somehow be applied to us. Is this the way the gospel writers intended us to understand their narratives?
We have to decide what sort of narrative the gospels were intended to be. Are they a ragbag collection of facts and teachings randomly selected by the writers, leaving us to apply these facts and teachings in any way that seems useful and expedient to us? Or are they intricately crafted narratives that selectively weave events and teachings together in such a way as to tell a story that the writers intend to tell?
I am going to suggest that everything Jesus did in the gospel narratives was selected by the writers to tell the story they wanted to tell about Jesus, who he was, what he did and the significance of what they are reporting. To understand how Jesus is presented as an example for the people of God, we must understand the story each of these writers is telling. The narrative itself will explain how the gospel writers intended Jesus as the “servant-son” of God to be an example for the people of God. That is how narrative works.
Robber Caves, Viper Broods, and Blind Guides
He condemned. He denounced. He caused trouble. He disrupted the established order.
On one occasion — or at least one recorded occasion — He used violence. This Jesus saw the money changers in the temple and how did He respond? He wasn’t polite about it. I’d even say He was downright intolerant.
I see a Christ who calls the Scribes and Pharisees snakes and vipers. He labels them murderers and blind guides, and ridicules them publicly [Matthew 23:33]. He undermines their authority. He insults them. He castigates them. He’s not very nice to them.
No, he wasn’t particularly nice. In fact this sort of confrontational posture and rhetoric is the sort of thing that got him deeper into trouble with the Jewish leadership. The gospel writers are well aware of this confrontation. After Jesus called the Pharisees “hypocrites” on a previous occasion, Matthew lets his readers know that the Pharisees found Jesus’ critique offensive.
Then the disciples came and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?” He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:12-14)
The question is whether the gospel writers include this sort of behavior on Jesus’ part as an example for the people of God in their public discussion, or whether they include it because it is integral to the story they are telling in the context of the larger biblical narrative. To the readers who are looking for narrative “plot lines” and who make the effort to see how Matthew is using the Hebrew Bible, the significance of Jesus’ behavior will become evident. Consider excerpts from the entire section of Matthew 23 cited by Mr. Walsh.
Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites
“Woe to you, blind guides,
You blind fools!
You blind men!
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
You blind guides,
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
You blind Pharisee
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, 3saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! See, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'” (Matthew 23:12-39)
In Matthew’s story (as well as Mark and Luke’s), Jesus is playing the classic role of prophet to Israel in much the same way as the “Old Testament” prophets sent before him. That is clear from the parable of the vineyard in the previous chapter of Matthew (also included in Mark and Luke). The story of Jesus is the final chapter in the story of Israel as told in the Hebrew Bible. It is intricately and integrally connected to several story lines begun in those scriptures. Notice that one of the most frequent descriptors for the synagogue leadership is “blind.” Matthew has already invoked the blindness motif in 8:4-16 and again in 15:7-14, connecting his story to this theme in Israel’s story. Israel’s historic “blindness” led to their judgment at the hands of Babylon (Isaiah 6:9-13; 42:18-25). Matthew wants his readers to see that this same blindness is again leading to catastrophic judgment. In Matthew’s story, Jesus is playing out his assigned role in Israel’s story as the last prophet sent to them. This is even more clear from Luke’s inclusion of the final saying of Jesus in his scathing condemnation of the synagogue leadership in Matthew 23 above.
Nevertheless, I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following, for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem.’ O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is forsaken. And I tell you, you will not see me until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!'” (Luke 13:33-35)
Walsh wrote:
Jesus deliberately did and said things that He knew would upset people. He stirred up division and controversy. He provoked
Yes he did. He was playing out a role in a story written in advance by Israel’s God exclusively for him. These gospel texts represent a prophetic and catastrophic judgment on Israel and her temple. As the parable of the vineyard dramatically tells the story (echoing the “Song of the Vineyard” in Isaiah 5), Israel has rejected and mistreated the prophets sent to them. Now in killing the prophet-son, they have committed Israel’s final act of rebellion and have sealed their fate:
Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. (Matthew 23:31-32)
When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.” (Matthew 21:40-41)
Matthew is not presenting Jesus as an example of “righteous anger” or a model for how his followers are supposed to behave in public discussion. He is presenting him as the proper and intended ending to Israel’s story in the Hebrew Bible. I would suggest that this is how these passages were intended to be understood. This is how they are the word of God. Let those who have eyes to see and ears to hear understand.
The same is true of Jesus in the temple. The temple action is intended to be understood by all three synoptic gospel writers as a pronouncement of prophetic judgment on the temple and the nation. Jesus knew what was coming down upon Israel and its temple, and it grieved him.
And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation” (Luke 19:41-44).
And they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. And he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. And he was teaching them and saying to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.” (Mark 11:15-17)
The curse of the fig tree in Mark, the quotation of Jeremiah 7 in the temple, and parable of the vineyard in all three synoptic gospels make it clear: Israel and her temple had been weighed and found wanting. The temple was the light on the hill that could not be hidden, but Israel had failed continually in her calling to effectively be a light to the nations. The temple was to become a house of prayer for all nations, but when the LORD came for fruit from fig tree and vineyard, the only fruit Israel had to show was self-righteous hostility, a hostility that was building towards armed revolution. Consequently, Jesus pronounced his prophetic judgment: The Lord of the vineyard would “come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others” (Luke 20:16). This is the story that all three synoptic gospel writers are telling. Jesus’ prophetic condemnation of Israel’s leadership must be understood as part of that story.
Yes, but can’t we use Jesus’ example as a model for our behavior? The answer to this question is complex. Of course we can use scripture any way we want to. The question is, when we use scripture in this way, are we also claiming the authority of the word of God? Another question is whether using scripture to find significance other than that intended by the Spirit-empowered writer has the authority of the word of God. Yet another question is whether the Spirit-empowered writers intended to present Jesus’ confrontation with Israel’s leaders as a model for our behavior, or whether they were presenting Jesus as playing a unique role in a grand narrative as the final prophet to Israel.
I can only answer these questions for myself and make recommendations accordingly. As I have suggested, the gospel writers are selecting events and reporting them in a way to tell an epic and dramatic story of Israel’s salvation and judgment. Jesus is playing roles in that story assigned exclusively to him in the Old Testamnt scriptures. The gospel writers are selecting these events for the purposes of their own Spirit-inspired agenda in telling that story. I am also suggesting that the American evangelical tradition of reducing their writings to a grab bag of random events to be taken out of their narrative contexts and used to suit our own agendas is a classic case of proof texting and does not have the authority of the word of God. Let those who have eyes to see and ears to hear (as well as those who don’t) decide how they will read, apply, and teach scripture. Just remember that actions speak louder than words, and by our example, we are modeling for others how scripture should be treated.
Righteous Anger and Holy Intolerance
The believers in Nice Jesus are usually ignorant of Scripture
Anger is good when it is directed at things that offend not us, but God. Just as Christ’s intolerance, like the intolerance we’re commanded to have, stems from a desire to save souls and defend Truth.
First, Mr. Walsh asserts that we’re commanded to have “intolerance.” It is true that we are to not to tolerate sin in our own lives or flagrant, unrepentant sin in our Christian fellowship (1 Corinthians 5:1-13). However, in the context of Mr. Walsh’s article, he doesn’t seem to be referring to Christian intolerance for their own sin. He seems to mean a general intolerance of the sin in the world around us. In 1 Corinthians 5, notice toward the end of the chapter how Paul qualified Christian “intolerance.”.
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people- not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler- not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)
I’m not sure whether Mr. Walsh overlooked this passage about “intolerance” or whether he merely ignored it. The problem with his doctrine of “intolerance” is that it is not biblical. Christians are not commanded to be intolerant of sin in society. They are commanded to be holy and to be intolerant of sin first in their own lives and then “intolerant” in a more compassionate sense toward the sin of their brothers and sisters.
Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. (Galatians 6:1-3)
I’m not sure Mr. Walsh’s in-your-face “intolerance” is the best word to describe even the church’s posture toward the sins of fellow believers. I am more certain that it is not a biblical way to characterize our posture toward the unbelieving world. Walsh wrote,
Even when we have righteous anger, we do not have carte blanche to act on it in anyway we please. But, according to the Bible, there are times to use strong language, there are times to cause a scene, there are times to hurt people’s feelings, and there are times when we might need to use physical force.
By prefacing his assertions about causing scenes, hurting people’s feelings and using physical violence with the phrase “according to the Bible,” it appears that he is again appealing to these instances of Jesus’ prophetic judgment on Israel. If so, then he is appealing to proof texts, using events in which the inspired writers did not intend to present Jesus as a model for Christian behavior. In the story they told, the behavior for which they intended to present Jesus as a model is the way of the cross, the way of agape love. Careful readers are able to distinguish between the two because they are reading the gospel stories as they were intended to be heard. Those who are making these distinctions will realize that Mr. Walsh’s qualifier “according to the Bible” is simply false. None of Walsh’s assertions have the authority of scripture or the authority of Jesus’ example.
Confronting Evil with Intolerance
Tolerance is easy. Any coward can learn to tolerate something. Tolerance is inaction; intolerance is action. We are called to refuse to tolerate evil. We are called to get angry at it and actively work to destroy it.
In the gospel writers’ telling of the story, Jesus’ critique of Israel and its leaders was not where his confrontation with evil was focused. In their telling of the story, Jesus confrontation with and victory over evil was accomplished on the cross. Jesus’ aggressive and scathing critique served two functions: First, as we have seen, Jesus was playing the historical role of prophet to Israel. Second, he was paving his way to the cross according to God’s plan.
For those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers, because they did not recognize him nor understand the utterances of the prophets, which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled them by condemning him. And though they found in him no guilt worthy of death, they asked Pilate to have him executed. (Acts 13:27-28)
The gospel writers make it clear that it was Jesus’ in-your-face critique of Israel and its leadership that motivated the conspiracy to arrest and kill him (e.g., Mark 3:6; Matthew 21:45-46). Jesus was not unaware of this. It was part of God’s plan. By condemning Jesus, they were fulfilling the scriptures.
In short, there is nothing in the Bible that teaches that Christians are to be “intolerant” of evil in the world and to “actively work to destroy it,” with or without careless and abrasive public rhetoric. This is simply not part of the story. Isaiah envisioned the “intolerance” of the Servant of Yahweh toward injustice among the nations.
Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations. He will not cry aloud or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street; a bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice. He will not grow faint or be discouraged till he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his Torah. (Isaiah 42:1-4)
Again, according to the story as told by Luke, the Servant’s mission to the nations was accomplished when his disciples became his “witnesses to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Justice is brought to the nations when people among the nations believe the gospel, submit to the rule of God in Christ, and practice justice within the world-wide community of Christ.
According to Isaiah’s vision, the Servant would not shout in the streets. He would not break reeds even though they are already damaged and fragile. He would not extinguish a flame even though it is barely burning. This doesn’t seem to depict an “intolerant” and abrasive crusade against evil and injustice such as that advocated by Mr. Walsh. Do you think Isaiah envisioned the servants of the Servant “using strong language, causing a scene, hurting people’s feelings, using physical force” in their witness to the end of the earth? That doesn’t seem consistent with any example we see in the mission to the nations in the New Testament. And it certainly is not consistent with the meekness and graciousness commanded by Paul and Peter. In his role as prophet to Israel and in the tradition of a long line of prophets to the rebellious people of God, Jesus spoke a harsh prophetic message of judgment, one that was deliberately calculated to lead him to the cross. But this is not the calling of the people of God in their mission to the unbelieving nations. There is no analogy. There is no precedent. There is no example intended to be imitated.
Fighting Spirit and Sheared Sheep
Anger is good when it is directed at things that offend not us, but God.
We’re nice Christians with our nice Jesus, and we are trampled on without protest.
Enough, already.
I think it’s time that Christianity regain its fighting spirit; the spirit of Christ.
I must admit that I’m a little confused by Mr. Walsh’s complaint that Christians are “trampled on without protest” given his earlier statement that Christian anger is not good when the offense is against them. This apparent contradiction aside, I once again question whether he really understands the centrality and significance of both the cross and Jesus’ obedient example as the Servant-Son of God.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. (Isaiah 53:7)
When Philip encountered the Ethiopian eunuch on the desert road, this was the passage the eunuch was reading. And Philip, “beginning with this Scripture told him the good news about Jesus” (Acts 8:35). It is most likely the same text Peter had in mind when he wrote his famous “follow in his steps” passage.
For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. (1 Peter 2:21-23)
The example of Jesus that we are actually called to imitate does not seem to give us a lot of room for fighting back when we get trampled on as Christians. This is not to say that we should not avail ourselves of our rights as American citizens. Paul took advantage of his rights as a Roman citizen on at least two occasions. If, however, we have chosen to follow Jesus in the way of the cross, then the spirit in which we take advantage of our civil rights should be in the same spirit of meekness in which Jesus went to the cross. According to the New Testament, this Spirit does not seem to have much in common with the “fighting spirit” that Mr. Walsh seems to have found in Jesus.
Conclusion
My prayer is that folks like Matt Walsh would learn to read the gospels a bit more closely and hear the story being told. I’m not sure whether Mr. Walsh is in a position to hear it, but at least other Christians might have second thoughts about promoting his hostile rants in the name of Jesus. I am not a big Obama fan. However, I often find myself forced into defending him against biased charges, irrational argumentation and hateful rhetoric. We may not like or agree with him. We may think he is a bad president. But as Christians we are called to a higher and holier standard of public discourse than the rest of the world. Matt Walsh’s sloppy and vitriolic polemic falls way short of that standard. It brings shame to the name of Jesus and is harmful to the mission of Christ.
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Philippians 2:5-8)
Conduct yourselves wisely toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person. (Colossians 4:5-6)
Fightin' Words 