Category Archives: American Evangelicalism

On The Digital Christian Polemicists

Posted on by

In light of the internet, I thought the following from Jarslov Pelikan, on the matter of ‘polemics’ would be apropos to highlight. He writes:

There were still versions of the “domino theory,” which cautioned that indifference or the leas concession on any point of doctrine could lead to a toleration of the most extreme excesses, but such an admonition that “fundamental truth cannot be ignored except at the cost of salvation” was often accompanied by the acknowledgement that this did not apply to “secondary elements of fundamental doctrine,” nor to the nonfundamental doctrines. Jonathan Edwards could speak of “zeal” expressed in “vigorous opposition” as “the fervor of this flame [of love],” but he cautioned that it was directed “against things, and not persons,” a distinction that was not always easy to observe amid such “zeal.” A theologian with “a contentious nature” could easily abuse doctrinal polemics for self-aggrandizement. Even those who urged the necessity of polemics added that the pulpit was no place for scholastic controversies about obscure theological points. It was, a professor of theology declared in his inaugural lecture of 1696, “the task of the theologian not only to confirm true doctrine, but to refute errors that are opposed to the truth, above all if they are dangerous and pernicious”; but he went on to urge that in polemics the theologian must strive to do justice to the opposing position, not to caricature it, because “nothing should be imputed to someone that he does not acknowledge in deed or in word.”[1]

The temptation for the theologian, the Christian to fall off into the pit of “polemicistry,” is always as near as the sarx (‘flesh’). Our frames remain but dust, but God’s mercy is ever present to buoy us upon his holy breath beyond such vitrolituous downfalls. The human heart homo incurvatus in se has always already been bent upon self-congratulation and elevation. But the cross of Christ contradicts such antics. Thus, the Christian life, existence, is one marked by living in the midst of this battle between the flesh and the Spirit; even, ironically, when the Christian is attempting to present and discuss theology about our blessed Lord.

The internet only amplifies the putrefied heart to the grandiose heights of self-exaltation and muse. It siren calls, even the Christian in step with the Spirit, to toot one’s own horn behind the surliness of the digital confessional; as in a mockery of the holy habitation of the communio sanctorum. May Christ have mercy upon us, the rascally lot we are.

[1] Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine: Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture (since 1700) (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1989), 57.

Evangelical Theology as Bricolage

Posted on by

Do evangelicals have a theology, like a confessional-dogmatic theology? No. As an evangelical myself, growing up the deepest theologies I was ever exposed to was something like Walter Martin’s Kingdom of the Cults, or on the fringes, I would hear the name, Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop (as an evangelical who was an intellectual) thrown around (and maybe, Charles Ryrie). None of this is to suggest that my experience is the delimiting factor in regards to whether or not evangelicals had or have a dogmatic theology present. But it is to recognize that even if attempts were indeed being made, they were not prominent ones. Later in life (like in my early 20s) I was exposed to Millard Erickson and Wayne Grudem; not to mention Bruce and Demarest and Stanley Grenz. But none of these theologies have ever risen to the levels of the Post Reformed orthodox theologians, or the Lutherans scholastics of the 16th and 17th centuries. And of course, in such a vacuum, because of the lacuna of dogmatic theologies for contemporary evangelicals and Reformed types, they are called back to said 16th and 17th century theologians, respectively (which we see now in the retrieval movement). And I think I am also part of this generation of evangelicals who happens to be a deep thinker, and was on the lookout for something deeper and substantive; something catholic, which has a liminal rootage with the church continuous.

What’s more, my turn hasn’t been to the 16th and 17th centuries, per se, but, clearly to the early 20th century as that is primarily resident in the theologies of Karl Barth and Thomas Torrance. Even so, my “turn” happened by becoming attuned to the patristics, the medieval theologians, along with Martin Luther, John Calvin, and even the Post Reformed orthodox; primarily, the Puritans and Pietists. I quickly recognized that whilst there are great riches strewn throughout the history of the church’s doctrinal development, that much of it did not correlate directly with an evangelical ethos. That is, while there has been a lacuna of evangelical dogmatics in the 20th and 21st centuries, even still, evangelicals have functioned with an unspoken set of theological themes that have served regulative for their worship services, Sunday morning sermons, Bible studies, so on and so forth. Evangelicals, by and large, believe that Jesus died and rose again for everyone; that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God; that the Gospel is genuinely offered to everyone (not just sufficiently, but efficaciously too); that God is love; that Jesus is God in flesh, both fully God and fully human; that God is triune as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; that salvation is by faith alone; and more.

And yet, does Post Reformed orthodoxy map onto those themes in ethos? No, I would say not; even if there is some doctrinal overlap here and there. And so where can the evangelical turn? Many think they are more Arminian or Wesleyan than Calvinist, and then vice versa. As if these types of binaries are the only ones available, or most proximate to what they think they believe as evangelicals. And so often, the evangelical will attempt to cobble together some type of theological identity by taking themes from this perceived “side” or that, and then claim to be an Arminian, Wesleyan, Provisionist (as that has been more popularly developing), Free Grace, Calvinist, Anabaptist, evangelical Lutheran etc. But, in my view, this type of pastiche does not represent a coherent dogmatic theological offering that is genuinely evangelical in ethos, in spirit. I think Barth and TF Torrance, in their own ways, map onto a real evangelical dogmatic theology in ways that evangelicals have been in search for, for a long time (if they have been searching, anyway).

I understand that this post is highly generalized. But it is in gist.

On Being “Right”: In Response to Wes Huff

Posted on by

Wes Huff (X post):

If your theological convictions are not actively making you more gracious, humble, and repentant than [sic.] your beliefs are not being shaped by Jesus they’re motivated by a desire to be argumentatively “right.”

Bobby Grow’s response:

Some of our best theologians were rascals. Not that it makes it right, but it is to point out that Jesus’ approach is big enough to encompass the personalities and passions he has disposed us with. To me, it is all about a broader ethic of love one for the other. To be “right” is still to be right even if gotten at in the wrong way. But this attests to the mercifulness and graciousness of the Lord’s reality and not ours. Jesus wasn’t and isn’t a Pietist, a Victorian, or a Schleiermacherean; he is Theanthropos (Godman) with all of the entailments of humanity (indeed, as he Self-determined those to be in his choice to be God for us, in us, and with us by the Holy Spirit).

Christian Reductionism and the Fatalization of the Christian Life

Posted on by

Christian reductionism has probably produced more spiritual fatalities than anything else. The way I define Christian reductionism (CR) is in this way: Christian reductionism is when professing Christians come to think, typically subconsciously, that they have arrived. That they have come to experience the pinnacles of Christianity in their daily and mundane experiences, even as those might entail “mountain top experiences,” and extrapolate from there that there is nothing more. Often, subsequent to this type of reasoning, people attempt to live within the formalism of the way that Christianity has been snapshotted for them in their own experience, but ultimately come to lose interest in the Christian life (inwardly). This loss of interest, under the terms of CR that I am currently defining, pivots on the individual’s belief that they have already exhausted the depths and heights of Christianity, of the Gospel reality, at which point they see no more space for growth (even though they wouldn’t admit it). Following, a fatalistic attitude towards the Gospel comes to consume their lives, and they begin the process of compartmentalizing their Christian life into a banality of just one piece of their daily existences, knowing that they at least are probably on their way to Heaven, and simply settle-in for the long haul (or the shorter haul, as the case may be).

Sadly, they have believed a lie. For the CRs the broader society, the cultural upheavals and underheavals, daily life, the perceived wins and losses, simply become apiece with what they believe the Christian life to be; just one more aspect of what it means to be alive. Sadly, they have believed a lie. They have become participants in a Folk Religion, rather than in the faith of Christ. But I don’t think it is a stretch to say that this type of religion is the dominant undercurrent of what makes up most of Western Christianity today in the 21st century.

The Gospel is radical. And it requires effort, spiritual battle, recognition, a fight, and an unwillingness to allow oneself to reduce the Gospel to one’s own parochial rendition of it. The Gospel life is charged through with the energy of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ Himself. It surely has a sobriety to it, but the sobriety of a stately Lion laying around in his domain on the Masai Mara. PS. Of course, when I say it requires effort etc., what I’m referring to is living the Christian life, not becoming a Christian or coming into the family of God in Christ. Living the Christian life requires effort though.

Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord. -I Corinthians 15.58

The 20th Century Swiss Evangelical Church in Concert with the 21st Century North American Evangelical Church

Posted on by

A Church in Basel, Switzerland

As an evangelical (at least that’s my pedigree from birth), here in the 21st century, things have become rather dire, in my opinion, with reference to finding sound so-called “evangelical churches.” This is no abstract thing for me, but an ongoing reality. We have literally been churchless for quite a while now (we watch a home church of ours back in Southern California online every Sunday morning, which isn’t ultimately sufficient; as far as real life in-person fellowship etc.) We have tried multitudes of “evangelical churches,” and not to be reductionistic, they are all almost exactly the same. They still have 1990s seeker sensitive programs ongoing—with 21st century technology—and/or personality cult driven pastorates that only stay viable until said pastor dies or retires (which such pastors rarely do). But the actuality of Christ is really nowhere to be found; in name only. Bibles are nowhere present, not in the hands of the people (some of that is tech related, but not really, I don’t think), and the sermons mostly mimic bad Ted Talks. The worship/music part of it appears to be something more like American Idol tryouts than it does actual leadership to worship of the triune God. Beyond that, and based on a relatively recent poll of evangelicals, most don’t even believe that or know if Jesus Christ is fully God. The sound doctrinal body of teaching is lacking to the point that it is non-existent; which then that vacuum only leaves room for bad doctrine. This is a lamentable thing.

And yet the aforementioned, unfortunately, isn’t unique to the 21st century evangelicals. Here is Karl Barth discussing his own experience of the “church” in his early to middle 20th century context in his native Switzerland:

It hardly needs to be said that we are dealing here with a point of view which has been most flagrantly neglected in modern Protestantism since the 18th century. From the visible standpoint our Protestant national Churches are little more than great unions, or communities of interest, of individuals who are Christian or are called Christian, individualists, each of whom—like the people of Israel in the time of the Judges—does that which is right in his own eyes, so that although some may act together in particular ecclesiolae [churches] called movements, we cannot inquire too closely what it really is that unites them. Even less can we inquire what these Churches are as a whole, a question which would yield the most gratuitous and to a large extent unconvincing answers. If we will and can and must maintain the form revealed in them, then we can only sigh: Kyrie eleison. Destroying as they do the relationship between the community and its members, they are hopelessly a-catholic Churches, hardly distinguishable, if at all, from heretical sects, or sects which verge on heresy, in the matter which now concerns us.

The most obvious example is the 1911 Constitution of the Evangelical Reformed Church of the City of Basel. It begins with a kind of hymnal introit to which a conscientious exegete could hardly give any but an Arian sense . . ..[1]

What is the common identifiable theme that holds Barth’s early to middle Evangelical Reformed church together with the North American evangelical church of today? Embedded in the passage from, where he notes, “It hardly needs to be said that we are dealing here with a point of view which has been most flagrantly neglected in modern Protestantism since the 18th century. . ..” It is the Enlightenment tentacles, and its anthropology of turn-to-the-subject that has helped to tie the whole modern and postmodern churches together (there are other factors, as well). A spirituality where individualism reigns prime, romanticist feelings cajole the heart-strings, and personal interest sublimates the interests of the living God. Kyrie eleison indeed!

Are there exceptions? Always. In fact, we are looking for an exception currently; so please keep that in prayer if you would. Note: I am not implying or presuming that we are looking for a “perfect church.” Nein. We are simply looking for the church in its local expression. An environ wherein the church is being the Church by genuinely bearing witness to her reality in Jesus Christ and the triune God.

I am remaining charitable in my language throughout this post. The so-called evangelical church has already gone right by the impasse, and she doesn’t even realize it. She indeed functions as a series of social clubs with the name of Jesus Christ splattered all over her programs and multimedia presentations. Good intentions, and smiles are not enough to gloss over the tragedy of it all. Only repentance, as if ancient Israel before God, will do. Kyrie eleison.

[1] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics IV/1 §62 [521–22] The Doctrine of Reconciliation: Study Edition (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 195.

PS. I also work on call 24/7 which makes “church shopping” that much more difficult. But I know we will eventually find something.

The Privacy of the Christian Religion

Posted on by

Photo credit: The Atlantic

The privacy of the Christian religion, particularly as that obtains within the so-called evangelical churches of North America, might be one of the most deleterious things to have ever pierced its fabric. The individualism of a post-Enlightened secular world has penetrated the walls of evangelicalism in force. Evangelicals hold onto “me and my Jesus,” “me and my Bible,” and only when that serves their personal interests and feelings. This has been a century’s long problem, longer in fact, and it has destroyed the spirituality, or even the potential for a genuine Christian spirituality, en masse.

When a turn-to-the-subject posture gets applied to the Christian life what gets produced is North American evangelicalism, simpliciter. In my view, at least institutionally and collectivistically, the experiment of an evangelicalism ought to be abandoned (because it has already abandoned itself); and this, posthaste. Originally, in the early Protestant world, to be an evangelical meant to be a full blooded proponent of what came to be known as a sola Scriptura Christianity. To be an evangelical under this rubric was to literally put your life on the line. To be a sola fide Gospel proponent was to deny the authority of the known church (in the West), at the time. Now to be an evangelical means to be a moralistic therapeutic deist; to be a participant in a folk religion founded upon the ‘feels’ of the pastors and the laity, respectively.

I have been triggered, and this post is the result of that. There is a lot behind this trigger which will remain unstated. It should be said though: good intentions are no longer good enough (and never were). An empty piety, and its spirituality, does not reflect a genuinely Gospel formed Christianity. When churches are funded by said piety, all that we are left with, again, is a folk religion; not worth the time and energy of any committed Christian. Elks Lodge Christianity, country club Christianity, narthex Christianity, me and my Jesus Christianity have failed the people. There is no power there because the Holy Spirit is not there. There is no growth there because everything has been dumbed down to the feels of the people; indeed, this shaped by the secular culture that has penetrated the evangelical church to its core. But the pietism keeps the blinders on the peoples’ eyes all around. What an atrocious pitiful thing.

#rantover

The Christian Existence: Contra Systemic Dualisms

Posted on by

The right and left binary represents a dualism that genuine Christian theology rejects. Dualism generally says that there are equal and opposing forces, light versus dark, in a cyclical battle of yin and yang. The Kingdom of God is grounded in the reality of God become [hu]man. There is no dualism, no competitive relationship between the fallen and unfallen; all of reality is subsumed within the singular person of Jesus Christ. Thus, Christianity, the Gospel comes with different expectations. The Christian is not in a loggerhead with the darkness, per se; the Christian moves and breathes from within the atmosphere of the heavenly Zion. This reality is not of this world, and thus not of the dualisms that often frame this world system. We are emissaries of the living God in the risen Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. In that sense we move differently than others, not being shaped by what the world optically presents to us as if it gets to determine reality by brute presence.

The aforementioned should have an impact on the Christian existence in this world. It should keep us moving towards and from the upward call in Christ Jesus. Politics, culture wars, and the like should never be defined by the whims and whams of the base person, the profane systems of thought progenerated by this world system; the evil age. Jesus is already reigning at the right hand of the Father (see 1 Cor 15), and will come once and for all riding on His white steed with the sword of God proceeding from His mouth. Maranatha

On Being Churchless in the 21st Century: A Personal Tale

Posted on by

It is not easy to find a sound, healthy Bible teaching evangelical church in the 21st century. For example, we (my wife and I) have been without a stable church for quite some time. We have “church-shopped,” and that gets almost defeatist after a while. It isn’t that we’re looking for the “perfect church,” not at all. We are simply looking for a church where the Word of God is opened and exposited in a way where Christ is central; where the Gospel is central; where genuine Christian proclamation is taking place. Unfortunately, the MANY churches we have visited over these last many years are still more concerned with being “relevant,” and user-friendly than they are with being biblically faithful. But then you’ll visit a church that is ostensibly biblically and doctrinally focused, and all your generally left with are John MacArthur-like churches. Or you’ll visit a church that is either, in fact, a mega church, or aspires to be one. Or maybe, you’ll visit a church that has a bunch of satellite campuses, with one mothership campus that keeps the franchise steady. But in the main, most so-called evangelical churches out there in the 21st century, are indeed peddling what has been called a moralistic therapeutic deism; so not really even the Christian religion, but a folk religion. They literally have a Ted Talk for the sermon and a tryout for American Idol as “worship.” And this is pervasive.

On top of all of that, and at a personal level, my job doesn’t make things very easy either. I work on-call which in and of itself makes it prohibitive towards looking for a solid church. And then when it works out to try and do that, we end up wasting our time at the types of churches described previously. So, we are in a hard spot; and I don’t think we are alone. What we have been doing in lieu of being able to find a worthwhile church is live viewing a church online that used to be my parents church, and that we attended back in the day in Lakewood (Bellflower), CA. I am friends with the senior pastor, and they have something very unique going as far as churches go in the 21st century. But ultimately, while it is good to still get the Word taught, doing online church isn’t sustainable; as far as meeting bodily needs, such as fellowship, friendship, and an immediacy to one-another that Christians ideally ought to have; indeed, as the body of Christ meeting physically around the Word taught, and the Bread and Welch’s Grape Juice consumed (i.e., communion, “Lord’s supper” etc.)

So, as you think about it, please pray that we will finally be able to find a healthy sound Bible teaching church that we can settle into. Thank you.

Matthew Henry’s Perspective on Thirdwayism: Contra Secularism’s In-Breaking into the Churches

Posted on by

The evangelical churches in North America, in particular, and in the West, in general, have largely been secularized. To say something has been secularized has broad affect. But primarily, I am wanting to emphasize how pagan Enlightenment categories have been uncritically swallowed by the churches. Whether that be to affirm climate change (as “creation care” or ecotheology), softness on Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender-Queer-Intersex (i.e., “gay Christians”) issues, critical theory and critical race theory, Liberation theology, and a whole host of other antisupranaturalistic Enlightenment categories and ideologies, the evangelical churches, by and large, have allowed themselves to be defined by. And if the culture, as the Apostle Paul and the Holy Spirit identify for us, is in fact an ‘evil age,’ then what in God’s Holy Name hath this darkness to do with the Light? As Christians, as ambassadors, as emissaries of Jesus Christ we have been called to bear witness to Jesus Christ, and by this witness, by His reality, His resurrection power indwelling us, indeed as we participate in His life by the Spirit, by His Light we are to expose the darkness; which would entail, that we, on the other hand, repudiate the secularism, the paganism, the Enlightenmentism that so many of the evangelical churches are in fact imbibing (even in the name of Jesus Christ as “bridge-building” aka thirdwayism).

Conversely, the aforementioned has a history. The formative parts of that history are present within the 17th and 18th centuries (so, the Enlightenment). This was a time when the empiricism and rationalism of someone like John Locke, the rationalistic dualism of Immanuel Kant, the Deism of the like et al. was in full blossom. The Deists, of course, simply believed that there was a transcendent god, up there yonder, who got everything started, who created the heavens and earth, gave it a good spin, and has since left it to itself; and to us. Embedded in Deism was a charred rationalism, that when applied to the confessional Dogmas of the historic church, with particular focus on the doctrine of the triune God, left God almost dead in the gutter; left a God, as noted, who was most assuredly not three-in-one / one-in-three. As such, being a confessional Christian—someone who affirmed the orthodox ecumenical church creeds of Nicaea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, with reference to the triunity of God and the deity of Christ—had come to wane. In the face of the intelligentsia of that day and hour, to be a confessional Christian was looked at like being the village idiot or something. Even so, and by the mercy of God, such persons persisted.

In the midst of this, those “persistents,” the people who withstood succumbing to the Deists and rationalists among them, within the “churches,” remained faithful to the reality of the triune God. Indeed, here is how contemporary church historian, Nick Needham, writes about one of these ‘faithful,’ with direct reference to Matthew Henry himself:

For the Dissenters, Presbyterian Matthew Henry (1662–1714, author of the famous Bible commentary, spoke in a similar vein as the 18th Century began:

The low condition of the church of God ought to be greatly lamented; the Protestant interest small, very small; a decay of piety; attempts for reformation ineffectual. Help, Lord! There are but few who are truly religious; who believe the report of the Gospel, and who are willing to take the pains, and run the hazards of religion. Many make a fair show in the flesh, but few only walk closely with God. Where is he that engageth his heart, or that stirs up himself to take hold of his Maker?[1]

The way Henry was referring to his time and day in the churches sounds eerily similar to our day and time. More than ever, so-called evangelical Christians, particularly “the leaders,” have allowed the erosive powers of the current world culture[s] to seep into the churches; and they have done this all in the name of Jesus Christ. There are many who use the name of Jesus Christ, refer to the Bible, use all the right Christianese, and yet they have in point of fact denied the power of God, the Gospel, in favor of cloistering with the various secular ideologies run amok among us in this world system. These ‘forces,’ within the churches, particularly as we see that given expression in a magazine like Christianity Today, or in the writings and activities of the late, Tim Keller’s thirdwayism (acquiescing to the progressive ideologies of the 21st century), in the name of bridge-building, or in the “winsomeness” of someone like Russell Moore or J. D. Greear, have taken the many peoples of the churches into the slough of despondency, right along with them. This shan’t remain the case!

Like in Henry’s day, it is easy, and at a point, even appropriate to bewail the current church situation. But we cannot stay in that status. The ‘faithful’ must recognize our current moment, as that has been foisted upon us, even by us, and first and foremost repent. Once this step has been taken it is incumbent on each and everyone of us, indeed as individual members of the church, to keep in step with the Holy Spirit, take up our crosses daily, and follow Jesus Christ. As we live out our unique callings by our Master, as we shine brightly with the Brightness of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, as we expose the darkness with the Light of Christ, we might be able, yet, to inject the churches, the church, with the vitality of our risen and ascended Lord. That can only come as we participate in the life of Christ, in union with Him, and by His resurrection and ascension energy, in shared koinonia (fellowship), one with the other, by which the power of God, the Gospel, can come to have full effect on the liveliness of the churches, and as the light to the world that Jesus is Savior and Lord.

[1] Nick Needham, 2000 Years of Christ’s Power: Volume 5: The Age of Enlightenment and Awakening (Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 2023), 99.

The Dandelion of God’s Kingdom in the Midst of the Profanus Communio: With Reference to Charlie Kirk

Posted on by

Charlie Kirk was just a guy, a highly motivated and gifted brother. He was constrained by the love of Christ. He saw himself as an emissary for Jesus Christ. And it was because of all of this that he died a Christian martyr’s death. He was too young, some would say (I would). And yet, the Lord has a story, has a ministry, a service for each one of us who are His own. Sometimes that story entails living a long life on this earth, eighty or ninety years, maybe. And other times, like my little brother, it only lasts thirty minutes outside of the womb; and in Charlie’s case, it was thirty-one, almost thirty-two years. Our Lord, in His earthly ministry, had somewhere around thirty-three years, and then ascended. The point is, is that we all have something to do for our Lord whilst here. He has uniquely, in Himself, given each of us the strength, the gifts (as needed, relative to steps of faith) required to live out His witness through us, one for the other, and the other for the one.

Charlie, in obedience to his calling, took many steps into the Jordan. And with each step the water parted into the promised land of God’s abundance for Him in Jesus Christ. This is the power of Christ’s witness in someone’s life who has decided to charge hard after Him and His mission for the world. This “hard charging” is of course, not by might, nor by power, but by the Spirit of the living God where there is liberty.

But as is all too apparent, as these steps are taken in this ‘evil age’ there will always be pushback. The world system, or the Beast kingdom, is at counter-purposes with the missio Dei (‘mission of God’) at every step. As the Apostle Paul recognizes, in his epistle to Timothy, there are doctrines of demons afoot and funding this world system. For those without the armor of God, for those who are still inhabitants of the kingdom of darkness, they are easy prey to such doctrines. They have no protection. As such, such populates look for safety in numbers; they look for groups and tribes that offer them a sense of safety and stridence within a clearly broken and fragmented world. It is within these cathedrals of darkness where the Enemy of our souls offers up the sacrament of their own bodies as the ultimate meaning of what is real, what is right, what is hope in the midst of darkness. And without the Holy Spirit, without being participants in the Kingdom of the Son of His love, these wary and frightened souls find repose and solace within the dictates of their own fellow bodies. It is within this type of profanus communio (unholy communion) that all manner of dastardly deeds, vices, thoughts, ideas, notions, feelings, so on and so forth are cultivated; all to the end of upbuilding this holy body, “my holy body” “our holy body” within the desires of our sickened and blackened hearts, beyond all feeling.

Charlie Kirk, and all faithful Christians bearing witness to the holiness of the Kingdom of God, the ‘kingdom of the Son of His love,’ push into the aforementioned unholy communion. The darkness and delusion are exposed by the light of Christ, the power of God. It is this reality, the ascended Christ reality, that buggers the whole darkness-project. When self-actualization driven by my darkened inward turned navel feelings is challenged all it can do is recoil in shrieking anger and despise. The devil himself, identified by Jesus, as the father of lies, as the author of murder, becomes instigated by the light-bearers, as they reflect the Light of Light in the face of Jesus Christ, and he attempts to mount a counter-assault on such faces. This counter was what Charlie Kirk experienced; indeed, instigated by the devil, and implemented by his minions within the multilayered kingdom of darkness. Within this more volatile, this more active aspect of his kingdom, within the evil age, these agents of darkness, ensnared in ways that  they cannot even imagine themselves, lash out. In this instance, Charlie Kirk experienced what, I’m sure, the Dragon of old, in all his futility, hoped would extinguish the penetration of the Kingdom of Light of Light, into his kingdom of darkness; particularly among the young. And yet because of the Great Reversal, the one where Jesus triumphed on the cross, making a public spectacle of the Enemy and his minions, has been flipped on its ugly dragon head. The seed of the Kerygma, the Gospel, the Power of God, has now been blown a thousandfold all across the globe. The Kingdom of Light of Light spreads, not by might, nor by power, but by the Spirit of the LORD. Like a massive dandelion, the breath of the Holy Spirit blows forth, in what appears to be dead seeds, only to spread God’s Word all across the lands. Indeed, so much so, that it penetrates the conclaves of darkness the Enemy has so ghoulishly and carefully been cultivating for his own murderous and destructive ends.

The bottom line, the eschatological reality, is that God has already won. Charlie Kirk’s death within the economy of God’s Kingdom is no death at all. Instead, it is a spur that only magnifies the strength and Light of God’s Kingdom; resulting in more seeing, rather than less. We grieve at Charlie’s death, and we really do!, but we know the Victory has been already had. Charlie stepped into the eternal arms of the everlasting Father the split-second that bullet ended his earthly life; at least “ended” for the time being. Charlie was in union with Christ. Christ has already died, been buried, rose again, and ascended for over two thousand years; thus, Charlie, and all the saints past, present, and future (as the Lord tarries) lives, not dies.