Peter Witkowski Apologetics

Would Jesus Protest Cities Church?

The videos of protesters storming into Cities Church in Minneapolis with whistles, curses, and chants of “Ice Out” has raised all kinds of legal questions and one important theological question: would Jesus approve of this church storming?

Scriptural Support?

Seeking to justify the actions of the protesters, several social media theologians and personalities have referenced the time when Jesus’ flipped over tables in the temple. The gospel of Matthew provides the following summary of that event: “And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. (21:12).” These commentators equate the protesters’ belligerence that left children in tears with Jesus’ smashing of pigeon cages.

Were the Protesters Justified?

While Jesus’ actions in the temple were unquestionably disruptive and angered the self-righteous leaders of the temple, thoughtful readers will look beyond the action in an effort to discern their purpose. Jesus did not advocate for disruption for disruption’s sake. He had more non-violent interactions with the temple and other places of worship (shaped by dialogue, Scripture readings, and sermons) than violent.  When Jesus did breakout the whip, he did so not to prevent worship but to prevent others from preventing worship. Jesus offers the following commentary on his actions, “He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers (Matt 21:13).” He cleansed the temple because he longed for the temple to proclaim the glory of the Lord so that all the nations might worship him and spirit and truth. Any spiritual practice that runs contrary to the worship of Jesus (even if profitable and sanctioned by someone with reverend before his or her name) was to be purged from places of worship.  

Even if you grant that one cannot be an ICE Agent and a Christian (which I do not – the Scriptures permit men to defend the state – see Lk 3:14), the one thing he would need most would be the worship of this church which transforms people more into God’s image.

In other words, Jesus would not have joined these protesters as they brought and end to true worship for the sake of a political point. Jesus would have support those who shared his vision for spiritual worship and were “teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God (Col 3:16).”

In short, Matthew 21:12-13 condemns the protesters’ harassment of Cities Church. And the passage will also condemn any future protest of a local church that seeks to worship the one true, and triune God in accordance with Jesus’ teaching.

I share the pastor of Cities Church – Jonathan Parnell- assessment of the protest: “This is shameful.”

Peter Witkowski Apologetics, Discipleship, Pain & Suffering

How Amos Helps to Shape the Christian Response to Wicked-on-Wicked Violence

When the world of sin and darkness turns in upon itself producing horrific results, Christians should neither rejoice nor participate in such evil. Rather, they should call both those attacking and those being attacked to repentance.

Two Nations Steeped in SIn

In Amos 2, the Old Testament prophet declares that the nation of “Moab shall die amid the uproar, amid the shouting and the sound of the trumpet (2:2).” The prophet’s listeners would have readily assented to Moab’s judgement. Moab which came into existence through incest (Gen 19:36-38) was forever and always at odds with Israel. They hired Balaam of talking donkey fame to curse the Jews as they entered the promise land (albeit unsuccessfully) and kept up the attacks long after Israel became a nation. One of Israel’s first judges, Ehud, famously delivered Israel from Moabite rule when he thrust a sword into the Moabite king who was so fat that “the hilt also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade (Jg. 3:22).

Though God’s declarations of doom against Moab were rather standard affairs by the end of the Judean empire, God’s justification for punishing the Moabites would have surprised Amos’ original audience. This time Moab will be destroyed for their sins against other sinners. Amos predicts that Moab will be burned with fire because it “burned to lime the bones of the King of Edom (Amos 2:1).”

Like Moab, Edom excels at persecuting the Jews. Amos chapter one records that the nation of Edom had partnered with Philistia and Tyre to betray and enslave God’s people (Amos 1:6, 9). Next, Edom took up arms and violently pursued the Jews to whom they were distantly related. The Edomites lacked compassion, loved evil, and delighted in opposing God and terrorizing the Jews. According to the prophet Ezekiel, the descendants of Esau rejoiced “over the inheritance of the house of Israel, because it was desolate (Ez 35:15).” Because of Edom’s sins, Amos reports that God “will send a fire upon Teman and it shall devour the strongholds of Bozrah (Amos 1:12).” As the prophet Joel notes, the cities of Edom would become in-turn “a desolate wilderness (Joel 3:19).” The prophet Obadiah concurs writing of Edom that it “shall be as though they never had been (Ob 16).

In short, Amos has declared that God will judge the wicked nation of Moab for having abused the wicked nation of Edom. The sin of one nation or people against another person or nation (regardless of how wicked said person or nation is) is never excusable. The Lord who rules over all will hold all to account for their sins, irrespective of their victim’s merits.

Lesson’s From The Fallen

Amos’ prophecy reveals that the proper response to Moab’s vengeance and Edom’s calamity is not rejoicing but warning. When false churches burn down, when cult leaders are murdered, or when one war lord is violently dismembered by another war lord, Christians should not sin against their enemies through misplaced rejoicing, a neglect of justice, or participation in said sins. Christians should not berate the followers of cults on X as they grieve the deaths of their loved ones. They should not turn a blind eye to the brother who murders an abortion doctor. And, they should not join those rioting because they disagree with a court’s unjust verdict. The sins of others never excuse or justify new sins, especially the sins of God’s people.

When Christians see a Muslim attacking a Buddhist, they should lovingly call both groups to repentance. They should call the one sinning to repent for God will judge their sins and hates their violence. And they should call the one being sinned against to repentance. While the attacked will not be judged for their attacker’s sins, they will still die for their sins…for their idolatry, cruel words, and rejection of the Bible. An even greater and more perfect judgement awaits all of humanity regardless of whether they are suffering or cause suffering. Anyone not covered in the saving blood of Jesus will spend eternity in hell. The suffering of the wicked should not move Christians to mock and attack the wicked when they hurt. Rather it should drive them to once again to lovingly call their lost neighbors and family members to repent lest they die.

The Wider Discussion

This response to the suffering of the wicked extends beyond Amos, aligning with the broader witness of Scripture. According to the Old Testament, God not only judges the wicked, he longs to see them saved. Decades after Amos had receded into the background, the prophet Ezekiel declared, “As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live (Ez 33:11)”

Such sentiments also align with the witness of the New Testament. When Jesus was asked about the horrific deaths of the Galileans who had their blood mixed with the blood of animals, the Messiah turned the conversation towards repentance, declaring, “but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish (Lk 13:3). Similarly, Jesus continues to delay the final judgment and the recreation of the universe because as the apostle Peter notes in 2 Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” While God often uses one wicked nation or person to justly punish the wickedness of another nation or person, the Lord never delights in their sorrow. He desires to see all repent.

Conclusion

When Christians see the wicked attacking the wicked, they should not rejoice in the suffering of the wicked nor share in such sins. God does not rejoice in the calamity of the wicked. Those who faithfully follow the Lord Jesus Christ will use such moments to spread the gospel and to call those walking in darkness to embrace the light of Jesus. They will love their enemies.

Peter Witkowski Apologetics, Pain & Suffering

Erika Kirk’s Message: A Return to the Clear Gospel

My soul resonated with much of the Charlie Kirk Memorial. Erika Kirk not only joined others in proclaiming the gospel, but she also lived it out, extending love and forgiveness to her enemies. That moment proved to be a welcome correction to the evangelical gospel that had begun to be blurred by the ethic of vengeance.

A Vengeful Gospel

As world become preoccupied with COVID, some of the more political voices within evangelicalism encouraged their fellow evangelicals to make allowances for those driven by hatred and vengeance. These political voices told evangelicals not to focus on the “what” of their actions but on the “why.” These evangelicals viewed the social unrest of the pandemic to be a legitimate currency of the marginalized who lacked all other means to enact just social change. These evangelicals condemned the throwing of bricks as a sin. But they also believed those who had failed to listen to the prior just complaints of the brick throwers were complicit in their crime. The brick was the last option and not the first. In other words, hurt people hurt people and those who committed the last hurt could not be expected to peacefully cohabitate with their communities or even their churches until those who committed the first hurt confessed their sin and made restitution. Until such time, those evangelicals who had been sinned against would continue to burn with anger as the personal ethic of love and forgiveness faded ever into the background of their thought.

Such discussions swirled around the Black Lives Matter’s protest as pastors called evangelicals to reflect on why those minority communities in Minnesota, Georgia, and elsewhere had been driven to violence. Evangelicals on the other side of the political aisle encouraged then church to reflect on the circumstances that had driven the men and women of January 6 to march on the U.S. Capital. Instead of encouraging those who had been wronged to embrace the personal ethic of forgiveness, both sets of political voices encouraged the church to understand the merits of the various protestors’ vengeance. Jesus’ words in Luke 6:27 “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.” had begun to recede from the evangelical imagination. Though he is not an evangelical, I suspect President Trump’s words at Charlie’s memorial stilled reflected the feelings of many within the evangelicalism when he said: “I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them. I’m sorry…But I can’t stand my opponent.”

Erika’s Pure Gospel

In her speech, Erika Kirk directed the evangelical imagination back towards the gospel of peace. She did not ask those in attendance to empathize with her hatred for Charlie’s shooter who caused her soul to ache and her two precious children to be fatherless. She did not speak of vengeance at all. She did not hate her husband’s murderer.  

She spoke of loving and forgiving her enemies. Reflecting upon Charlie’s life she said, “Charlie passionately wanted to reach and save the Lost Boys of the West, the young men who feel like they have no direction, no purpose, no faith, and no reason to live…wasting their lives on distractions…men consumed with resentment, anger and hate. Charlie wanted to help them.” Charlie disavowed personal vengeance. Erika continued: “My husband, Charlie. He wanted to save young men, just like the one who took his life.”  

Then clinging to Charlie’s legacy and the gospel, she proclaimed, “That man. That young man. I forgive him. I forgive him because it was what Christ did…What Charlie would do. The answer to hate is not hate. The answer we know from the gospel is love and always love.  Love for our enemies and love for those who persecute us.”

She forgave not because Charlie’s shooter had made restitution, admitted to his evil, or sought reconciliation. She extended forgiveness to him because she had been forgiven.  As the apostle John notes, “In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another (1 Jn 4:10-11).”  Erika championed the love and forgiveness of Jesus which is forever and always the individual Christian’s solution to sin – even to the greatest of sins such as murder which causes the soul ache until heaven. I am thankful that Erika clearly and resolutely shared and model a gospel uncluttered by vengeance at this crucial hour.

God Centered Political Action

 This is not to say that there is not a place for justice and for conversations about political change. God ordained governments to hold sinners to account so that all might live in peace and safety. When governments fail to rule justly and when tragedies occur, righteous anger should drive Christians to engage the political process.

But righteous passion must never be divorced from the personal ethic of love and forgiveness. Evangelicals engaging in political discussions and activities should recognize that any person or group that is truly Christian or aligned with Christian principles will ultimately not lead its followers to demonize their opponents, to riot, or to make death threats but to share the gospel, to forgive sins, and to make peace both inside and outside the walls of evangelicalism. As President Trump noted of Charlie Kirk, “He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them.”  In other words, holy anger produces not vengeance but men and women passionate to see the gospel of peace advance in their families, their churches, and their communities so that others may know Christ and experience the joy of following Jesus’ ethic. As the Reformer Martin Luther said, “anyone who claims to be a Christian and a child of God, not only does not start war or unrest; but he also gives help and counsel on the side of peace wherever he can.” Evangelical political action should be driven by and reflect Scriptural convictions. To quote Erika: “Pray again. Read the Bible again. Go to church next Sunday and the Sunday after that. And break free from the temptations and shackles of this world.” To put it simply, the love and forgiveness of Jesus always produce a personal ethic of love and forgiveness. James the brother of Jesus concurs writing, “But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace (Ja 3:17-18).”

Final Thoughts

Charlie’s memorial beautifully reminded evangelicalism and the world that the gospel of love and forgiveness still works. The passion for change can and must cohabitate with the ethic of love and forgiveness. For that I am thankful. May love and forgiveness ever drive and shape the evangelical church and its political engagement.