Doctrine and Assemblies

There is an unsettling trend, albeit not a very novel trend, of parents and grandparents favoring their children or grandchildren over their doctrines. This is nothing new for religious persons in general, nor Christians specifically. Christ obviously recognized this when he said he came not to bring peace, but a sword (Mt. 10:34-36). Along with this is the odd trend of people changing denominations, not for doctrinal reasons, but because they think the grass is greener on the other side of the Tiber or that the water is warmer further down the protestant shoreline.

One possibility for this “scattering of sheep” is the moral confusion surrounding Christianity’s public witness. Alistair Begg recently doubled down on his belief that Christians can attend LGBT+ weddings. Flamy Grant, a man in a dress and clown makeup, topped the Christian Music Charts in August of last year. Andrew Klavan, the popular Daily Wire podcaster and one of the few modern novelists that can keep me turning the pages, argues that the Church needs to change its stance on homosexual relationships. I’ve been listening to him for some time now, and this clip articulates his view as he has communicated it throughout his years on the show. Andrew also argues often that we should not judge men or women who engage in homosexual actions because we aren’t supposed to judge. In the meantime, he judges us as immoral for our judgments on his actual immoral beliefs. No hate Andrew, still love the show.

At the core of all of this is the emphasis of a person’s feelings over Christian doctrine and reality. Mao and Stalin would be very proud of these “Christian” responses. Alistair’s affirmation that Christians can attend LGBT weddings, the undermining of Christian music industry by a drag queen, the argument of conservatives like Klavan saying we can have true marriages and homosexual relationships within the church: these kinds of redefinitions are evidence of a budding Marxist Revolution and its unwitting participants.

The Marxist aim is not to destroy the Christian faith, but to hollow it out and utilize its cultural position and authority to further the communist agenda. Christians are asleep to these ideas while atheists and agnostics like Jordan Peterson, James Lindsay, Chinese Communist survivor Xi Van Fleet , Nazi and Soviet occupation survivor Czeslaw Milosz, and others recognize that if you compromise your public witness, no one will care what you do in private. Christians today need to understand that dictatorships do not care about your beliefs so long as they can have your will; in other words, they only care about what you do in public.

Secular anti-Marxists

The most recent example of this is Alistair Begg. A grandmother asked Begg’s thoughts on whether she should attend her grandson’s LGBT wedding. Begg told her she should go. His argument was that as long as the participants know you don’t agree with their decision, then a Christian can attend and have a clear conscience. Well shoot, I guess we Christians should start baking gay cakes, making gay bouquets, and doing gay wedding photography for LGBT weddings after all. According to Begg, as long as you tell them you disagree, you’re in the clear in God’s eyes.

What Communists understand and Christians have forgotten is the important connection between public assemblies and ideas. In the Christian tradition, the assembly and the doctrine go hand in hand; you cannot have one without the other. Different assemblies exist because different beliefs about God, man, and the world exist. These assemblies are the embodiment of their doctrines.

How One Girl Changed the Boys Club

One of the rights we have in America is the right to assemble. But what is an assembly? Does it matter which assembly Christians attend? In what way are they related to doctrine? What’s the difference between paying to see a movie where there is a gay couple as part of the story and attending a gay wedding as a loving grandmother?

An assembly is a group of people that gather around an idea; their assembly becomes becomes the physical embodiment of the immaterial idea. We call the Church the body of Christ because it is he that gathers them together. An assembly is made up of participants. Observers are by definition not participants, even if they are in the midst of the participants.

It matters what assemblies Christians participate in because Christians should not embody ideas that are blasphemous. They should participate in assemblies that embody true doctrine. This means that the difference between watching a movie with gay characters in it, and attending a gay marriage ceremony is the difference between participating and observing. You observe a movie; you participate in a wedding.

At the wedding, you are a guest, not a visitor. A visitor is privileged to observe but not participate. A visitor has no responsibility. He is there to watch and learn from the participants. However, a guest at a wedding will, by virtue of “holding his peace”, participate in affirming or denying the couple being presented to God, presumably, and the congregation of witnesses. Similarly, a Catholic attending a Protestant service as an observer is not the same thing as a Catholic participating in the Mass by receiving the Eucharist, the body and blood of Jesus. This is also why Catholics who watch the Mass online are observers, not participants.

Doctrines are the summary of the Christian faith. They are the ideas that have been established by the proper authorities, and thereby make the assembly possible. In order for an assembly to manifest two things are necessary: people and ideas. When two or more people are gathered, the idea is there also. Marriages are a sacrament in the Christian faith. They are a special Christian assembly for consecrating the husband and wife to God in the presence of witnesses. Thus, to embody an idea contrary to the Christian definition of Holy Matrimony is to publicly participate in the blasphemy against the institution that God established and to scandalize the Christian faith to anyone who observes your participation.

This is because assemblies are the marriage of ideas and the participants. When the ideas change, the participants and the assemblies change too. An example may help make the point more clear.

Suppose you start an all boys club. It’s going great. Meetings are packed. Boys are just being boys: wrestling, building forts, playing sports, etc. Then one day, a member’s sister wants to attend. You gather all the boys together for a vote: “We voted, and we say she can can join, but only on Mondays.” This leads to a peculiar question: is the club still an “All Boys Club”? No, but for marketing reasons you remove the “All” and say it’s a “Boys Club”. After all, its only one girl.

Despite your marketing efforts, it’s actually the case that there are now two assemblies in existence. Monday’s group is a different assembly because the rules and participants are not the same as the first assembly. The assemblies are related by virtue of shared members, meeting place, and maybe even the activities they do, but one group is now distinct because their “ideas”, its purpose for meeting and requirements for participation, have substantially changed.

Now suppose another member of the club gets a crush on a girl. His crush tells him that she would love to meet his friends at the Boys Club. Wanting to impress her, the boy invites her to one of the meetings, a Monday meeting. Johnny’s sister can attend, so he assumes that his new crush can attend too. “It’s just one more girl,” he reasons to himself. The leadership agrees and say “welcome to the club.”

The girls leave and begin to tell their girl friends about this cool Boys Club on Mondays. Soon, more girls begin to show up until every Monday assembly contains just as many boys as there are girls.

Are they still a boys club? No, they are two clubs, two assemblies; one club is the Boys Club, and the Monday group is the Boys and Girls Club. Years later, the group competes in an international Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) event. Spoiler alert, the announcer is the best part :D.

This example of how a boys club could gradually shift its identity shows that the reasons we come together are defined by the rules and the participants of the group. When we allow those rules or people to change, the group changes too. In some cases this can be necessary, in other cases it can destroy the very idea that made the assembly possible.

These assemblies are different because they embody different ideas that are either true or false. The idea is the cause of the assembly, and the assembly is the means to discover the idea at its center. Walk up to any big crowd and say “What’s going on? Why are all the people here?” To which the person questioned responds, “Dave and Doug finally tied the knot. That’s why we are all here; to celebrate the happy couple.” You don’t need to ask any more questions about the beliefs those people have. If you were to condemn Dave and Doug and their supposed “marriage”, even those who agree with you in principle would probably say “Not the place, man. I agree with you, but you don’t have to be a jerk about it. I mean if you felt that way why did you even show up?”

Supporting Team Baal

Imagine Elijah, fighting the prophets of Baal. He says “dump water on my altar, and God is still gonna—Mom! Is that you!”

“Hi Honey, yeah its me!”

“What are you doing over there on team Baal? You’re wearing their jersey, and you’re helping the priests cut themselves?!”

“Oh yeah, I just came over here to make sure your aunt Jezebel knew I didn’t judge her for being on team Baal. But don’t worry, I told her I’m rooting for your team still!”

This satirical bit should get the point across that assemblies matter. Why we go to church, and where we go is not for the people, but for God. Unfortunately, people today are attending and serving their churches of choice for many reasons, none of which are the doctrines held by that church.

Now consider the advice and confusion about marriage coming from Begg and Co. If a Christian woman was in attendance at an LGBT wedding, she would be an active participant in a wedding ceremony that blasphemes the very union that is essential to understanding the Church and God. She would be violating her Christian beliefs because Christians are not supposed to participate in assemblies that are gathered for the express purpose to deny God and his divine laws. To do so is to violate Divine Law, Scripture, and human integrity. But it’s also a smack in the face to all the Christians who for the last 2000 years were told to just “bend the knee”, “burn the incense”, “swear the oath”. Begg’s response implies that these heroes’ stands for the faith were just really foolish and pharisaical.

Since the outrage, Begg has doubled down. This is a serious blow to Christian influence across the country. You can apparently listen to his response here, though I don’t think its worth the time as anyone whose not been living under a rock knows the song and dance routine by now: “We shouldn’t be legalistic”, “we don’t want to be pharisaical”, “we need to love them the way we want to be loved”, “get the plank out of your eye, before you get the speck out of your brothers.” etc., One has to wonder, with Christians like these, who needs doctrine any way? Just live the Christian life like a Disney movie, and remember-if you offend anyone with your Christian faith, you probably aren’t doing it right.