A Wrong Heart – A Final Look
Though there are many things that can be focused on concerning the deviation from, and misuse of Scripture of Pastor Wright in his sermons, there is one last thing I would like to point out as it is largely misunderstood, and misapplied by “Christian” leaders, to the detriment of those under their influence, and to the Gospel of Christ.
In looking at this, we must first be ever reminded that the reason the Gospel exists is because man has absolutely no capacity to make himself righteous in any degree whatsoever. This will ever remain true as righteousness is an absolute quality that one either has in totality, or not at all. We must also remember that the standard of righteousness is the LORD God Himself, Who is infinitely righteous. The result of this is the utter condemnation of man as we are by nature evil, and we cannot change our nature by our own efforts. Thus the solution the LORD God offers us, is salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ and His blood that was shed for our atonement.
However, throughout man’s history on this earth, man has ever sought to find a way to make himself righteous in the sight of God outside of Christ, and in so doing, prove himself to be equal with his Creator. Typically, man does this by perverting the gospel into a system of works for salvation. However, there are systems of belief that ignore God altogether, and seek to find peace and righteousness through a means other than justification before God. Humanism is one such system.
Now, this is not to say that Humanism came into existence within the last 300 years or so. Actually, humanism has existed under one label or another for several millennia. Recently, humanism found organized expression under the label of communism. Central to the belief of humanism and communism is the idea that man can improve himself, by his own efforts. In communism, this ideal is known as the “new communist man” that is freed from the chains of religion, tradition and superstition. The communists believe, like all humanists have, that once man reaches this condition, there will be peace throughout the earth. However, there cannot be any opposition to this ideal, as that would create conditions that would drag humanity into conflict again. Hence, “peace” is preached, and war is railed against.
As I noted in previous posts, there is a definitive link between Pastor Wright, the UCC and communism. Moreover, that the “Christianity” preached by Pastor Wright and the UCC is nothing more than decorative wrapping for the socialism (communism) they advocate. Even so it is with the advocation of “peace.” The following is a partial transcript from CNN’s Anderson Cooper Blog, in which contributor Roland Martin presents a favorable view of what Wright stated on April 13, 2003:
“Wright’s scriptural focus was Luke 19:37-44 (reading from the New Revised Standard Version).
In this sermon, Wright spoke about the military rule during biblical days, led by Pontius Pilate. It was clear, through his language, such as “occupying military brigade” that he was making an analogy to the war in Iraq.
“War does not make for peace,” he said. “Fighting for peace is like raping for virginity.”
“War does not make for peace. War only makes for escalating violence and a mindset to pay the enemy back by any means necessary,” he said.” ((The G___ ____ America Sermon))
Now, I looked at Luke 9:37-44, in both the King James Version, and the New Revised Standard Version, and what the entrance of Christ into Jerusalem has to do with the rant against government (specifically the American government) that Wright engaged in is beyond me. While it is true that the Lord spoke of Jerusalem’s coming destruction, it had nothing to do with government, and everything to do with the Jews rejection of their covenant with the LORD God. As I have noted previously, this is frequently the case with those who have another agenda besides serving the LORD God and preaching the Gospel of Christ.
Nonetheless, Pastor Wright then makes the comments about “war” and how it is that war cannot solve problems, and cannot bring peace. If we understand the implication of this, we will understand that it also is a condemnation of anyone who engages in war. Anyone who has a warrior mentality, or warrior spirit about then is condemned as they will engage in war as a necessary, though unpleasant endeavor.
This is dangerous ground to walk on. Scripturally, for one to take this position, without immediately qualifying it, is to stand in opposition to the LORD God Himself. Why? Because one takes it upon themselves to rebuke the LORD:
Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the LORD, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father’s God, and I will exalt him. The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. (Exodus 15:1-3)
Moreover, it is to rebuke the servant of the LORD, a man after God’s own heart: King David.
And Saul said unto his servants, Provide me now a man that can play well, and bring him to me. Then answered one of the servants, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, that is cunning in playing, and a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely person, and the LORD is with him. Wherefore Saul sent messengers unto Jesse, and said, Send me David thy son, which is with the sheep. (I Samuel 16:17-19)
Notice, that the Scripture plainly records the testimony of David, even before he took the throne of Israel and before he killed Goliath the Gittite: that David was a “man of war” and “the LORD is with him.” How could the LORD be pleased with David, if the LORD Himself were not a man of war as Moses testified? Plainly, He would not be.
Now, I know that many will point to the New Testament and declare that the LORD God of the Old is not the same as Christ of the New. However, I must strongly disagree with that position as the New Testament only provides confirmation of the statements made in the Old. After all, the LORD God of the Old Testament is the same LORD God in the New. In fact, quite frequently, the LORD spoken of in the Old Testament is none other that Christ Himself. Nonetheless, let’s look at what the New Testament declares:
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. (Revelation 19:11-16)
Plainly, the acknowledgement that the leader of Heaven’s army is called “The Word of God” positively identifies Him as none other than the Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God. Notice also that out of Christ’s mouth “goeth a sharp sword, that he should smite the nations:” which is to say that He will engage them in war, and they shall be smitten and fall by the words that proceed out of His mouth. Of course, verse 21, of the chapter does clearly state that:
And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh. (Revelation 19:21)
Now, rather than leave a skewed impression of the Lord Jesus Christ, the only ordained Savior of the world, a little context is in order. The LORD is a man of war, but He did not start this war. Nevertheless, he will end it. No, Satan, who used to be called Lucifer, started this war when he rebelled against the LORD and attempted to take the throne of God. In Isaiah, chapter 14, and Ezekiel, chapter 28, we are told of Lucifer’s rebellion in which, as a covering cherub, he decided that his high position serving God wasn’t good enough, and he determined that he ought to rule. Sadly, he deceived a third of the angelic host, and they followed him in his rebellion. The LORD’s response to this should not be unexpected – He rose to battle.
However, the LORD does not fight the way we fight, and He was not going to change His plan of creation simply because His creatures exercised their free will and rebelled. Thus, Satan brought his war against God to this earth and conquered Adam. As a result, all the race of man are embroiled in this war as well, and all wars of this world are but shadows and illustrations of the real war Satan launched against God.
Due to this, we might as well give up on man ever creating peace by his own efforts. It is pointless and futile, and only someone holding to Humanist doctrine would engage in such thinking. Which is exactly why Pastor Wright makes the claims he does about war. After all, if he supposedly knows the Bible, why doesn’t he know about the above passages? It is because his heart is in the wrong place.