Gentle and Lowly: False Hope for Itching Ears (A Review)

Introduction

As a Biblical Counselor I was shocked to find Gentle and Lowly by Dane Ortlund at the top of the 2020 Association of Certified Biblical Counseling (ACBC) list. I’ve lost Facebook friends and been banned from a popular—albeit less helpful than it used to be—group of biblical counselors merely for questioning whether anyone agreed with Dane Ortlund’s treatment of Hebrews 5 and stating that I saw merit in the Grace to You (GTY) article which raised red flags concerning the book's helpfulness. Originally I began to write a review in mid-2020, but deemed the GTY article sufficient enough of a warning, and I did not intend to finish this article, but since the GTY article has been inexplicably removed, I felt it necessary to declare a warning against this book: This book is unhelpful and heretical and should not be used in counseling, Bible study, counseling classes, or church.

There is strange affinity towards this book from people who otherwise could be considered solid; my expectation is that this affinity is to remain on good terms with Crossway and the Gospel Coalition (TGC), or more likely because the community as a whole has been seared to biblical discernment by decades of drivel coming from celebrity pastors. My initial cursory reading of this book led me to completely reject it on biblical grounds. In order to write this review I’ve accomplished an in-depth read-through, knowing that I may lose more friends and/or never be published by Crossway and/or never be invited to write or preach for TGC (which looks like it’s closed down anyways), it seems prudent to compile and post my warnings.

There are plenty of cautions out there concerning the author's father, Ray Ortund, but there is a great warning in this quote regarding the nepotism that perhaps has made this book so popular, “If you disparage one of my sons’ books, I might mute you. You are sincere, I’m sure. But I need solidly uplifting voices in my life.” Not biblical, but uplifting; not uplifting Jesus, but uplifting Ortlund. It’s no surprise then that Dane Ortlund would follow such error, “[My father] taught my siblings and me sound doctrine as we were growing up…” (p100) For all reading this, but especially for Ray Ortlund, I implore you to read Psalm 2:12 and consider which son you should be defending, if their opinions differ. Consider also Proverbs 5:12 and it's context.

My editing is far from complete, and this is not meant to be a comprehensive rebuke and warning of the entire book, but to give the main points of contention and support them with quotes from the book. After working for far too long to produce a piece full of paragraphs and transitions, I finally decided that the facts are here, and while it’s not the most readable thing I’ve written, I trust it will sufficiently warn the flock and the under-shepherds of this wolf in Shepherd’s clothing.

I’ve grouped my concerns into five categories. First, I want to look at the foundation of the book, Puritanism versus biblical exegesis, second is the gnostic (think secret/mysterious/code reading of the Bible) language it is written in, third is how Ortlund pits the Bible against itself, fourth is a rejection of responsibility for sin by emphasizing victimhood of sin, and fifth and finally is a nearly complete lack of the biblical gospel.

Not all that is Puritan is Gold

Halfway through the book I had the thought, “No one could ever come up with this book by reading their Bible,” and Ortlund agrees, pointing out that the book was birthed from Puritan writings (p14). Granted, there are many great Puritans, but the title of Puritan carries far more weight than the actual writings of the Puritans. I once said in a class on the Puritans, “John Owen takes forever to say nothing.” Puritanism is as wide and varied as 1600’s Christianity; the modern equivalents might be Southern Baptists where an overview would give you Albert Mohler and Adrian Rogers on one side and Ed Young Jr. and Steven Furtick on the other; in four hundred years I wouldn’t be surprised to see Charles Spurgeon and John MacArthur lumped into Southern Baptist quotes, though neither hold that affiliation. In Puritanism you have undeniable heretics like Richard Baxter, controversial figures like Isaac Watts, and you have solid ministers like John Bunyan and Jeremiah Burroughs. Just because someone lived during the time of the Puritans doesn’t make them a solid Bible teacher; and they shouldn’t be quoted on par with scripture (Ortlund addresses this on page 14, but the rest of the book brings serious doubt to the authority of scripture in his life). Now I’m not saying that John Owen and Thomas Goodwin are the equivalent of Steven Furtick or Richard Baxter, but they’re certainly not on par with John Bunyan or Alistair Begg.

But Ortlund doesn’t even rightly represent the Puritan’s correctly, for example Jonathan Edwards said, “There is no love so great and so wonderful as that which is in the heart of Christ.” But Ortlund gives this commentary, which Edwards certainly would have thrown out, “The first thing out of Jonathan Edwards’s mouth, in exhorting the kids in his church to love Jesus more than everything else this world can offer, is the heart of Christ.” (p96) Do you see it? Edwards was focused on the person and work of Christ but Ortlund twists this quote to press his agenda.

And even when he rightly represents the Puritans, he quotes them when they’ve misrepresented scripture; for example Goodwin holds to the heresy that God hates the sin but loves the sinner (consider Revelation 21:8, among others), which Ortlund latches onto, “Yes, God has hatred, Goodwin says—toward sin.” (p168)

In our age, there is a strange magnetism towards the Puritans, and while we can certainly learn from the writings of godly men, not all Puritans are godly or correct. Richard Sibbes, who I have gleaned from in the past, makes this error, “Christ is nothing but pure grace clothed with our nature,” (quoted p177) when Christ is much more than grace, he is truth and righteousness and Saviour and Judge and an entire Bible full of attributes…compound that to the language of Sibbes is far from clear on what our nature is.

So beloved, reject Gentle and Lowly on its authority alone; anything that elevates the teachings of men over the teaching of God should be rejected immediately. Even if this misattributed authority were orthodox (consider Revelation 19:10)—which Gentle and Lowly is far from Orthodox—the reader should be exhorted by scripture and the man of God to worship God and listen to the testimony of Jesus! But Gentle and Lowly is not orthodox, instead it teaches an unconcealed Gnosticism.

Gnostic Leanings

Gnosticism is the idea and teaching that there are secret things in the Bible that should receive special attention, require special revelation, or specific prophets to see. Dane Ortlund unapologetically makes this error by using Matthew 11:29 as his hermeneutical key to the entire Bible. The problem with using one verse to interpret the entire Bible is that this verse wasn’t around for the writing of the majority of the Bible. Scripture should interpret scripture, but from the clear to the unclear; A great question to ask on every passage you study is, “What would be lost if this verse weren’t in the Bible?” This is a serious question to ask of thousands of years of believers who trusted God for salvation before Matthew penned what we now call Matthew 11:29. If this verse is truly the key to knowing Christ like Ortlund proposes over and over, then why wasn’t it recorded closer to Genesis 1:1? Rather, the gospel does not stand or fall on a single verse, compare from the beginning (cf. Genesis 3:15, Deuteronomy 18:18, 1 Samuel 2:25, Psalm 34:6, Isaiah 53:3-12, Zechariah 13:1, and thousands more) that God is not hiding the need for a Messiah or the salvific nature of the Son of God and Son of Man to be the propitiation for sin and the righteousness which are both required for reconciliation with God.

Instead of falling on scriptural promises or the exhortations of two-millennia of church history since Matthew penned his gospel, Ortlund takes a deep dive down the rabbit hole of a hidden, secret, deep magic of one verse (that I (and Jesus) would say doesn’t even say what he says it says.) The context of the keynote verse of the book is Matthew 11:29, which is in response to rejecting the Son of God. As I reread Ortlund’s book, I said incredulously and made a vocal outburst in a café, “No one who likes this book knows the context of Jesus’s statement.”

Consider this gnostic language from quotes from the book. I disagree with all of Ortlund’s conclusions; I’ve included some commentary:

“As we zero in on the affectionate heart of Christ, how do we ensure that we are growing in a healthy understanding…?” (p28, emphasis mine)

“…who God actually is.” (p14, emphasis mine)

“Do you know his deepest heart for you?” (p16 emphasis mine)

“There’s only one place where Jesus tells us about his own heart.” (p17, A very large and very real reason Jesus came is expressed in John 1:18, “the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.” That Jesus is showing exactly who he is—and who is Father is—through his actions, not through one verse misapplied)

“In the one place in the Bible where the Son of God pulls back the vail and lets us peer way down into the core of who he is…” (p18, emphasis mine, compare again: John 1:18, 17:17, Heb 12:1-2)

“Only as we drink down the kindness of the heart of Christ…” (p22, emphasis mine)

“What he is, he does.” (p25, Consider elsewhere that what he does is flip tables, cleanse the temple, curse a fig tree, berate Pharisees, and hide the truth in parables… amongst many other things, and what he is, he surely does, cf. esp. Revelation 19:11)

“The leper was asking about Jesus’s deepest desire. And Jesus revealed his deepest desire by healing him.” (p25, emphasis mine, Jesus deepest desire is to glorify the Father, not every desire is his deepest, cf. Matthew 6:33)

“Simply seeing the helplessness of the throngs, pity ignites.” (p26, Jesus was driven by completing his mission, not by an internal instinct or whim)

“The Jesus given to us in the Gospels is not simply one who loves, but one who is love; merciful affections stream from his innermost heart as rays from the sun.” (p27, Jesus came to seek and save the lost)

“Deep into the heart of Christ” (p46, emphasis mine)

“He cannot bear to hold himself at a distance…His heart is too bound up with yours.” (p50, Jesus is not blown about by his emotions)

“Nothing can chain his affections to heaven; his heart is too swollen with endearing love.” (p55, Jesus is not at the mercy of his emotions)

“As we go down into pain and anguish, we are descending ever deeper into Christ’s very heart, not away from it.” (p57, emphasis mine, While I agree completely that God is redeeming pain and anguish for his glory (cf: Romans 8:28-29) my question for Ortlund would be should we seek out suffering for the benefit of knowing Christ better?)

“IT IS PROBABLY IMPOSSIBLE to conceive of the horror of hell…that will sweep over those found on the last day to be out of Christ.” (p67, EMPHASIS ORIGINAL, Further, what is “out of Christ”?, it sounds like something someone who has heard about the Bible would say, not someone who has read it (cf. esp. Ephesians 1-2), see also page 68, 143)

“When we come to Christ, we are startled by the beauty of his welcoming heart. The surprise is itself what draws us in.” (p98)

“…he approaches us on our own terms and befriends us for both his and our mutual delight.” (p119, He does not need anything, if he were hungry or lonely or needing delight, he would not tell you.)

“If you catch God off guard, what leaps out most freely is blessing.” (p140-141, So many problems with providence and sovereignty, but especially that God is going to exude blessing in a startled state…consider the only two verses I know of that remotely hint that God may be caught unawares speak of the terror of his wrath and his rebuke: Psalm 73:20 & Mark 4:38-41)

Pitting Bible against Bible

Because Ortlund derives so much of his hermeneutic not from the scriptures, but from his own interpretation of one verse, it is no surprise that he finds contradictions throughout the scripture.

“But in only one place. . .do we hear Jesus himself open up to us his very heart.” (p18, many other authors have noted that the incarnate Jesus’ first and last command are, “Repent” (Mark 1:15, Revelation 3:19), as well as reiterated throughout the gospels and New Testament; if Matthew 11:29 is so important for understanding the rest of the Bible and who Jesus is, then it is extremely odd that John, Mark, Luke, Paul, Peter, and the Holy Spirit chose to omit)

“The posture most natural to him is not a pointed finger but open arms.” (p19, compare Matt 23, and find a place in scripture where Christ was able to welcome someone with open arms. If we want to play some sort of middle-knowledge game and assume men could humble themselves and seek Jesus apart from his cleansing and intercession them, then perhaps men could be welcomed, but then we run into the problem of Jesus never coming to earth if men could save themselves (Cf. Galatians 2:21)…so his most natural (to use this heretical language) posture is that of Suffering Saviour)

“If we are asked to say only one thing about who Jesus is, we would be honoring Jesus’s own teaching if our answer is, gentle and lowly.” (p21, emphasis original, again, scripture is clear that this is not his only attribute)

“He can’t un-gentle himself toward his own…” (p21, Jesus is in the posture of wounding and binding (Isaiah 30:26, Hosea 6:1, et al); so what about discipline? We know that the reproof of the Lord is not pleasant at the moment, but it does produce a fruit of righteousness and peace that are not to be repented of, my prayer is that Jesus would not be gentle, but that he would be efficient, measured, purposeful, and skilled, and he is! We’ll talk about “his own” more as we consider the gospel-lite nature of the book.)

“It is what gets him out of bed in the morning.” (p23, emphasis mine, God doesn’t sleep, his purpose is his glory.)

“This is the one whose deepest heart is, more than anything else, gentle and lowly.” (p24, emphasis original, compare Isaiah 63 and those who will face Christ scorned and receive his wrath for eternity.)

“We are apt to think that he, being so holy, is therefore of a severe and sour disposition against sinners, and not able to bear them. ‘No,’ says he; ‘I am meek; gentleness is my nature and temper.’” (p23, This same Jesus also said, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the Wrath to Come” (Matthew 3:7))

“Twice in the Gospels we are told that Jesus broke down and wept.” (p26, emphasis mine, Never in the gospels are we told that Jesus broke down)

“It is impossible for the affectionate heart of Christ to be overcelebrated, made too much of, exaggerated.” (P29, emphasis original, Jeremiah disagrees and despises those who declare “Peace, Peace!” when there is no peace, not on earth, not between man and nature, not between man and man, not between nation and nation, and certainly not between God and man)

On page 52, Ortlund is so desperate to find a proof text that he quotes Hebrews 5:1-4 as about Jesus, when it is not, it only begins to be about Jesus in verse 5.

“Jesus Christ was sinlessly weak (cf. 2 Cor. 13:5).” (p57, see 2 Cor 13:3, Jesus Christ is not weak, meek does not mean weak, it is a faithful saying that in order to be meek you have to have real power to maim, kill, destroy, coerce, and rule, otherwise you are not meek, you are weak)

“It’s the only way he knows how to be.” (p57, compare Revelation 1-3 and the entirety of the Bible)

“a rare glimpse” (p73, unless you’re reading your Bible)

“Should we envision the Son as gentle and lowly but the Father as something else?” (p127, This eisegesis of forcing one verse to drown out 31,101 other verses is troubling and dangerous, if the Father is gentle and lowly only then we have no need to read verses like Proverbs 1:7: The Fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom)

“But at the theological bull’s-eye of the whole book, we are told that God does not bring such pain ‘from his heart.’” (p138, then where does pain come from, and is there supposedly joy to come out of being afflicted some other way?)

“God is rich in mercy. He doesn’t withhold mercy from some kinds of sinners while extending it to others…his heart gushes forth mercy to sinners one and all.” (p177, What about those it doesn’t? Are all saved? Are all victims of some historical sin that they themselves are not a part of? Or is God just in holding sins against sinners?)

Victimhood Versus Sin

The most dangerous, if I could pinpoint the most dangerous part of the book, is that it rejects that sinners—in their very nature—are not deserving of gentleness or restraint, but are deserving of the full, undiluted, infinite and eternal wrath of God.

If we aren’t in immanent danger because Jesus loves us so much and is doing everything possible to save us, then of course a jesus who just wants to give us a hug makes sense, but the truth is: we aren’t victims, we’re perpetrators, we’re not witnesses to the crucifixion, we’re orchestrators.

Consider some quotes that would make Charles Finney wince for their heresy.

“Open yourself up to him. It is all he needs.” (p20, why the cross? Poor little Pelagian Jesus who has done his best and now needs you to do the rest)

“Jesus Christ’s desire that you find rest, that you come in out of the storm, outstrips even your own.” (p21, The question then, of course, is why so many are lost and why Jesus has a small, difficult path that leads to Heaven and a broad well-paved well-marked highway leading to Hell?)

“Your very burden is what qualifies you to come.” (p20, This is bordering on Works Righteousness, and a painful misunderstanding a very astute Jonathan Edwards quote)

“But for the penitent, his heart of gentleness is never out-matched…” (p21, Cf. two verses earlier: Matt 11:27, “whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” Penitence doesn’t open eyes or hearts, and it is not how you participate in the propitiated gentleness of the Father and the Son)

“He never tires of sweeping us into his tender embrace.” (p23, Cf. Jeremiah 3 and the divorce of Israel)

“We cannot avoid the conclusion that it is the very fallenness which he came to undo that is most irresistibly attractive to him.” (p30, If we can’t avoid that conclusion, then why would we avoid the conclusion that he could have stopped the fall but didn’t?! But the conclusion is false, because what is most attractive to Jesus is the joy and glory in being both Righteous and Saviour (cf. Isaiah 45:21-22))

“The same one who reached out and touched lepers puts his arm around us today when we feel misunderstood and sidelined.” (p32)

“He wants us to draw on his grace and mercy because it is who he is.” (p36, he is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29) and a jealous God (Deut 4:24))

“Jesus Christ is comforted when you draw from the riches of his atoning work, because his own body is getting healed.” (41, Jesus isn’t broken, compare Acts 7 and Stephen)

On page 63-64, concerning the fictitious exchange between Christ and a generalized seeker, every reader should be screaming: ‘Where is the cross?!’; While the cross does appear sporadically throughout the book, it is clear that Orlund does not understand its power, and here describes a sinner saved by a sympathetic jesus who is willing to take a sinner just as he is without any atonement or righteousness or propitiation or blood-shed.

“To those who do belong to him, sins evoke [in God] holy longing, holy love, holy tenderness.” (p70, [Clarification Added], A cursory reading of Revelation 2-3 would say otherwise, him seeking not to coddle the sinning believer, but to sanctify him)

“We all tend to have some small pocket of our life where we have difficulty believing the forgiveness of God reaches.” (p83, Ortlund’s hermeneutic can only promise half a gospel, that God forgives, but not to the uttermost)

“The only qualification needed is desire.” (p89, If this is true then Jesus spoke very deficiently when he said things like, “Repent and Believe the Gospel.” This quote of Ortlund's is similar to, but so much less powerful than, Joseph Hart's Come Ye Sinners Poor and Needy, “But to feel your need of him”, because Ortlund is so mired in victimhood that he ignores that Christ is the source not only of forgiveness, but of righteousness and fellowship as well)

“embraces the penitent with more openness that we are able to feel.” (p99, because your greatest need in Ortlund’s universe is a divine hug)

“…Romance the heart of Jesus…Allow yourself to be allured.” (p99, emphasis original, As I read this section, I thought about the fruit of this book; this sort of language will NOT produce glorious older saints who seek the will of God from the scriptures and exhort with all authority those they encounter, but who lean (if they lean on Jesus at all) on platitudes and “Jesus-is-my-girlfriend” language gleaned from secular Christian radio rather than the heart of God)

“Jesus wants to come in to you—wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, naked you---and enjoy meals together. Spend time with you. Deepen the acquaintance.” (p116, Except Jesus is actively rejecting this church quoted from Revelation 3:14-22)

“Christ not only heals our feelings of rejection…” (p118, Here is my sarcasm: because feelings of rejection are our greatest need and what was in the cup that Christ pleaded with his Father to remove if there was any way? You’re not a victim of sin, you’re a sinner rejected by the Living Christ)

“It looks like a Middle Eastern carpenter restoring men’s and women’s dignity and humanity and health and conscience through healings and exorcisms and teaching and hugging and forgiving.” (p169, this jesus is spelled with lower-case because he does not exist, cf. 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, and is certainly not the Carpenter described in the Bible)

“It means the things about you that make you cringe most, make him hug hardest.” (p179…not sanctify or reprove or justify or glorify…hug)

“Maybe you have been deeply mistreated. Misunderstood. Betrayed by the one person you should have been able to trust. Abandoned. Taken advantage of. Perhaps you carry a pain that will never heal till you are dead.” (p179)

“Paul’s deepest burden is our present security…” (p193, Paul’s deepest burden is the glory of God)

“His heart was gentle and lowly toward us when we were lost.” (p194, Alistair Begg has a wonderful quote stating without a read anger, a real wrath, the cross is robbed of it’s meaning.” Was Jesus gentle and lowly towards us when we were “children of wrath”? See Ephesians 2:1-10)

“Only a soul in Christ would be troubled at offending him.” (p194, what about 2 Corinthians 7:10, what about millions who think their good deeds are keeping them in God’s good graces?)

Lack of the Gospel

It could probably go without saying that a book so antithetical to scripture would not provide a way to enter into Heaven or the good graces of God, but if you’ve read this far, let me prove it to you. Are these coming from the heart of Christ revealed in the scriptures, or the heart of Dane Ortlund?

“You might know that Christ died and rose again on your behalf to rinse you clean of all your sin…” (p15-16 emphasis mine)

“generally avoiding deep fellowship with him, out of a muted understanding of his heart.” (p22, emphasis mine, did Jesus die for misunderstood people even while they were muted (Compare Romans 5:8))

“This book is written. . .for those of us who know God loves us but suspect we have deeply disappointed him.” (p13, this person doesn’t exist, despite some saying that this book has a niche readership, this person does not exist in the scriptures, as the problem is that a person who knows God loves them will be transformed by the love (Cf. 1 John 4:18 where this is a test of salvation))

“He was reversing the Jewish system.” (p31, missed the cross entirely)

“Christ as our heavenly mediator-that is, the one who clears away any reason for us to be unable to enjoy friendship with God…” (p37, while there is some truth in this statement, this is NOT what a mediator does)

“What keeps him from growing cold? The answer is, his heart.” (p66, The answer is the cross!)

“No such thing as grace” (p69, Gentle and Lowly is a weird Pelagian, oft Roman Catholic (RCC), book that claims that there is no such thing as grace because that’s RCC stuff? Grace abounds, and while it may be intangible, there certainly is such thing as grace and it’s amazing, and I hope someday Ortlund is able to taste it, feel it, and be saved by it!)

“What does it mean that Christ is a friend to sinners? At the very least, it means that he enjoys spending time with them…What he is really doing, at bottom, is pulling them into his heart.” (p114-115, except that they all left him.)

Chapter 12, titled “A Tender Friend” doesn’t even consider that a friend will die for another friend. If there is an easier place to tie the gospel together than Jesus, the Friend of Sinners, and his accolades of a man who lays down his life for his friends, I haven’t found it; but Ortlund didn’t see fit to include it. My written note on the last page of that chapter reads in bold red pen, “How dare he not touch on John 15:13!”

There is an assumed Christianity throughout the book, especially on page 167 that if you think you’re in Christ, you definitely get all of his blessings, there is no clarion call for repentance and faith or making your calling and election sure. “You’re that safe.” (p178, and you are that safe if you’re in Christ, but if you trust in the promises rather than the Saviour, you won’t meet a gentle and lowly jesus on the final day and you’ll be outside of his safe graces (cf Matthew 7:21-23))

“Do you know what Jesus does with those who squander his mercy? He pours out more mercy.” (p179, potentially, but should we then sin all the more? Or not trample his blood underfoot?)

“Repent and let him love you.” (p170, is this a quote from Pelagius, Arminius, Finney, Osteen, or Ortlund?)

“It means that our sins do not cause his love to take a hit. Our sins cause his love to surge forward all the more.” (p180, Our sins cause a separation between us and God; run to the cross, go reconcile with your brother)

“rinse muddy sinners clean and hug them into his own heart” (p191, You could reject the whole book on this one sentence alone…I think it was my second most angry moment reading this book; the first being the quote in the conclusion below)

“Open yourself up to him. Let him love you…Go to Jesus” (p216, a biblical invitation may have been in order here?)

“Whenever you feel stuck…most defeated…” (p216, because Jesus came to seek and save the victims?)

Conclusion

I’ll let Dane Ortlund close us with the most ridiculous sentence in the entire book: “This is a book about the heart of Christ and of God. What are we to do with this? The main answer is, nothing.” (p215)

Beloved, from Matthew 11:29 the answer is: “Yoke Yourself to Jesus!” Trust Christ! Know Christ! Enjoy Christ! Link your eternity with his!

What should you do with Gentle and Lowly? Toss it, read your Bible!

Be Angry about Injustice in the World...and Sin Not

I’ve been privileged to conduct classes for the Air Force on “Bystander Intervention.” The basic premise of the training is to prepare to intervene in bad situations in whichever way you are most likely to intervene if you actually see a bad situation happening. These situations range from sexual assault to domestic violence to child abuse to suicidal ideations. It’s not a Christian training, per se, but it is one of the only workplace violence trainings that is quantifiable in its results, decreasing workplace violence by 17% on average in the first year.

I appreciate this training because it is taking an active role in people’s lives to train them to be courageous and to be peacemakers in their world. Because of this training the tragic death of George Floyd makes me all the more angry.

The Untimely Death of a Human Being

All of the facts have not come out yet, so I cannot and will not speak on the toxicology or resisting of arrest allegations. I suspect more to this story will come about in future days from body-cameras and the autopsy. However, the life of George Floyd was not valued by the police officers at the scene, and this should make all of us angry. Putting pressure on someone’s neck for a prolonged amount of time is never acceptable outside of them trying to kill you. We’ve heard from several police officers that this violated safety training that all police officers should have received. In the military we speak of proportionality of using the right amount of force to accomplish the objective. The reason that this is such an important concept is because we don’t want to cause undue damage or suffering, and we certainly don’t want to kill someone we weren’t intending to kill.

When we see blatant safety violations and excessive force being used on a person who is made in the image of God we should be angry. We should be more angry in this case that George Floyd lost his life. Floyd’s pastor (whom I’ll address more farther on), said it well, “Even if he was a capital criminal he deserved to be treated as someone created in his image.”

The Bystanders are Culpable in their Cowardice

What makes me nearly as angry as the death of George Floyd is the video of his death, the pictures of the person holding the camera, and the uninvolved police officer standing nonchalantly listening to a man be assaulted. This will be what I think about in the future when I think about spinelessness.

This has long been called the “bystander effect” by secular psychology. The Bible calls it cowardice. Cell phones and portable cameras are purportedly making it worse, as holding the phone makes it feel like you’re doing something. 

Further Reading: People Are Filming Accidents Instead of Helping

But just because everyone is sinning by not helping doesn’t mean you are innocent of the blood that was shed. In the long list of sinners in Revelation 21:8 that will be thrown into Hell, cowards are at the top of the list. I am further and further convinced that this is on purpose, there is not a sin on earth that can’t be made worse by bystanders refusing to speak up for the truth or intervene.

All that the standing police officer had to do was tap his buddy and say something, anything, maybe, “He’s done resisting, let’s get him up.” or, “Hey, don’t forget to keep your knee on his shoulder.” Or, “Hey, let me tap you out.” Or the camera-coward could have said, “He’s not breathing, can you let him get a breath?” Or to save a life would you physically remove someone from an asphyxia situation?

The False Gospel Preached to George Floyd

While a Minneapolis police officer murdered George Floyd, a false gospel murdered his soul. Members of his “church” in Houston have testified to how faithful Floyd was in attendance, but a brief search of their doctrine shows them to elevate social justice far above salvation. Their gospel is no gospel and their peace is no peace.

Do you hate the police officers and bystanders who contributed to Floyd’s death? As awful as their sin was, it could only kill Floyd’s body, but could do nothing to his soul. But when Floyd met the judge of the universe he faced a Saviour spurned, and Floyd’s hope – if congruent with his pastor – was in social justice and self-worth, not in the blood of Jesus Christ nor the justification of his resurrection.

Get Angry

Dear Reader, there is sin in this world and it is going from bad to worse: people hate and hurt people. This is one reason that Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” We worship a God who takes peace and justice so seriously as to make peace by the blood of the cross.

So I am calling you to hate sin, and rage against it, not with worldly weapons, but with the love and forgiveness and peace of the blood of Christ. Love your enemies by taking the gospel of reconciliation with God to them. Declare his hope to a lost and dying world. Who do you hate the most? Might I suggest that there is your missions field?

Then, act as a righteous bystander who opens your mouth for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy (Prov 31:8-9). A friend of mine pulled into a gas station a few years ago to see the unthinkable, a man was on fire in the parking lot! My friend ran into the store to ask for their fire extinguisher but was told the fire department had been called and that he could not take the fire extinguisher. My friend was able to extinguish the flames with a rubber mat, but it was far too late, and he laid on the ground and prayed with the man as he died. The gas station had a fire extinguisher to satisfy legal code, not to extinguish fires. I’m calling you today to make the determination in your heart that you will be prepared, that you will act when action is due, that you will be a bystander who intervenes, not a coward who watches or films or walks by. That you will, to the best of your ability, use your life to extinguish the hatred and violence in the world.

And finally, loved ones, I’m calling you to love the gospel and hate imitations. Proclaim to the world forgiveness of sin in Christ’s sacrifice. Declare the only hope of Heaven found in the Prince of Peace. Stand firm in loving your enemies as Christ loved his enemies and died to give them a seat at his table and transform their lives from hatred to peacemaking so that they may be called sons of God.

Anything less is the murder of souls, and God will not hold those that love sin, preach falsehood, spread division, or watch injustice without acting, faultless on judgment day.

The Fictional Gospel of C.S. Lewis

Introduction

I am hearing the name of Clive Staples Lewis more and more these days lauded as a Christian hero. Years ago I considered writing this article, but anticipated his name and influence would fade with time. However, I recently sat in a class with about forty-people, and at least eight (20%) of the class referenced C.S. Lewis as one of their favorite authors.

Therefore, I am writing this article to warn against reading Lewis for spiritual edification, and to cease recommending his resources, with rare exceptions, as helpful to the Christian life.

What’s Good about C.S. Lewis?

C.S. Lewis has some excellent points and is undoubtedly a wordsmith, but he is not a theologian and his version of Christianity is not a helpful one. I will start this article by stating that his “Lord, Liar, Lunatic” argument, from Mere Christianity, is a phenomenal resource and should be catechized into all of our young people, not because C.S. Lewis said it, but because of the power behind the argument.

Likewise, the depiction of Christ as Aslan in the Chronicles of Narnia as a powerful and dangerous, yet meek, lion is also something that should be emphasized in the present world. In Mere Christianity he also calls God “the supreme terror: the thing we most need and the thing we most want to hide from” which is a lost doctrine in most churches.

’Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. – Mr. Beaver

Finally, The Screwtape Letters is a powerful look at how people are tempted and there is great value in reading this book to consider the wiles of the devil. An incredible quote comes from a demon’s perspective describing the Christian’s service to God (whom he refers to as the 'Enemy'),

If the Enemy appeared to him in bodily form and demanded that total service for even one day, he would not refuse… He would be relieved almost to the pitch of disappointment if for one half-hour in that day the Enemy said, 'Now you may go and amuse yourself'. Now if he thinks about his assumption for a moment, even he is bound to realize the he is actually in this situation every day.”

Despite these great points—having read much of C.S. Lewis for seminary and pleasure—this is where my appreciation ends. As I continue to read Lewis I continue to grow more and more apprehensive towards his strange views of the Father, the Son, the atonement, and the Scriptures.

Atonement

In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, the atonement that Aslan makes is not to God for sin, but to the Witch as a replacement. It would seem to imply that Christ’s death was a payment to Satan for the redemption of mankind. The Bible clearly teaches that Christ died to save us not from Satan, but from the wrath of God. The old adage says, “Christ saved us from himself, by himself, for himself.”

Matthew Hall said, “[Lewis’s] understanding of the atonement is biblically problematic…and misses the heart of the gospel.” Martyn Lloyd-Jones was no fan of Lewis either, he said, “Lewis had a defective view of salvation and was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal view of the atonement.” (Both Quoted from Mere Atonement by Ariel Vanderhorst)

Other articles have pointed out that Lewis didn’t just miss this in this one spot, but in many other places misunderstood, and even rejected, penal substitutionary atonement. These discrepancies went unchecked because Lewis had a deficient view of the Scriptures.

Inspiration of Scripture

In Reflections on the Psalms, C.S. Lewis says that the psalmist was “blatantly wrong” for his use of imprecatory psalms. C.S. Lewis shows himself most clearly in this book to reject the plenary inspiration of Scripture. But, if you have this hermeneutic of Lewis then you’ll see, though more subtly, that he rejects the truth of the Bible in many other places, no-where so clearly as in Creation.

Creation

The first book chronologically of The Chronicles of Narnia, The Magician’s Nephew, shows a sort of Molinistic universe in which Aslan (Lewis’ God figure) creates a multitude of universes and gets a different result in all of them.

Further, one of the most troubling lines in all of the cannon of Lewis is from The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, when Aslan implies that there is something of creation that is outside of him,

Do not cite the deep magic to me, witch, I was there when it was written.

This directly contradicts everything the Bible speaks of when it says, “By him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things were created through him and for him (Col 1:16).”

Lewis, as far as I have read, did not speak definitively on evolution, however, he almost certainly never affirmed young-earth creation. BioLogos has latched onto this and lifts Lewis up as a banner of open-minded Christians who go where the “science” leads rather than what the Scriptures teach.

This is keeping in line with what I discovered in Mere Christianity.

Mere Christianity

Mere Christianity was a book I was overjoyed to get to read in seminary, having heard so many good things about it. It was to my surprise and horror, then, when I found very little Christianity in Mere Christianity. For all of the great notable quotables of Lewis, his gospel is not the gospel of God. I do not intend to ever read Mere Christianity again or intend to refute every point, but if you liked this book I’d encourage you to reread it with a critical eye towards its usefulness; there are plenty of articles that have torn this book apart. If I were a contemporary of Screwtape intent on destroying faith, I would write a book thoroughly destroying Christianity and title it something to the effect of Mere Christianity.

Universalism / Inclusivism

*Major Spoiler Alert* Almost every reader of The Chronicles of Narnia is shocked to find out that Emeth, in The Last Battle, is welcomed into Aslan’s heaven even though he was an avowed worshipper of the false-god Tash. Lewis implies that good worship of a false god is counted as righteousness to the true God. The issues with that belief are too myriad to list, but one thing is clear, it misses EVERYTHING the gospel teaches. This is not Lewis’s only indication of inclusivism, but it is the strongest. If you read Lewis with this hermeneutic you’ll notice it everywhere, the god of Lewis and the gospel of Lewis is not in keeping with the Scriptures or God’s plan.

Providence

In The Chronicles of Narnia the Christ figure, Aslan, is frequently absent for hundreds of years. The idea that God is working all things for good to those who love him and are called by his name is absent from Narnia, and it’s only when Aslan remembers Narnia is there any goodness done there. Esther and Mordecai would be confused with the lack of providence in Lewis’ Narnia, so would Paul (compare Romans 8:28).

On Listening

Finally, I’ll include this only because my dissertation is on teaching the church to listen. Most of the resources I found on listening were helpful across the board, it is almost a universal truth and common grace that listening is important to humanity. I was already an avowed enemy of C.S. Lewis, but I was shocked when I came across this:

They had been listening well (to the sermon) up to this point (when the application contradicted the preacher’s life). Now the shufflings and coughings began. Pews creaked; muscles relaxed. The sermon, for all practical purposes was over; the five minutes for which the preacher continued talking were a total waste of time – at least for most of us. (From The Sermon and the Lunch)

I will grant that the sermon Lewis was listening to did have some serious flaws, but Lewis’ reaction was not because the preacher was misusing God’s Word or showing himself to be a false teacher; Lewis gave a completely worldly reason for his stopped ears that the hypocrisy coming from the pulpit negated the message. According to this logic, if every preacher who ever ascended the pulpit were seriously compared to his perfect obedience to the Word he preached, then every listener would have ample excuse to stop listening. But God’s Word remains true even if the devil himself were preaching it.

Conclusion

So now, beloved reader, I do call you to stop listening to C.S. Lewis, not because I dislike his message personally, but because his message is contrary to the Word of God; Lewis disparages who God is, what his Son accomplished, and what Christianity is.

Lewis delivers very well polished stories and messages, but they are of his own making, not expounding or building on the Word of God. To believe Lewis’s god is to follow a false jesus and to render the cross of Christ empty of its power.