"If we misread the status quo, we are in danger of missing the real war
and of putting too much of our energies and time into minor skirmishes." -
Peter Leithart, The Kingdom and the Power
Does this book understand the "status quo", or is it too "in danger of missing the real war"?
The following video is a the book trailer to Contra Mundum Swagger- https://youtu.be/_qvgMfoZScE
I wish "Contra Mundum
Swagger" Following Christ In a Divorce Culture by Jack Shannon was a great
book in calling adulterous unions to repentance so that many can be restored in
Christ. This book certainly calls adulterous unions to repentance, and in
chapter 3, "Your Pastor is an Orgy Referee" call outs the wolves who
cater to "remarriage" and remarried congregants. This book also tells
these "churches" in chapter 4 that "God Hates Your
Worship", and means it. This book even calls for a revival. I agree...but.
This book is not completely about restoring the Church so that many can be
saved.
Proverbs 6:32,33 But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh
understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.A wound and dishonour
shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.
I believe the foundation of this book an eschatological remedy to change the
world so the Lord Jesus Christ can finally return. Another way to look at it is
that it is a proactive response which initiates certain events in order for the
the Lord Jesus Christ to return. Contra Mundum Solution: One Man's Solution So
That The Lord Jesus Christ Can Return Sooner Than Later? Eschatology by definition is the
theology on the final events of history. The focal point of what a person
believes about the scripture pertaining to the end times is what people believe
about the millennium mentioned in chapter 20 of the Revelation of the Lord
Jesus Christ.
The author is a "Postmillennialist" who believes that we are all currently
in the 1000-year millennial period (Rev 20) and that the Lord will only return when Christianity
has conquered the world. The idea behind Postmillennialism is that the world
will become a better place to live as it slowly becomes populated with, and
eventually fully populated with Christians; only then will the Lord return. Fulfilling the "Great Commission" in this worldview includes taking over all churches, governments, societies, and countries.
The video trailer to this book,
Contra Mundum Swagger, is an axe wielding man, who depicts Gideon, entering a prototypical
Protestant church building to destroy the Baal and Asherah poles (divorce and
remarriage) which have been firmly planted in these “denominations” and
“congregations”. The video and book are an analogy from the book of Judges
(starting in chapter 6) of how Gideon first destroyed his father’s idols before
he went to battle the Midianites. We need to discern that the idols represent
"divorce and remarriage", and the Midianites represent…the author believes …the
“whole world.” (page 107)
I suggest that the guy in the video should have rented
a demolition ball and destroyed the whole building, leveling it to the
ground.
I was prepared to read this book with a
presupposition that it was going to be a solid position on the truth that
marriage redefinition began in the church, and that the moral decline of our
culture is directly related to the moral decline of our churches. I hoped this
book was a call for repentance from adulterous unions. While I was not
disappointed in this presumption after reading this book, as it certainly calls
ALL remarriages of divorce to repent. However, this book left me wondering if
it was more attributed to the author’s eschatology beliefs and his
theological stance then it was about making people repent of adultery. I
certainly believe it is an effort to help others see the truth in Christ, but
even if his motives are pure, I certainly am called to test all things.
I get the point that the book’s
purpose was to expose how divorce and remarriage is the foundation of
liberalism, feminism, self-identification, and the homosexual agenda. I just
wish the emphasis was on the truth that marriage is the foundation of the
Gospel, and that we see the perfect representation of God’s love for us through
the representation of a husband’s love for his wife…or better yet, how marriage
is that great mystery of Christ’s love for His bride (Eph 5:31,32)
We know how this marriage union is
the foundation of generations to come and how children need a father and a
mother who obey the Lord. I wish there was more emphasis on not only how
divorce has destroyed families and societies, it has also been a destructive
onslaught on the lives of children. I know so many adults who are still feeling
the effects of their parents’ divorce. Then no one wants to talk about the
abuse of many children through step-parents, or how there is this lifetime of
animosity and bitterness of divorce. Divorce always has consequences
which often last a lifetime. Therefore marriage must to be an eternal witness
of Christ’s love for His bride; and the Church needs to be that witness in how
a husband is to love His wife.
A major flaw concerning this book, or a misreading of the "status quo", is
that it fails to consider the damage caused by the clergy/laity caste system of
Catholic priesthood and papal succession, and the Protestant “Pastoral
ministry”. Though the author does consider this in a slightly biased view to
defend the other components of the Protestant Reformation, he cannot deny that
while the Protestant Reformation was necessary in exposing the evils of Catholicism,
the Protestants still clung to some of those evils; they just altered the
names. (Priest became “Pastor”, is one such example) In fact, the divorce
culture is certainly a “Protestant” invention on how they dogmatically cling to
the tenets of the “Westminster Confession of Faith”. If redefining
marriage became a norm after the Protestant Reformation, it certainly had its
roots well planted shortly after the last apostle’s earthly bodies were buried
in the tombs.
The early church began with the apostles
who appointed elders and bishops under certain qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-7;
Titus 1:5-9) who were the examples to the flock (1 Peter 5:1-3) and never were
they “hired” after taking four years of classes from an "pastoral" approved
seminary. Also, the early church met in homes and broke bread together,
there was no specific buildings of worship which required overhead costs.
Monologue sermons were not a part of the “order of worship”, and vestments,
ordination, and titles were all pagan traditions which slipped in the
body...you can include tithing in this as well. Instead of the Holy Spirit guiding
the gathering of believers with gifts necessary for exhortation, encouragement,
and edification, many “laity” have become passive pew sitters hanging on every
word of their hireling preacher.
You can’t tell me that the Protestant clergy/laity caste system is not directly responsible for marriage
redefinition. If this is true, then does not the wrecking ball make a better
weapon since the Baal idols and Asherah poles are the concrete of a
clergy/laity caste system which supplanted the foundation of the early
church?
The point I am making is that the
Medieval Roman Catholic Church was the high-point of anything close to what we
see as the “church” becoming a world leader. If you know anything about
history, the RCC at this time period was the most corrupt and evil institution
in the world. If the author seeks to see a world run by “Christians”
including the current clergy/laity caste system, what makes you think this post-millennial “kingdom
now” theory would be any better then what the RCC did in the dark days?
One such ministry makes this point: "Every time the Church has sought political power, it has ended up being
corrupted by the political system. This happened when the Church was wed
with the Roman Empire, leading to the spiritual darkness of the Middle
Ages." -Dr. David R. Reagan
It must be clear that the true
church and body of Christ are “inside” these congregations and denominations of
the clergy/laity system. In fact, some of these denomination and congregations
are the body of Christ and they just don’t know it yet. Perhaps this is where
this book, and what I believe come together. While I believe that wrecking
balls are needed, the axe is a good start because it will lead to the Holy
Spirit’s movement to what is truly needed…repentance from the sin of adultery
so that souls can be saved. (1 Cor 6:9,19; Heb 13:4)
These leads me to understanding the
foundation of the book and the author’s worldview asking the question “why
write this book now?”. This is made clear throughout the book and culminates at
near the end of the book. In the last chapter, “Beauty Will Save The World”, we
see the author’s eschatology, as in how he views
the history of the world as we know it and especially what he believes about
the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is my understanding that the Lord Jesus
Christ will return to make all things new and that there will be a period of
tribulation prior to His return and His 1000 year reign.
Lord knows I have tried to focus on
the here and now, and the Lord makes it clear that we are not to worry about
tomorrow (Matthew 6:34) and that we are to focus on the prize (Phil 3:14) and
that we are to run the race (Heb 12:1) and that we are to store our treasures
in Heaven (Matthew 6:19,20). But the Lord also answers questions from his
disciples about the times of the end. (Matthew 24) It is clear to my
understanding that before the Lord Jesus Christ returns, there will be apostasy
and a falling away just as in the times of Noah (Matthew 24:37), and Paul
also tells us about the "last days" in 2 Timothy. (2 Timothy 3:1-7)
According to this author, he
believes that we are on the “precipice of another reformation”. Is this an eschatological
treatise and the foundation of why he wrote the book? He writes:
“There are two aspects that I
believe will be present in this reformation. I believe it will be a refinement
and assimilation of the Pentecostal movement into every area of Church. I have
not mentioned this aspect in this book, because this is not the focus, but I
believe it is important to mention because the Holy Spirit’s gifts are
necessary for the kind of warfare we will be entering into.” -page 146 Contra Mundum Swagger
We need to be Bereans here. (Acts
17:11) If this book is about reforming
the inside of the Church by destroying the Baal and Asherah poles within the
walls, then there must be a doctrinal view behind this book? In this case, there
is a specific eschatological view behind this book. What is the thought behind
believing that there will be a refinement and assimilation of the Pentecostal
movement if this is not the focus?
The obvious doctrinal foundation of
the author is what he believes about what his book intends to accomplish. You
do not write a book without first making it clear why you are writing a book,
and making it clear that your foundation behind the book is to make a point. In
this case, the author does not want to be specific in why he believes that one
aspect of this new reformation includes “a refinement and assimilation of
the Pentecostal movement", yet it is clear that this is one aspect of his foundation for writing the book.
I believe we are already in
spiritual warfare and this is clearly detailed in scripture. (Eph 6) The author
makes this point in his chapter “New Covenant Violence”. In fact, marriage was under attack AFTER Adam
and Eve became one flesh. The truth is the Holy Spirit is discarded, ignored,
and quenched in the clergy/laity system and that the gifts given by the Holy
Spirit are not being used, and when they are being used, the clergy part of the
system does everything its power to quench them.
Show me one verse in scripture
where the Holy Spirit calls a person into “pastoral” ministry and to take
courses in seminary and bible colleges so that he or she can be hired by a local congregation? I would argue that Gnostic thoughts of
intellectual knowledge trumping moral character began with Augustine, and were
refined by Thomas Aquinas. The author wants us to believe that the men (Instone-Brewer
and Keener are mentioned in the book. I have corresponded to both men and
called them to repent!) who write books defending divorce and remarriage are
fellow believers. Really? How can someone defending sin be a believer?
I am not entirely sold on the idea that
"Pentecostalism" is the answer to a “new reformation” as much of this movement is
centered on “experience” rather than the word of God. This reliance in
experience has often denied the word of God. For instance, when was the last
time you heard a Pentecostal tell you that God gifted him or her with the gift
of “interpreting” tongues? I know far too many who will tell you they can
speak in tongues, and have no qualms in making a point that they can speak in tongues. It’s as if
they do so with prideful arrogance...and if you do not, you must not be saved. Really?
It is also a point to note that
nearly every Pentecostal denomination is a clergy/laity caste system which
freely divorces and remarries. In fact, I know one such “tongue gifted”
Pentecostal Pastor who defended his own daughter’s adulterous union with
"exceptions of experience” rather than the word of God. “You mean to
tell me that my daughter must remain unmarried the rest of her life?”
The Lord said that 300 men was sufficient for Gideon to destroy the Midianites,
did He not? Who fights our battles, us, or God? There is great teaching and sermons on God fighting battles to save us from our troubles...yet, there is little said about how God fights battles to save souls...even in the most hopeless of marriages.
Since I have acquaintance with the
author, I asked him a few questions as I was interested in his worldview, and his
eschatology:
"Also, you believe that this
second reformation will be repentance from adulterous unions. So, do believe
this will coincide with Christ’s return?"
“Not really, but I wouldn't
dogmatically deny this since nobody knows the day or the hour. However, I pretty
strongly believe that Christ is not going to return any time soon. All
throughout Church history there have always been people freaking out about the
return of Christ and it never happens. I don't think we are any different. I
think it's more likely that Christ will return in 10,000 years as opposed to
returning in 2 years. We could still be in the early church era. Who knows? I'm
a postmillennialist and I believe the world will be conquered by Christianity
before Christ returns. I believe the Great Commission will actually be
successful and then Christ will return and the resurrection of the dead will
occur and Christ will then destroy death. "For He must reign till He has
put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death."
(1 Corinthians 15:25-26)-Jack Shannon
These comments answer the question
“why” he wrote the book. The author believes the Lord Jesus Christ will return
after the thousand-year kingdom, and in this case, the author believes that
kingdom is 10,000 years or more. Thus, he believes that there will be
reformation which will continue to make the church a factor in years to come.
He believes a big part of this is the Church will repent of divorce and
remarriage. Yet, and big YET, he believes that “divorce” is still an option in the
“traditional view” …more on this later.
“All throughout Church history there
have always been people freaking out about the return of Christ and it never
happens.”
“Freaking out” or joyfully expecting
His return? It “never happens” is not the same that it will happen since no man
knows the day or the hour. What is a thousand years to an eternal God, and what
will the last 2000 years be for eternity? What about our own lives? But a wisp
or a vapor...Yet he believes it will be 10,000 years from now when the “millennial”
reign is a literal 1000-year reign? Well, a thousand years has come and gone since the
Lord ascended into heaven.
“I'm a postmillennialist and I
believe the world will be conquered by Christianity before Christ returns.”
Is this what the Lord Jesus Christ taught? What
about Matthew 24, 2 Thessalonians, and the entirety of the book of The Revelation
of Jesus Christ? The Bible does not favor the postmillennial view
since Christ Himself that things will go bad, very bad, not that the Church
will have dominion over the world. What about the fact that the book of The Revelation of Jesus Christ was written after the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 AD? This is important to note since many post-millennial's believe the 1000 reign stated after Temple's destruction in 70 AD.
Matthew 24:36-39 But of that
day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man
be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were
eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe
entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all
away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
2 Timothy 3:1 This know also,
that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of
their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to
parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false
accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good. Traitors,
heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form
of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.For of this
sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with
sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the
knowledge of the truth.
“I believe the Great Commission will
actually be successful and then Christ will return and the resurrection of the
dead will occur and Christ will then destroy death. "For He must reign
till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be
destroyed is death." (1 Corinthians 15:25-26)”
The verses Jack uses are out of
context without verse 24…
1 Cor 15: 24 Then
the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he
has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must
reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The
last enemy to be destroyed is death.
The Lord Jesus Christ will put
everything in its proper order. It is not the responsibility of the Church to
set up an earthy kingdom, we are called to preach the Gospel to all the nations
and make disciples.
Acts 1: 6-7 When they therefore were
come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore
again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know
the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
Acts 3:19-21 Repent ye therefore,
and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of
refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus
Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until
the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of
all his holy prophets since the world began.
The Lord Jesus Christ is coming at
an appointed time and it is NOT after the Church puts the enemies under foot.
Nowhere does it say in the Bible that the Great Commission is the
responsibility of the Church to render the world under its feet so that Christ
can return. It is twisting scripture to adhere to postmillennial and “Kingdom
Now” theology which stands to place all restoration in the hands of men, and
not on the Lord Jesus Christ.
It very clear to me that this book’s
foundation is some form of Dominion Theology and in some sort of “Kingdom Now” form. Is this
dangerous theology? Just look at the dark ages when the “Church” ruled. This
Dominion Theology puts the axe in the hand of the church and those who do not
assimilate will be made to assimilate. It will not only be idols that fall by
the axe, it will be heads if need be. This Dominion Theology is really making
headway in many churches and is more a rise to a "one world order" then "one world
church". Be Bereans; discern the times for the days are evil.
Now that we know the theology
behind the book, we can see another problem with this book which is directly
related to the understanding of marriage, divorce and remarriage. The following
are the two views in question. The author lists eight views, but he believes
the correct view is the "traditional view". I will compare this to what I believe
the Bible says is the correct view in Matthew’s betrothal view.
The Patristic view (or traditional)
view-One may divorce in cases of sexual immorality (especially unrepentant
sexual immorality) but cannot remarry.
The betrothal view-One may divorce
for sexual immorality during the betrothal period and remarry. -page 21
A problem I have with this is that
the traditional view clumps “adultery” with the term “sexual immorality” and
the betrothal view does not. The betrothal view is specific to Jewish marriage
customs that a wife was a virgin the entire length of the betrothal period. So,
the correct word for “sexual immorality” is “fornication” if she was not a
virgin on the consummation of the wedding day. Regardless, this betrothal view
does not apply today since Christ fulfilled the law, even the law of marriage
as forever being as it was in the beginning.
In both chapter 1 "Your Church is a Brothel" and chapter 2 "The Devil is in the Doctrine" of his book the
author seems to believe that the “traditional view” was evident in the writings
of the early church writers. I disagree, since the majority of quotes he gives
in the book could also be an argument that the betrothal view was a
consideration and that to conclude on whether they were one or the other is
important to note. The quotes are directly related to either the
traditional view or both the traditional view and the betrothal view since both
believe that the marriage can only end in death. The difference is the
betrothal view does not allow for divorce while the traditional view assumes
that the divorce does not end the marriage covenant.
Justin Martyr (c. AD 150):
“Whoever shall marry her that is
divorced from another husband commits adultery: So that all who, by human law,
are twice married, are in the eyes of our Master sinners, and those who look
upon a woman lust after her.”
This quote is applicable to both the
traditional view and the betrothal view. The reason it is applicable to the
betrothal view, is that the betrothal view is no longer applicable today,
and that marriage can ONLY end in death. Thus, it is presumed that a divorce is
no longer applicable in the New Testament and that all “remarriages” are
adulterous unions.
I believe there is a very wide
divide if a person believes that divorce is permitted because of adultery, as
opposed to a divorce is not permitted in any case. The traditional view defends
divorce and the betrothal view does not. Even though on the surface it appears
that both views defend marriage, I believe the traditional view opens doors to
what we have today. If that is the case, then returning to the traditional view
today would still allow a spouse to divorce for a lustful glance. (Matthew
5:27-28)
On pages 20 and 21 the author
actually makes a case that the betrothal view is true in that the betrothal
view prohibits divorce and remarriage. Well if both the Lord and Paul prohibit
divorce (which I believe is the foundation of what they believe about
marriage), then it is a given that a “remarriage” would be an adulterous union
since the divorce does not end the one-flesh covenant marriage. He
writes:
“The clear teachings on
divorce and remarriage (Matthew 5, Mark 10, Luke 16, 1 Corinthians 7, and
Romans 7) prohibits DIVORCE (my emphasis) and remarriage in all situations and
define subsequent marriages as adultery when the former spouse is alive.”
-pages 20 and 21 Contra Mundum Swagger
Paraphrasing this is that both the
Lord and Paul are telling us that a divorce decree does end the marriage bond.
Divorce was a process under the law of Moses which was specific to a nation
which proved time and time to be hardhearted. The Lord fulfilled the law and
thus make it clear that post-resurrection marriages are as they were in the
beginning. In fact, the divorce process under Moses protected women and was
only allowed for “uncleanness”. Regardless, the Pharisees were told that
Genesis 2:24 is the foundation of marriage, not Deut 24. Matthew 19:4-6 and
Mark 10:6-9 are the foundational verses of marriage definition…PERIOD! Paul
understands this clearly because his foundational verses on the matter are 1 Cor
7:10,11
If divorce is prohibited then there
is no room to “remarry”. In fact, there are no such words as “remarriage”,
“ex-spouse”, “step-parent”, or “blended-families”, because the definition
of remarriage is “adultery”. Also, if divorce is still permitted with the "traditional view" and according
to the author’s eschatological position believing that the Lord will return when all things are made new by the Church, how can the Lord return? Would the
Lord Jesus Christ return if a “Christian” husband and wife are hard-hearted
enough to divorce each other? It is obvious that the “divorce” was in the case of
“sexual immorality”, right? So how can the Lord return if there is divorced
couples?!?!?
In conclusion, while this book makes
a clear call for a return to the spirit of Ezra and the dissolving of
adulterous unions the Lord calls “adultery”, the foundation of this book is
clearly an “overcomers” attempt to issue in the 1000-year millennial reign of
Christ. Is this a concern? I believe it is. The Dominion Theology, in whatever
form, puts the emphasis on us to change the world. I will say that the Lord has
written the law on the hearts of every man, and that Romans 1 make it clear
that no one is without excuse. The danger of the Dominion Theology is that it
is a perfect recipe for a one world order and one world religion and a perfect
foundation to issue in the coming of the antichrist of the Premillennial
position.
While I am not a cessationalist in
any sense of the word, I do believe that many of the “spirits” we see today are
not of God. Every believer is called to test the spirits, and when I read this
book it became too clear to me that it was not just about a nation, laity, and
clergy repenting of divorce and remarriage, it is about an agenda to create a
new earth before the Lord returns.
So according to
what I believe, I would be considered an enemy of postmilliennial
thinking and part of the problem, not part of the solution. So what is
required of me should I not assimilate to the "traditional view" and the
idea that the Church must be perfect in order to have the Lord return? Would I be "forced" to assimilate? Call it postmillennialism,
dominionism, Latter Rain movement, Joel’s Army, reconstructionism, or Kingdom Now
theology or whatever you want to call it, I call it false teaching and a
dangerous theology based on good works and not on the finished work of Christ.
I too love the Lord and I love His people, therefore it is my duty to protect
His people from an agenda of deception.
Both sin and death were defeated at
the cross of Calvary, and the enemy of our souls is already crushed by the King
of kings, and Lord of lords. We have eternal life through His resurrection, and
until He returns or we fall asleep, we will not see the full power of His glory
until He comes again. We are to proclaim this truth until He returns to make
all things new. I pray the author considers the implications of his book and
how this book is deceptive to those who are new in Christ. We are the body of
Christ waiting for the return of the Head, and until then we proclaim the truth
that marriage is one man and one woman for life…until then, we will be persecuted.
(Rev 12:10-12)
2 Timothy 4:1-5 I
charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall
judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For
the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after
their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching
ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
In Christ's love,
Neil
