My "Contra Mundum" Clarity

It seemed that some did not agree or were confused with my review of "Contra Mundum Swagger". I can understand Mr. Shannon's response to my review (Blue on Blue and Eschatology Optimism)...sort of. However, one particular blogger went as far to mention my review of the book in her own review of the Contra Mundum Swagger. I understand the author has a right to defend his book by addressing the issues I have, but for another person to discredit my review of the book while making their own review of the book is “puzzling” to say the least. Instead of making an exclusive review of the book, this blogger found it was necessary to discredit my review by calling it “deceitful, counter-productive, and emotionally biased’ rather than consider the concerns and weighing these concerns against the word of God.

I am "ok" with the criticism if we are all on the same page that eschatological differences are behind the motives of the critique. For instance, I do not believe the post-millennial position comes from a careful exegete of scripture. We need to agree that pre-mil and post-mil both use scripture to defend their position, so it is ill-advised to say that post-mil is “unbiblical” as Mr. Shannon suggested in his rebuttal. In fact, his whole rebuttal was centered around defending his eschatology. This was unnecessary since I already know his position on the end times and I also believe that he uses scripture out of context to validate his eschatology. 

The point that I made was not that his biblical understanding of his eschatology is the problem, it is that his eschatology will bring about a very different outcome since he did not address the other concerns I have which will only exacerbate the problem from a pre-mil perspective. His eschatology permeates the whole book, and I discerned from the beginning that this book was a “scheme” rather than just a call to repentance. Again, this is from my premil perspective! If I am wrong about premillennial end times and postmillennial is the correct view on end times, then I would agree that Mr. Shannon has written a masterpiece.

In his blog Mr. Shannon writes:

“It’s (my review) like being part of the Allied Invasion of Normandy, traversing the beach in a hail of Nazi machine gun fire, noticing an Allied soldier from another platoon wearing boots that are out of standard Army regulation, and shooting him in the head for doing so.”

I would rather consider it is more like addressing “Mein Kampf” long before Hitler decided to become the Führer of Germany. That would make the lives lost at Normandy a non-issue, AND pretty much squash the idea that I would even carry a weapon in the first place...let alone use it to shoot someone in the head…

I want to be very, very clear here, it was believed by Mr. Shannon and another critical blogger that I rejected the book’s clear call for repenting against adulterous remarriages. That is a lie! I agreed that chapters 3 and 4 are very good explanations of how God sees the clergy/laity system of worship…the point I made is that Mr. Shannon and this other blogger do not see the clergy/laity system as a problem. So, I agree that repentance is necessary for ALL remarriages of a living spouse of covenant, and my other posts are clearly reflective of this as I believe the central core of marriage is that it is an accurate representation of the Gospel. (Eph 5:31,32)

 
Thus, it is my understanding if we are talking about repenting of adultery to bring about a different outcome based on our eschatological positions, what would this look like? Mr. Shannon believes that secondary issues are not a problem…and I disagree based on the other concerns I have which Mr. Shannon does not address.

If a postmillennial believes that we are in the thousand-year reign of Christ and that it is the responsibility of the church to issue in the second coming of the Lord, then what would repentance of adultery look like in today’s clergy/laity system? If Mr. Shannon does not believe the clergy/laity system is a problem, and that the clergy/laity system will be a major player in the postmillennial worldview, then I see the infiltration of demonic forces already at work in this faulty system, and these forces could culminate into a One World religion. I believe I made this very clear in my review as well in past posts that the clergy/laity system is all but ignored as being an issue.

Honoring God by Telling Pastors the Truth.
Ten Questions for the Church.
Backed into a Corner Via Compromise.

I can fully understand that a postmil would have concerns for the failed predictions of self-proclaimed prophets who predict every questionable leader as the antichrist. I can understand a postmil’s concern for cultural displacement of premils. However, it is a straw man argument to say that premils are all self-professing prophets and culturally displaced. The point is that the culmination of either eschatological position is drastically different. As far as the east is from the west. While it is not advisable to time stamp the end of the world, we are called to discern the times and we are called to preach the Gospel, in season and out of season.

It would be utterly tragic to blindly follow the next Harold Camping or dogmatically believe the “Left Behind” series substitutes the word of God. It would also be equally tragic to reconstruct the world to better suit a totalitarian government only to find out that it was necessary in issuing in the antichrist. I believe the latter would be significantly more tragic to premils and would bring about sever persecution to anyone who was not postmil.

 “I think it’s a strategic mistake to unduly focus on secondary and tertiary doctrinal differences between fellow Christians who are fighting against the greatest heresy of our time...” Jack Shannon

I believe the greatest heresy in our time is the reconstruction of the church from an organic body of Christ into 501c3 corporations. I also understand that Mr. Shannon is a Calvinist, or the very least has Calvinist beliefs (I understand Calvinism has many forms). This would equate to my understanding that most Calvinists would believe that the Protestant Reformation was necessary in keeping the clergy/laity system and changing the titles from priest to clergy as well as handing marriage definition over to civil authorities. (Why would you hand over marriage to civil authorities and then try to take back civil authorities by a form of Christian reconstructionism? I will argue that marriage was NEVER handed over to civil authorities. Matthew 22:21 Nor was marriage handed over to the RCC or the Reformation version of the RCC.) This is evident in Mr. Shannon believing that the “traditional view” as illustrated in his book, was the major stance of post-resurrection believers.  This “traditional view” was also a very important part of understanding my concerns of Contra Mundum Swagger. I already proved in my review that the “traditional view” which permits divorce in the case of adultery would conflict with a postmil church (or any believer for that matter) and would contradict the "strategy" of postmil thinking.


In conclusion, I still cannot fully endorse Contra Mundum Swagger since there is too much leaven there for my liking and I would hope that this response would clarify why. I would suggest everyone reads the word of God and believe what the Holy Spirit reveals to you concerning marriage. I would also hope that any who would read my review that they would also consider where I have always stood on marriage. I have always attributed marriage permanence with the power of the Gospel. While Mr. Shannon and I may be on the same page in calling adulterous remarriages to repent, I would be far from his thought that divorce is ever an option for the body of Christ, let alone for the whole world.

I certainly am not a ”passive” premil layperson, I am still searching for the truth in all things. Maybe I am wrong in my understanding of scripture, but until I am proven otherwise, I must stand boldly for what I discern and what I believe the Holy Spirit has revealed to me to be the truth. I hope this post brings clarity to Mr. Shannon and to others who question my concerns. I hope you  the reader would understand that from a premil perspective, I would have valid concerns for the desired outcome of Mr. Shannon’s book.

I pray that Mr. Shannon would come to understand my points and concerns and that they are truly in line with guarding the Lord’s sheep from potential false and damaging teachings. I pray too that he and others would consider my concerns as someone who loves the Lord more than he loves people. This can only be possible if we seek Christ in all things. Please join me in praying that BOTH clergy and laypeople would see marriage as the Lord sees marriage so that the body of Christ would win souls to the Lord by becoming a witness of one man and one woman for life. No exceptions, no excuses!      

2 Timothy 3:12-4:4
Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
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.




In Christ's love,

Neil