Lauren Boebert: A Case Study in Hypocrisy

Everyone with some kind of understanding of moral truth in the United States knows that the political left-wing represents a danger to the country, to the degree that it militantly and aggressively seeks to inculcate and legislate ideas that undermine and even overturn Biblical moral truth. However, what is perhaps not so clear to those with some kind of understanding of morality, is that the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, which originally began at least in part as a reaction to the overreach of the progressive left, has become a danger to this country, and to moral values, in its own right. That is because it is increasingly no longer about a set of policies that political conservatives can rally around, but about absolute allegiance to Donald Trump. Mr. Trump's leadership over MAGA, which now dominates one of the two major parties in the United States, has drawn a new breed of politicians into the Republican Party who have, to varying degrees, behavioral and personality traits similar to their leader. Foremost among these traits are, on the positive side, the ability to entertain on stage and in front of a camera, the ability to draw a crowd and gain a following, and skill in the use of social media; and on the negative side, narcissism, egoism, dishonesty, sexual immorality, shamelessness, contempt for the notion of admitting when one is wrong, anti-intellectualism, and a hero complex. When all or a subset of such traits are coupled with a Christian profession, we get what is perhaps the worst trait of this new breed of MAGA politicians, hypocrisy. Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, who recently won the Republican congressional primary in Colorado's 4th District, is an illustration of this dynamic.

Boebert's political platform has largely consisted of full and unqualified support for Trump, and the twofold claim that she is a Christian and is "fighting" for families with traditional moral values against the immorality of the "radical left." She is touted within MAGA circles as a "conservative firebrand." The woman has spoken at conferences and in churches about Christian values, often quoting the Bible and praying in the name of Jesus. She had someone film her praying a very evangelical sounding prayer out loud in the Capitol rotunda, the footage of which can be found on YouTube. She has shared her "personal testimony" publicly, and has collaborated with Christian musician, political activist, and evangelist Sean Feucht. Boebert has also advocated for the eradication of the separation of church and state, and even for a theocracy. When evangelical Christian Mike Johnson was elected Speaker of the House Boebert managed to position herself front and center, just next to him in a widely distributed photograph. In short, whether or not one agrees that all of her behavior and views (e.g., the idea that America should be a theocracy) are consistent with the teaching of Scripture, she appears on the surface to be an evangelical Christian. What's the problem?

One incident, which occurred in September 2023, sheds significant light on the real character of Lauren Boebert. I am referring to her being asked to leave a Denver theater midway through a performance, which made national news. The details of the incident not only reveal a radical inconsistency between this woman's profession of Christian faith and her character, but also serve as an example of how bad this nation's political leaders have become. It can be safely said that Boebert's behavior in that theater was not only inconsistent, on multiple levels, with her Christian profession, but also worse than 98% of the population. Don't believe me, or think I'm being too harsh with that latter assertion? Think of the number of times you have been to a theater or show. How many times have you seen someone escorted out of a show for disruptive behavior? Divide that by the estimated collective total number of people with whom you have attended theater or show performances. Perhaps it's just my experience, and I realize this point is anecdotal, but such an occurrence is quite rare. Yet on the occasion we are speaking of, a United States Congresswoman was escorted out of a Denver theater for inappropriate behavior. Members of Congress should theoretically be more upstanding than the average citizen, not more incorrigible. Depraved leaders are a sign of God's judgment on a nation.

Is "depraved" too harsh a word for Boebert? Even if she didn't profess Christian faith, her behavior would be reprehensible, but is it not that much more so in light of her claim to be a woman of faith? Here's what she did. During a showing of Beetlejuice at Denver's Buell Theatre she was creating a disturbance by being loud and, against theater rules, vaping and using her cell phone to record the show. Who does that?! Multiple guests complained and Boebert and her date were given a warning by the theater, but Boebet refused to alter her bad behavior, and defiantly continued to do what she was doing. Leaving the theater no choice, security asked Boebert and her guest to leave. She gave the security guards a hard time, but eventually relented. On her way out of the theater, she apparently gave the middle finger to the security guards and said things like, "Do you know who I am?"

Let it be added that Boebert was attending the show on a Sunday, which is the Lord's Day or the Christian Sabbath; was dressed like a tart, in a low-cut, tight-fitting dress, with half of her cleavage hanging out; and was on a date with a man who owns a bar that has been known to host ungodly events. Needless to say, all of such behavior is directly contrary to a genuine Christian profession. Indeed, is it not rather an example of what would be expected to come from "the children of disobedience" in whom the prince of the power of the air works (Ephesians 2:2)? What is perhaps the worst aspect of Boebert's behavior in the theater is the utter selfishness and disregard (to the point of contempt) for others that she displayed. Here's a question. Can we expect someone with such an attitude to use political office to serve the public or to serve herself?

When news of Boebert's ejection from the theater first got out to the public, but before Boebert knew that the whole incident had been captured on video, Boebert quickly attempted to do damage control. She went on the One America News Network (OAN) and chalked the incident up to her being "a little too eccentric" and being overly boisterous in enjoying the show. She also had an official spokesperson deny that she was vaping, and she tweeted to her followers on X, "It's true, I did thoroughly enjoy the AMAZING Beetlejuice at the Buell Theater and I plead guilty to laughing and singing too loud!" In other words, she lied and remained completely unrepentant. No apparent shame or humility from the experience anywhere in sight. Watch the OAN video clip and note what she said as well as her demeanor. If video footage of her behavior in the theater had not subsequently emerged, one would have been left with the impression that she's just a very enthusiastic, impassioned person, who let her exuberance get the better of her, and that the radical left was simply trying to sieze on this situation to smear her.

Release of the video footage in the theater, however, showed not only that she was in fact vaping and using her cell phone during the show, but that she and her date were groping each other sexually during the performance. It shows her being asked by a woman behind her to stop her highly disruptive behavior, and her impudently ignoring the request. It shows her defiant and obnoxious departure from the theater. Again, Lauren Boebert behaved worse than 98% of Americans (and this is being generous) that night in the theater. Moreover, she brazenly lied about the incident on OAN to a national audience only days later. The Bible says some very strong things about unrepentant liars. Note, for example, Revelation 21:8, which says that "all liars" will have their place in the lake of fire. Lying is a serious and grave sin.

When the video footage came out, and Boebert was cornered, she went on Fox News to tell everyone she "messed up." What else could she possibly do at that point? Even then, she didn't fess up to all of her bad behavior during the incident, nor did she apologize for misrepresenting the incident on national cable television earlier in the week, before she knew that all of it had been captured on video. There is even a note of her playing the victim in the Fox News appearance, suggesting that it was somehow a violation of her rights for her behavior to have been caught on video.

This story has been detailed six ways to Sunday by news and social media outlets, so what's the point of recounting it here? This woman seems to be a quintessential example of a spiritually dangerous dynamic taking place within the context of the ever-evolving MAGA movement. As Christian profession somehow gets mixed together with political activism, we have the emergence of wolves in sheeps clothing in the political sphere, who make use of Christianity for selfish and worldly ends.

The danger is twofold.

1) As political figures like Boebert very publicly live lives characterized by "taking God's name in vain" the world is turned off to what it thinks is Christianity. Certainly, the extreme antinomian behavior of Boebert is the opposite of "letting your light shine" before a fallen world, but the world does not know that. It sees a woman regularly touting family and traditional Christian values, quoting the Bible, and even praying, while living a life characterized by deceit and an almost utter lack of integrity. Since she confidently claims to be a representative of Christianity, and gets away with her egregious behavior within conservative and evangelical circles, being recently given another opportunity to remain in Congress by so-called conservative voters, for example, what is the world to think?

2) The behavior of political and media figures like Boebert is bound to have a deleterious effect on the visible Christian church. If her claim to be a Christian is uncritically accepted, and people like her are even considered to be heroes for the good within today's society, the doctrinal and behavioral standards within the church are bound to deteriorate further. The message of the Lauren Boeberts of the world to the church today seems to be, "it's ok to live any way you want and to have no shame about any of it, as long as you continue to boldly and confidently confess the name of Christ and fight against the radical left." Needless to say, this is not Biblical Christianity but rather a blasphemous counterfeit. True faith in Jesus Christ will produce love, a fear of God, and good works. True faith trembles at God's word (Isaiah 66:2). Believers are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. You will know them by their fruit.

As harmful and wicked as the ideology of the godless progressive left is, the church needs to be warned of the serious danger now coming from within the MAGA-wing of the Republican Party — from people who use Christianity as a tool for political activism and to build their own personal platform, following, power, and wealth. Such people may even enunciate the words "Christ is king," which has been trending on X of late, but are preaching a different Jesus and a different Gospel. May God protect his true church from this new form of attack!

Jesus Was Raised Because of Our Justification

#Easter2024 #Resurrection #Christianity #Bible #Romans #Salvation

Excerpted from Frederic Godet's Commentary on Romans*

"Who was delivered on account of our sins and was raised again on account of our justification" (Romans 4:25).

In the title our Lord there was involved the idea of a very intimate relation between Jesus and us. This mysterious and gracious solidarity is summed up in two symmetrical clauses, which in a few clear and definite terms present its two main aspects.

He was delivered on account of our offenses (Romans 4:25a). Perhaps Paul intends in the phrase being delivered to remind us of the description of the servant of Jehovah in Isaiah 53: "His soul was delivered (παρεδόθη) to death" (verse 12). He who delivers him, according to Romans 8:32, is God himself, "who spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all." Paul has told us, in Romans 3:25, for what end this act was necessary. It was required to manifest conspicuously the righteousness of God. Every sinner needed to be brought to say: "See what I deserve!" Thus justice was satisfied and pardon possible.

And he was raised again on account of our justification (Romans 4:25b). Commentators are unanimous, if I mistake not, in translating: for our justification, as if it were πρός or εἰς, and not διά (on account of). This for is explained in the sense that the resurrection of Christ was needed in order that faith might be able to appropriate the expiation which was accomplished, and that so justification, of which faith is the condition, might take place. But what a roundabout way of arriving at the explanation of this for! And if the apostle really meant for (with a view to), why repeat this same preposition διά which he had just used in the parallel proposition, in its natural sense of on account of, while the language supplied him with prepositions appropriate to the exact expression of his thought (πρός, εἰς; see Romans 3:25, 26)? I am not surprised that in this way several commentators have found in this symmetry established between the facts of salvation nothing more than an artificial distribution, belonging to the domain of rhetoric rather than to that of dogmatics, and that one has even gone the length of reproaching the apostle "for sacrificing to the mania of parallelism." If we were shut up to the explanation referred to, we could only join regretfully in this judgment. But it is not so.

Let us take διά in its natural sense, as we are bound to do by its use in the first proposition. In the same way as Jesus died because of our offenses, that is, our (merited) condemnation, He was raised because of our (accomplished) justification. Our sin had killed him; our justification raised him again. How so? The expiation of our trespasses once accomplished by his death, and the right of God's justice solemnly demonstrated, God could pronounce the collective acquittal of future believers, and he did so. Over the blood of the sacrifice a sentence of justification was pronounced in favor of guilty man; his condemnation was annulled. Now, in view of this divine fact, a corresponding change must necessarily be wrought in the person of Christ himself. By the same law of solidarity whereby our condemnation had brought him to the cross, our justification must transform his death into life. When the debtor is proved insolvent, his security is thrown into prison; but as soon as the latter succeeds in clearing the debt, the debtor is legally set free, and his security is liberated with him. For he has no debt of his own.

Such is the bond of solidarity formed by the plan of God between Christ and us. Our lot is as it were interwoven with his: we sin, he dies; we are justified, he lives again. This is the key to the declaration, "If Christ is not risen, you are still in your sins" (1 Corinthians 15:17). So long as the security is in prison, the debt is not paid; the immediate effect of payment would be his liberation. Similarly, if Jesus were not raised, we should be more than [merely] ignorant whether our debt were paid; we might be certain that it was not. His resurrection is the proof of our justification only because it is the necessary effect of it. Therefore, Paul had to use διά, on account of, and not εἰς, with a view to. If in the death of Christ humanity disappeared condemned, in the rising of Christ it reappears absolved.

*This exposition of Romans 4:25 is from the first edition of Frederic Godet's (1812-1900) Commentary on Romans (1879 in French, 1883 in English).

Never Wise To Be Wiser Than Scripture

The Legacy Standard Bible's Translation of the Tetragrammaton

#JohnMacArthur #GraceCommunityChurch #LegacyStandardBible #LSB #Tetragrammaton

If you have participated in a worship service at Grace Community Church any time within the last couple of years, you may have noticed during the reading of Scripture by the senior minister John MacArthur, or by one of the other ministers, that the word "Yahweh" is repeatedly substituted for the word "LORD" in familiar Old Testament passages. So, for example, if Psalm 23 were to be read from the pulpit, you would hear it begin with the words "Yahweh is my shepherd" instead of the familiar words "the LORD is my shepherd." This is because MacArthur and scholars at the seminary connected with his church have modified the New American Standard Bible to create a new Bible translation called the Legacy Standard Bible. The stated objective for the project was to create a translation of the Bible with an unprecedented level of precision. In one video, MacArthur refers to it as the "most accurate" and "most consistent" translation. One of the most notable features of this new translation is the replacement, almost seven thousand times, of the word "LORD" in the Old Testament with the word "Yahweh." Does this translation decision constitute a change for the better?

The four consonants that make up the underlying Hebrew word where this translation change takes place, יהוה, are collectively known as the Tetragrammaton. In God's providence, we don't definitively know how this Hebrew word was originally pronounced, because we don't definitively know what vowels went with the Tetragrammaton. Beginning at some point in the history of the ancient Jews, out of reverence for this name, they would not utter it, but instead would substitute another name for God, often using the Hebrew term for "Lord," when they came across it. This is why the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and virtually all modern translations of the Old Testament translate the Tetragrammaton as "Lord." Some translations capitalize all the letters of the word for "Lord" in order to signify that it is a translation of the Tetragrammaton — e.g., "LORD" in English, "HERRN" in German, and so forth. When vowel markings were added to the Hebrew Text in the early middle ages, the Jewish scribes applied the vowel markings for the Hebrew word for "Lord" to the Tetragrammaton, so that the vowel markings for that word in the Hebrew Bible intentionally do not help us with the correct pronunciation. In light of all this, what are we to make of the decision by MacArthur and his team of scholars to translate the Tetragrammaton as "Yahweh" in the Legacy Standard Bible?

First, and a very short point, the church should always be suspicious of anyone who comes along after more than 2,000 years of church history with the claim that he sees something important that the church has until that time missed. This is not to say that such a thing is impossible, but it certainly bears scrutiny. Essentially, MacArthur and his team of scholars, by their choice to translate the Tetragrammaton "Yahweh" and not "LORD," are implicitly claiming that Scripture translators, extending back in history even beyond 2,000 years, to the time of the Septuagint translation, got this wrong, impairing to some degree the faithfulness and precision of their translations relative to the original text. To say the least, that's a rather lofty claim. This relatively small group of men, discipled under John MacArthur, and associated with Grace Community Church in Southern California, are setting their understanding of how the Tetragrammaton should be translated over and against a consensus of scholarship which has spanned not decades, or centuries, but millennia.

Second, and perhaps a shorter point, as alluded to above, it is not definitively known how the Tetragrammaton was originally pronounced. Most scholars are in agreement, based on other words in the Old Testament, that the first syllable contained an "a" sound. So the "Yah" portion of "Yahweh" is almost certainly correct. However, the same cannot be said of the remaining vowels, whose identity is not at all clear. Therefore, the translation of the Tetragrammaton as "Yahweh" rests on unstable ground, if the goal of the translation is to accurately capture the original pronunciation.

Third, and most importantly, this translation decision by MacArthur and his team of scholars seems to represent an (unwitting) attempt to be wiser than the Scriptures. What do I mean by that? Well, the translation of the Tetragrammaton with the equivalent of the word "Lord" in the Septuagint, the Vulgate, Luther's German Bible, the King James Version, and so forth does not settle this question because none of these translations are "inspired" in the sense of being absolutely directed by the Holy Spirit so that they are infallible and contain no error. However, there does exist a translation of the Tetragrammaton that is fully verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit. Which one would that be? The original Greek New Testament. Hopefully MacArthur and the scholars connected with his church would agree that the original Greek New Testament is God-breathed, and therefore infallible and verbally inerrant. In other words, it is an absolute standard to follow in translating the Old Testament Scriptures. In light of this consideration, how does the Greek New Testament translate the Tetragrammaton?

Reading an English translation of the fourth chapter of Luke this morning, I came across the passage where Jesus reads from the sixty-first chapter of Isaiah in the synagogue in his home town of Nazareth. "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me, that I should preach the Gospel to the poor" (Luke 4:18a). These words came directly from Isaiah 61:1, which contains the Tetragrammaton. One can already see that my English Bible translated the Tetragrammaton "Lord," but what about the original Greek New Testament? Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what Greek word did Luke use to translate the Tetragrammaton? If you guessed Κύριος, which means "Lord" in Greek, you would be correct. And this is not an isolated case, but exactly how the Tetragrammaton is consistently translated throughout the Greek New Testament. The citation of verses one and four of Psalm 110 in the Greek New Testament are another notable example of this.

In short, taking the original Greek New Testament as our fully inspired model for how to translate the Tetragrammaton, we find that the scholarly consensus that has spanned over two millennia is correct. Believers don't need to expend precious time re-memorizing deeply comforting familiar passages of Scripture, such as "The LORD is my Shepherd," using new terminology.

To state the obvious, it's never wise (even inadvertently) to be wise beyond Scripture. The Legacy Standard Bible's repeated translation of the Tetragrammaton as "Yahweh" represents exactly that. Grace Community Church is a good church, with an overall sound ministry, but the new translation it is using has the potential to undermine that legacy. Hopefully, the error will be acknowledged and corrected by MacArthur and his team of scholars for the good of the church.