When I talk to other people here in the San Francisco Bay Area, I sometimes ask if they will explain what they believe. For instance, if Buddhism is true and helpful, perhaps a Buddhist could explain it for my benefit. I’d like to know why I should become one. Along the same line, if being woke is the best thinking and behavior, could the woke people help me understand in order to become woke?
The awakening of wokeness relates to social consciousness. Before you weren’t, but now you’re conscious of white privilege, racial inequality, and economic injustice. Now you’re apparently no longer asleep to those. Consciousness doesn’t need to offer any real solutions, just display consciousness of their existence. Don’t deny it. Admit it. Does that help? It doesn’t help anyone, but it appears to care.
The Pharisees became masters of what today would be a photo opportunity, to be seen of men. Jesus described it in Matthew 6:5:
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Being “woke” means touting your own consciousness. You are conscious. You’ve sniffed of the progressive smelling salts. You’ve taken the whole jar of blue pills. You aren’t actually helping anyone. You do not good for racial inequality and you do almost nothing for people that need food.
“Woke” gets credit for being with the cause by wearing your oversized flat billed baseball cap. Nothing says consciousness like using urban dialect or having the secret handshake. The Pharisees not only wore fringes on their garments, as directed in the Law, but also lengthened the fringes so that they were more conspicuous.
An ancient
baraita, a tradition in the Jewish oral law not incorporated in the Mishnah, the regular Jewish oral tradition, enumerates “seven classes of Pharisees, of which five consist of either eccentric fools or hypocrites,
the third being ‘the bruised Pharisee,‘ who in order to avoid looking at a woman runs against the wall so as to bruise himself and bleed.” The goal here was to leave an impression that promotes your self. Being “woke” means being a part of an exclusive coalition of proud hypocrites more interested in the guise of selflessness.
Woke, differing than “woke,” does what is best for other people, actually loves them. 1 Corinthians 13, one of the love chapters of the Bible presents fifteen actions of love. They are all verbs. Love does this and does this and does this and this and this. That’s what love looks like when it occurs. “Woke” isn’t action. Instead it is
“activism,” which ironically isn’t action and, therefore, isn’t love.
The Lord Jesus Christ didn’t come to “raise visibility” in order to bring “social change.” His life wasn’t a show. It changed people in the most profound way possible, getting them ready for all eternity. Activism doesn’t change anyone. It might succeed at shaking someone down, but it doesn’t succeed at real reconciliation between people or help the poor. Christianity changes lives, transforming people, using the gospel. It answers the only need that men have or will every have. Jesus would often say, “See thou tell no man” (Matt 8:4). That was Jesus. Activism wants everyone to know — “look at me out on the street with my poster,” “watch me dump a bucket of cold water over my head,” or “hashtag whatever.”
The Pharisees woke up to the impossibility of living the actual life of God, the acquiescence of those submissive to the Messiah. When Christ came, they wouldn’t give in or give up. They preferred the ease of the symbolic, the right length of fringes on the garment and dropping their loud offerings into a metal container to be noticed of others. They reduced actual care to symbolic care, which required the equivalent of yelling over a speaker phone and chanting. Today the activism is easier than ever over social media, sending out a selfie taken on a mobile device, portraying the care for all to see. It portrays a caring life that is only “woke.” These are repulsed by actual wokeness, taking the yoke of Jesus upon them. It’s not about a future kingdom under Jesus, but a present one under self.
I’m quite sure that woke arose from a perversion of an actual Christian truth of awaking out of sleep. Paul wrote in Romans 13:11, “now is the high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.” Then in 1 Corinthians 15:34 he wrote: “Awake to righteousness, and sin not.” This is being really woke, rather than “woke.” “Woke” is a cheap imitation, that is today very popular with the world. The world hates being woke, but it loves being “woke.” No one really wakes up with “woke.”
“Woke” is against what Jesus taught, labors for meat that perishes. The world is interested in the temporal bread, the actual temporal bread of feeding people and the figurative bread of race. Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all he had to give it to the poor. That is the commitment that Jesus desires. It’s not a commitment that on the one hand purchases an eight hundred thousand house and on the other promotes giving to a homeless shelter. Why haven’t the homeless moved into the spare bedrooms? The dedication is more about appearance, like the bruised Pharisee — that’s what being “woke” is all about. Man doesn’t live by bread alone, but woke activism is bread alone. It is meat that perisheth.
Galatians 6:10 says that if we have the opportunity that we should do good to all men, especially those of the household of faith. That would include seeking justice in a society through the scriptural means, seek right and honest things, and speaking the truth of God against an unjust, unrighteous society like John the Baptist did with Herod. None of that will continue without the transforming change in men’s souls through Jesus Christ. That is woke, not “woke.”
Interesting "oral law" reference- just for clarification: Do you agree that these kinds of traditions are manmade and that they make the word of God of none effect, in the way also delineated in Mark 7:7-13?
Andrew
Wokeness does the same thing as Mark 7:7-13. It lays down traditions of men, that men can keep on their own. Actual caring is weighty, too difficult, and dependent on the grace of God. It is more than a show.
Oh, I'm sorry Pastor Brandenburg, I may not have been clear with my question, I apologize. I meant to ask you if the "oral law" you referenced, as a baraita, is of the sort that nullifies the word of God as explained by the Lord Jesus in Mark chapter 7. Because if it is, then I just wanted to make sure you weren't unintentionally quoting it as authoritative. I'm not sure what "the regular Jewish oral tradition" is supposed to mean or whether that is meant to impute a form of legitimacy onto it.
Why do you call I Corinthians 13 the "love chapter"? The Bible says no such thing. It is the charity chapter, not the love chapter. Charity means helping the homeless, helping people of color, and fighting for the rights of women. Charity is helping the downtrodden. It's hard to take this post seriously when you don't even quote scripture correctly.
Anonymous,
You're joking, right?
Andrew,
The context of my reference to the oral traditions of the Jews was just the opposite of an authority, yet they treated it as an authority. I don't think it was confusing, but thanks for asking.
Sure Pastor Brandenburg. Glad to clear that up even if just for myself.
Andrew
Actually, no. I'm not joking at all. First Corinthians 13 is not the "love" chapter. Yes, charity is a type of love, but it's a specific kind of love. Charity means to help those in need who we can who are having troubles. This could be anything, such as having charity on the poor, the sick, etc. It is a different kind of love than what is thought of as love between a man and a woman.
Why do people insist on calling I Corinthians 13 the "love" chapter and use it in weddings when it has no such context? Granted, if you want to use any other version other than the KJV, then it is the "love" chapter. But the KJV makes no such reference.
Anonymous Expert, Ready to Make a Comment But Not Say His Name, Maybe Because He Is Ashamed of Himself,
The Greek word agape, which is translated "charity" in 1 Corinthians 13, is found 116 times in the underlying Greek text of the King James Version — in other words, the original language of the New Testament. The English word "charity" is found 29 times in the King James Version. That leaves 87 times that agape isn't translated "charity."
In the Oxford English Dictionary, we read this definition of "love."
In religious use: the benevolence and affection of God towards an individual or towards creation; (also) the affectionate devotion due to God from an individual; regard and consideration of one human being towards another prompted by a sense of a common relationship to God. Cf. charity n. 1.
Charity means that particular definition of love. It is the word agape in the Greek, the same one translated "love" in the rest of the Bible. You obviously don't know that, which is why you see it as a different word. It isn't a different word and you don't know what it means. You think you can look it up in a modern English dictionary and get the meaning. You can't. The Oxford English Dictionary which shows the history of English words says that charity in the usage of the King James Version is Christian love, so the translators were not attempting to say something different than love when they translated it charity.
If you do not retract, then you are messed up and distorted and corrupted in your view.
Hey anonymous, just to point something interesting out, the definition you give of charity in your first post is not more authoritative than that of the New Testament.
For instance, Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 6Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
You also get a definition similar to what Pastor Brandenburg gave, by looking in the 1755 and 1828 dictionaries of the English language. Where the English language actually drew its word definitions from the Bible. In particular the 1755 British dictionary give the following context.
CHAˊRITY. n. s.
1. Tenderness; kindness; love.
— By thee,
Founded in reason, loyal, just, and pure,
Relations dear, and all the charities
Of father, son, and brother, first were known. —Milton
2. Goodwill; benevolence; disposition to think well of others.
— My errours, I hope, are only those of charity to mankind; and such as my own charity has caused me to commit, that of others may more easily excuse. —Dryden
3. The theological virtue of universal love.
— Deeds to thy knowledge answerable; add faith,
Add virtue, patience, temperance; add love,
By name to come call'd CHARITY, the soul
Of all the rest. —Milton
— Faith believes the revelations of God; hope expects his promises; CHARITY loves his excellencies and mercies. —Taylor
CHARITY, or a love of God, which works by a love of our neighbour, is greater than faith or hope. —Atterbury
Also for the underlying word Αγάπη, Greenfield's Polymicrian Greek Lexicon to the New Testament (1829), page 1 states:
Αγάπη, ης, ἡ, love; pl. love-feasts