On a bit of a longer drive a fews days ago, I got to do some thinking. My thoughts centered on what transpired at the congregation here and how some in the congregation resorted to calling me a Pharisee. Why? What lies behind such an "insult?"

Well, fortunately for me, Issues, Etc. host Todd Wilken wrote a nice little article on the subject.

At the heart of calling someone a Pharisee is an attempted claim that Jesus is on their side and that He condemns the one being called a Pharisee; after all, that's what Jesus did in His own day. But the reasons that someone is called a Pharisee these days is far different than what a Pharisee in Jesus' day actually was. In fact, calling someone a Pharisee these days is based on some pretty false assumptions about what a Pharisee actually was.

Rev. Wilken sums up the insult, basically, in three statements:

1. Christians concerned with doctrinal purity are (or are like) Pharisees condemned by Jesus.
2. Christians who are resistant to change are (or are like) Pharisees condemned by Jesus.
3. As a result of 1 and 2, these Pharasaic Christians are unconcerned for the lost and are (or are like) Pharisees condemned by Jesus.

But, Rev. Wilken also refutes these false assumptions.

First, in regard to doctrinal purity, he writes:

The only problem is, Jesus never faulted the Pharisees for being doctrinal purists. He faulted them for being false teachers who abandoned the truth of God's Word in favor of the erroneous word of man (Matthew 16:11-12; 15:1-9; Mark 7:6-13).
Jesus called Christians who demanded doctrinal purity "disciples," not "Pharisees." "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:31-32) In fact, Christians who demand doctrinal purity are really following the example of Jesus, of Paul and of the other Apostles (Matthew 7:15; see also 24:10-11; Mark 9:42; 2 Corinthians 13:5; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 Timothy 4:16; 6:3-4; Titus 1:7-9; 2:1, 7-8; 1 John 4:1; 2 Peter 3:17).

That just blows the first false assumption out of the water. Rather than condemning the Pharisees for doctrinal purity, Jesus did quite the opposite; He condemned them for their false teaching. And, those who held to His teaching—those who continued in His Word and doctrinal purity—are called disciples.

With regard to being resistant to change, Rev. Wilken writes:

The Pharisee Card is also played in order to discredit Christians who refuse to abandon the historic practices of the Church in favor of the latest innovations...Those dealing the Pharisee Card know that, to avoid being labeled a Pharisee, many Christians will tolerate an endless succession of fads in worship, music and ministry. But Jesus never faulted the Pharisees for resisting change. On the contrary, He faulted them for introducing their own innovations and methods in the place of God's Word. Dealers of the Pharisee Card will cite Luke 5:36-39 in favor of their own innovations: And He was also telling them a parable: "No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it on an old garment; otherwise he will both tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins, and it will be spilled out, and the skins will be ruined. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins.
Was Jesus calling for wholesale change, or warning against it? The new patch ruins the garment. The new wine bursts the wineskins. The context of the parable is a discussion of fasting. Rather than advocating the abandonment of this ancient practice, Jesus instead taught that ancient practices must now be understood and practiced in light of Him and His redemptive work.
Jesus didn't condemn the Pharisees for retaining ancient practices, or for resisting change; rather, Jesus concluded the parable by saying, "And no one, after drinking old wishes for new; for he says, 'The old is good.'"

Again, Rev. Wilken blows away the second false assumption. And, just like the first assumption, the refutation works the same way. Rather than condemning the Pharisees for resisting change, Jesus did quite the opposite; He condemned them for introducing their changes over and above God's Word.

With regard to being unconcerned for the lost, Rev. Wilken writes:

Christians who demand doctrinal purity and resist compromising change are often accused of being Pharisees with no love for the lost. This is probably the most common use of the Pharisee Card today...But Jesus never faulted the Pharisees for being unconcerned for the lost. On the contrary, He said: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel about on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. (Matthew 23:15)
Jesus had no problem with the missionary zeal of the Pharisees—they were zealous enough; Jesus had a problem with the Pharisee's soul-damning message...The Pharisees' error was not a lack of missionary zeal; it was that their false teaching (however zealously preached) damned rather than saved.

Once again, Rev. Wilken shows how faulty this thinking is. Rather than having no concern for the lost, the Pharisees sought converts with zeal. It is what the Pharisees taught their converts that concerned Jesus, a concern echoed as the first two parts of the insult were examined. Rev. Wilken continues:

Moreover, contrary to everything the Pharisee Card is meant to imply, just because someone is concerned for doctrinal purity and resistant to theological innovation does not mean that he is unconcerned for the lost. On the contrary, departure from the pure Word, in doctrine and practice, does not help, but hinders the preaching of the Gospel, therefore impedes the mission of the Church. False teaching does not save sinners. Purity in doctrine and practice makes the preaching of the Gospel possible. Purity in doctrine and practice makes the preaching of the Gospel imperative.
The irony is that those most often called Pharisees in the Church today are those most concerned about the lost, and therefore preaching the pure Gospel to them.

"The power of the Pharisee card is based on the mistaken idea that those unwilling to compromise in doctrine and practice are the modern-day counterparts of the ancient Pharisees. This idea has no basis in fact." On the contrary and ironically, those who play the Pharisee card are the ones acting most like a Pharisee. After all, only those complaining about doctrinal purity would have no interest in it; only those wanting change would complain about those who are resistant to it (especially change simply for change's sake). Usually, the people who want to water down doctrine and make manifold, un-Scriptural changes want to do so to put butts in pews; they want to adopt the ways and culture of the world to look more attractive to those of the world. It follows, therefore, that the last charge these people make is that those who are concerned with doctrinal purity and who are against change for the sake of change have no concern for the lost. Again, if the only concern for the lost is simply that they are a butt in a pew, then the concern is fleeting and facetious; conversely, those concerned with doctrinal purity are truly concerned for the lost—concerned that they receive purity of doctrine.

Yeah, I've been called a Pharisee, because I, like Rev. Wilken "publicly defend the teachings and practices of the historic Church" and "publicly point out false teaching and practices in the Church today." But that does not make me a Pharisee. On the contrary, those who scoff at the fact that I do—those who take offense that I do—they are the Pharisees. They are the ones who, like the Pharisees, wish to supplant sound doctrine with the inventions of man. They are the ones who, like the Pharisees, wish to replace the Word of God with whatever tickles their fancy and entertains them. They are the ones who, like the Pharisees, certainly have a zeal for the lost, but have no concern for what they teach them. They are the Pharisees who do not serve and honor God, but are doing the will of Satan their father (John 8:42-47).

Jesus condemned the Pharisees for softening the demands of the Law. Because they taught that human works contributed to salvation, the Pharisees had to make the Law more "user friendly." The Pharisees diluted the Law's requirement of perfect obedience with manageable human rules that could be kept (Matthew 5:17-48).
A compromised Law meant a compromised Gospel. Jesus condemned the Pharisees because they abandoned God's Word for the word of man. In this sense, the Pharisees were really the Liberals of their day.

The state of the Church Militant leaves a lot to be desired. You can look from congregation to congregation and find more and more people loosing a grasp on Biblical doctrine. You can talk to Christian after Christian and hear them proclaim that things must change in order to bring more people in; "Worship must be more up-tempo," you can hear them say, "It has to touch and enthuse them." In my humble opinion, things look bleak. But, the Truth is still among His people; the Gospel is still proclaim in its purity and the Sacraments are still administered in accordance with the Gospel—where this happens, that's where the Church is. This quote from Rev. Wilken's article speaks volumes to this point.

To that end, I vow to remain faithful to that which I promised back in July of 2003. I will continue to defend pure doctrine to the best of my ability, God help me. I will continue to remain steadfast in the pure proclamation of the Gospel, without change, to the best of my ability, God help me. I will continue to preach to the lost, the saving truth of Christ crucified and risen for the forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation to the best of my ability, God help me. But I will not be called a Pharisee for it...no longer. I am orthodox, evangelical...I am Lutheran.