Now some might object and believe that we need to rely on what God tells us to do.  That relying on reason and engaging our mental faculties is the same as relying on human wisdom and understanding apart from the spiritual understanding that comes from divine direction.  After all, doesn’t Proverbs 3:5 indicate to not lean to our own understanding, but acknowledge the Lord in all our ways?  Most certainly it does.  But I don’t think that means that engaging in a thought process involving reason is not engaging spiritual guidance.  In fact, I am convinced that God very much operates through reason, too.

As Christians, we are told in Romans 12:2 to not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing our minds.   Conformity to the world involves a mindset of identity.   Prior to regeneration, the believer can only follow the mindset that does not set affections on God or his ways (Ephesians 2:1-3; Romans 8:7).  It relies on a philosophy of the pattern of this world, which is keeping with human understanding and that which is sourced in self-interest.  The renewed mind understands that life decisions must be filtered through a new lens.  We are subject to a different standard that is keeping with who we are as citizens of heaven, indwelt with the Holy Spirit who provides illumination on how to bring life into alignment with God’s will and ways.  So as we think about life and all of its decisions, we should be in touch with that identity and what is in its best interest.

It does raise the question of how the Holy Spirit works in the faculties of the believer.  Does the Holy Spirit provide guidance by bypassing our thought process and just mechanically gives us answers and directives?   Or does the Holy Spirit invade the mind and influence our thoughts so that they align with the will of God?  I suppose that answer will rest on where one stands on the composition of our humanity, whether dichotomist (body and soul/spirit) or trichotomist (body, soul and spirit).   I also wonder that if we take the position that the Holy Spirit speaks to us separate from our mental faculties, if that means we are responsible for some decisions but God is responsible for others.  That does present some difficulties that I can’t even wrap my mind around at the moment.

I honestly believe that adopting the mentality that divine guidance must come through that ’small still voice’ or some other form of receiving a direct answer can be counter-productive to an authentic Christian life that must confront decisions on a daily basis – big and small.  I am not saying that God does not operate that way or there aren’t ‘impressions’ that are convictions of a direction that God would have us take.   But he did give us mental faculties to use that should be used to honor him.  If he just gave us the answer, how then would we grow and make choices that demonstrate our love for him?  Moreover, the fact that convictions come in the form of thoughts, I believe makes for a compelling case that the Holy Spirit very much works through out mental faculties, which we then should use for the glory of God in the decisions that we make.  In fact, I am of the opinion that the voice we ascribe to God speaking can actually be the Holy Spirit bearing on our own thoughts, which is what we may possibly hear.

If we are just listening to the voice separate from any type of mental engagement, then what is to prevent someone who is mentally challenged with proclivities towards distorted thought processes from declaring some divine directive that is nothing more than a product of that distortion?  I do believe that God can work through mental illness but that doesn’t prevent the impact that misunderstood and misapplied guidance can have those who are subject to that decision.  In fact, I have encountered ministries that I believe were either founded upon the spiritual leadership or run by someone who was mentally unstable.  As one who is not trained in this area, I can only speculate but I would bet money that this is far more prevalent than we probably think.

If the Holy Spirit can operate through the voice of reason, I suspect that the conscience very much plays a role in this facilitation.  The NT writers use the word conscience  (συνειδησις) 29 times and is associated with an inward conviction that aligns with a mindset that our thoughts, words or actions are consistent with our identity as believers in Christ.   The Greek-English lexicon (BDAG) renders the meaning of the word as “an inward faculty of distinguishing right and wrong”.   A few examples are here

Romans 2:15 – in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them.

1 Corinthians 8:10 – For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?

2 Corinthians 5:11 – Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, but we are made manifest to God; and I hope that we are made manifest also in your consciences.

Hebrews 9:14 – how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

It seems that everywhere conscience is used, it denotes that inward conviction that must bear on our decisions but nowhere denies the existence of decisions or having to think through what is the reasonable and God-honoring thing to do.  But several of the verses where ‘conscience’ is used indicates the need to keep it clear (Acts 23:1; 24:9; 1 Timothy 1:5, 19; 3:9; 2 Timothy 1:3; Hebrews 10:22; 1 Peter 3:16).  It’s why I believe Paul warns that the spiritually wayward will have a seared conscience (1 Timothy 4:2) that prevents subjection to God and his ways and how it can distort decisions we make.

So the bottom line is that I don’t think we should fear the voice of reason or relegate to a product of non-spiritual human understanding.  If our thoughts are filtered through the grid of prayer, scripture and an attitude of subjection to Christ, I believe the Holy Spirit can use them to align with the very direction that God would have us take as we think through what to do.

Quick shout out to my partner in crime.

2. Ever seen Enjoying God Ministries?

Many of you know that Sam Storms is a new host on Theology Unplugged with Tim and I. Enjoying God Ministries is his ministry. It is a wonderful resource for your studies.

3. Biblemap.com

I bet you did not know that this site was completely conceived and created by Tim Kimberly of Reclaiming the Mind Ministries. There is a reason why I have been trying to get this guy to join us since 2004!

4. Rob Kashow writes about “Why Confessional Institutions Are Problematic”

Interesting read. But don’t miss Dan Wallace’s response in the comments where he says, “[C]onfessional and non-confessional schools in America are often mirror images of each other, except that the starting presuppositions of one are decidedly different from those of the other.”

5. Just in case you missed our latest newsletter, here is a link

5. Just got this new book: The Passionate Intellect: Christian Faith and the Discipleship of the Mind

I get read everything McGrath writes. I think that this might be our next book of the month.

6. Speaking of the Reclaiming the Mind “Book of the Month Club” . . .

Support our ministry by selecting $100 a month reoccurring donation and receive a new theology book every month. We would really appreciate your partnership!

7. Scot McKnight moved again

Good move from Beliefnet to Patheos.

8. Boomer . . .

9. The best looking cookie I have ever seen

Mike and Diane Garrett who are part of The Theology Program in Cypress, TX finished up their semester with a celebration. After taking Trinitarianism (the third course of The Theology Program), they had a party and made this cookie.

One thing they said was that they did not know how to divide the essence of the Trinity! I don’t know if they ever cut it (or even could).

If you would like us to mention your blog or article on TAWi60, send your request to blog@reclaimingthemind.org. No guarantees, but I will do my best.

Other ways to get TUP:

Of course we have all be sitting on pins and needles waiting for such a definitive announcement, right? This information comes from his new book The Grand Design, his first major work in nearly a decade (to be released later this month). What makes this information news, I suppose, is that before this announcement, Hawking could have been labeled as an agnostic with quasi-deistic sympathies. In other words, if Hawking allowed for a God, it was not one like the Christian God and he/she/it was certainly not interested in the going-ons here on earth. ”The universe,” according to Hawking, ”is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws” (source). In other words, no miracles, no transcendent love, and no God becoming man. How he was privy to the information that “God does not intervene” is for his eyes only.

However, as I said, there has been a change. Hawking seems to have figured it out. In his new book he says that “Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.” He goes on, “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going.”

But I don’t get it. Aren’t we as rational being supposed to be rational? Is it really rational to say that something comes from nothing. What about the axiom, ex nihilo nihil fit, “out of nothing, nothing comes.” What if this “spontaneous generation” answer was permissible in our every day life? Me: “Will, who made this mess in your room?” Will: “Ummm…no one. It just appeared from nothing.” Fireman: “How did this fire start? Man: “It was just one of those things. Nothing started it.” Policeman: “Who robbed the bank.” Robber: “No one. The money is just gone and nothing caused it to go.”

As irrational as this “something from nothing” philosophy is in the real world, it cannot and should not get a better shake when it comes to religion. People often ask, “If God created everything who or what created God?” Many times we just stare with a blank look on their face, not knowing how to respond. However, we do have a response. It is called transcendence.

(Hang with me, I will get back to the Hawking kind of faith thing in a moment.)

We believe in a transcendent God. This is what we call a ”necessary” belief. “If something exists,” so the argument goes, “God must exist.” It is actually the best argument for God that is out there. If something exists, we have to have an adequate cause to explain it. This cause must be transcendent in order to avoid the infinite regress produced by the “If God created everything, who created God? Who created that which created God? Who created that which created that which created God?” You see, there must be an “ultimate cause.” This is called the “unmoved mover.” Because of the law of cause and effect (every effect has an sufficient cause) and because we know that time cannot go infinitely backward (or we would never reach the present because we would always have an infinity to go), we know that the “universe” in which God resides, must transcend the physical laws of our universe.

Back to Hawking…

Hawking understands well the ultimate atheist dilemma. It is not whether or not evolution can explain the the genesis of life. It is not whether God shows his face here and there. It is not even whether spiritual bodies can be scientifically proven. It is the problem of existence itself. Where did everything come from? The law of cause and effect says that there must be a sufficient explanation for existence. If there is no God, then there is no answer to the question, Why is there something rather than nothing?

However, Hawking has the answer. In his new book (from what I understand) he argues for the reality of multiple universes. From here he argues that if there are many universes (possibly an infinite number), one will have characteristics in physics that are much different than ours. One of these characteristics may be that it does not have to abide by the law of cause and effect. If so, in this universe, something can come from nothing.

At this point I pause and say to myself, Stephen Hawking believes in a god. You see, this is not so much unlike the tentative belief that aliens created our universe held by Richard Dawkins. In both cases, you have to have something above and beyond us which explains our existence. There must be something/someone which exists outside of our universe to explain the existence of our universe since the laws of our universe militate against self-creation. For Hawking there is a “universe” out there which is responsible for all things. Hawking’s creative universe where something can come from nothing carries the same basic and essential characteristic of the Christian view of God: transcendence. Sure, Christians add attributes to our understanding of God such as intelligence, love, and intervention, but the essential realm of existence is the same. God resides in a realm where the laws of physics do not have the same application. Why? Because he created them. They had their genesis with him through the creation of our time/space universe. God, in his essence, has no relation to time, space, or matter, therefore, he is not “under” the laws we are under. What we call heaven (often as a metonymy for God), Hawking calls “the universe where the same rules do not apply.” What this “universe” is like would most certainly be a great mystery to Hawking, but it exists nonetheless. Why? Because it must exist. There simply must be a sufficient explanation for all things. Therefore, Hawking believes in a mysterious creator of all things. Whether this creator is personal or not is not the issue right now. The point is that Hawking invokes a mysterious creator he calls “Other Universe.” This puts him in the religious camp of either pantheism or deism.

Does he worship this “other universe”? It depends on what you mean by “worship.” He credits it with the creation of all things, believes in its power and transcendence, and, now, is evangelizing on its behalf. But he does not have a relationship with it and does not believe it cares about him. Like Paul walking through Athens and noticing the alter built to the “unknown god” (Acts 17:23), Stephen Hawking has a similar alter with the same kind of generic name: “Another Universe.”

The point is that ultimately you have to avoid the “Where did it all come from?” question if you want to be a consistent atheist. Hawking’s pronouncement that God is not necessary dies the death of his own qualification. His faith step here is in the right direction, but needs to go further. I simply call on him to see that this God has revealed himself to us in the person of Jesus Christ and call us to a life of recognition and service to him.

Having said this, I do say what a brilliant mind Hawkins truly does have. Even though he is an unbeliever, he is shows God’s image so brightly in many ways.

I remember when I was a pastor at Stonebair Community Church. There was this lady that was trying to get her foot in the door of the church to hold a seminar on the dangers of Harry Potter. This is when the movie was first coming out and everyone was already reading the books. She attempted to tell us about the sorcery and witchcraft that was in it and how it was not a good movie for kids. We sent her on her way (to the church down the street!). There were simply bigger fish to fry. (Besides, I think we were all going to watch Harry Potter that night.)

One of the things that I believe is that culture is “amoral.” What I mean by that is that we need to be careful when we talk about the Christianity and the culture. Often the way we talk about it is in terms of Christianity vs. the culture or Christianity vs. the world. Culture is amoral in that in-and-of itself, it is not good or evil. It can exhibit traits of either. The world is not evil. The world without God (which is what we often mean) is evil because it is in rebellion toward God. But culture can be, and often is, a very good thing. Entertainment, arts, music, technology, government, and the like can be used for good or evil.

Take movies for instance. In so many ways, Hollywood can be a gift from God. The expression of creativity, instigation of laughter, and the opening of the imagination is a God glorifying venture. However, very often it can be a tool for evil, transforming worldviews by the powers of entertainment. An ancient Greek philosopher once said (and I paraphrase), “You can have the government, military, and schools, but give me the music and I control the people.” I have a feeling that today the this same philosopher would say the same thing about Hollywood. There is so much power there.

I love movies. Probably too much. Definitely too much. I always think about whether something is beneficial or not. I am continually asking if such and such movie is promoting good or evil. I often don’t know. However, I have come up with three rules of thumb that I use in evaluation. This is especially helpful when it comes to what I will let my kids watch.

Forgive my acronym, but it fits: CAN. You know…as in “Can I watch this daddy?”

Before I list them, understand that these three are in relation to sinful behavior in entertainment. The question is not simply does the movie contain sinful behavior (which is often where we stop), but does it have sinful behavior in relation to these three.

Celebrated
Accessible
Normalized

Celebrated

Is the sinful behavior celebrated? In other words, does the movie glorify the bad behavior.

Accessible

Is the sinful behavior accessible? This speaks to the practical nature of the behavior. Is it something that we can expect people to actually do?

Normalized

Is the sinful behavior normalized? This speaks to the cultural acceptance of the behavior. Is it something that says “Everyone is doing it, you should not be afraid to do the same?”

Now let’s flesh this out some. I am not saying that all of these things have to be present. Nor am I saying that only one will have to be present.

For example, take Harry Potter. Here we are almost a decade later. They are still making Harry Potter movies which gross a few hundred million each. Kids are still seeing them and they are still reading the books. Witchcraft is still evil. But you know what? I have never once in my life seen a warlock. We are not having a witch epidemic in this country. Even if you saw every one of the movies and read every one of the books there is virtually no chance you will be involved in more witchcraft than if you had not seen it. Millions of dollars and tons of time has been wasted by the church on all these Harry Potter warning campaigns. Why? Because the fantasy of Harry Potter is not accessible. It is just not the issue here in America. A young boy has no more likelihood to become a warlock by watching Harry Potter than does the same kid have a likelihood of becoming a superhero by watching Superman. The same is true with the Twilight trilogy. I have yet to see any vampires produced. Remember Star Wars and its relation to pantheism? One of the most watched movies of all time and you probably do not know any pantheists. While one might be able to argue that the “bad behavior” in these movies is celebrated, we have to realize that, for the most part, the accessibility is just not there. It is fantasy. 

Now take celebration. Often I find that movies contain bad behavior that are both accessible and normalized, but not celebrated. This is often a very good quality. A good illustration is country music. I live in Oklahoma where we love country songs. Its all about divorce, drinking, and bars. Bad stuff right? However, this does not mean that it always has an negative influence. You know what happens when you play a country song backward don’t you? You sober up, get your truck back, your girl back, and your dog back. The point is that in many (not all) country songs, they have so much bad behavior, but the consequences are depressing and sad. The behavior has serious consequences. It is not celebrated or glorified at all.

The Bible does the same. There is so much bad behavior that is accounted for in the Bible. Think about it. If Hollywood were to turn the Bible into film, it would most definitely be rated “R”. However, the evil actions are not celebrated.

I remember Denzel Washington, who is a Christian (from what I hear), would not play in the movie Training Day unless his character was killed at the end. He said that his character was so evil that he must suffer the consequences of his bad behavior. The question here is not whether or not the evil is present, but is it celebrated?

An opposite example is the 80’s sit-com Cheers. Some of you can hang with me here. It was my absolute favorite show on TV. I never missed an episode. What a cast. However, Sam Malone, the show’s central character, could not be accused of being a Christian moral example. He was a womanizer. Not only this, but he was a heroic womanizer, celebrated by every passer-by in every episode. The celebration of womanizing was a problem. It could create a sense in the viewer (especially males) that in order to be “successful” and liked by everyone, you have to be as much like Sam Malone as possible. Not only is womanizing celebrated, but it is accessible. People actually can and do become sexually promiscuous. It actually is a temptation.

Finally, another characteristic I look for is the normalization of the behavior. Sometimes the behavior, while it may not necessarily be celebrated, is accessible and normalized. A normalized behavior is one that everyone is doing. If there are no consequences, and the people who are participating are the “heroes” of the story, then this can have a negative influence. For example, premarital sex is normalized in most entertainment today to the point that if one does not participate, they are the odd fanatics. In the end, people want to be ”normal.” I want to be “normal.” This is not the issue. The issue is who do we let define normal? When bad behavior is normalized, whether it be premarital sex, homosexual behavior, drunkenness, or otherwise, this can be a sign that the entertainment will have a negative influence.

There are other issues involved, I know. Is this or that evil behavior gratuitous? Is the entertainment meant to be historical? These are all issues to think about. But what I have found is that these three questions cover most issues, whether it be movies, songs, or any other way we engage in entertainment.

Make-up is not the issue. I don’t want to go there. We all have scruples. That is not really a technical theological term, though it is in the dictionary. This is how it is defined: “An uneasy feeling arising from conscience or principle that tends to hinder action.” However, when it comes to our faith, scruples are hard to deal with. You have these militating  terms: grace and liberty.

When grace and liberty clash with “scruples,” more often than not, unfortunately, the scruples win. Why? Because we are so quick to sacrifice our liberty for the sake of the “weaker brethren.” Yes, this “weaker brethren” card is often pulled and legalists love it. In fact, it is used most often by those who are legalist wearing the disguise of those who are free. It is not that this card is illegitimate—it is not as if there are not true weaker brethren—but it is abused and the result is slavery.

I remember Chuck Swindoll talking about this saying: “Be careful, there are some people out there who are ‘professional weaker brethren.’”

“Kristie, I have scruples with this make-up thing. Maybe I cannot find a verse or a solid principle upon which to rest my theological head, but you need to be sensitive  and understanding to my hang-ups for the sake of my spirituality. One more year and my scruples will be gone.”

I highlighted some key words that legalists will use to manipulate the situation. “Sensitive,” “understanding,” “hang-ups,” “sake,” and most importantly, “my.”

From the other side, liberty is so often sacrificed.

“I don’t go to the movies because I don’t want to cause anyone to stumble.”

Often implied translation: “You should give up your liberty too if you want to be spiritual like me.”

“I don’t ever drink alcohol because a weaker brethren might see me and fall into sin.”

Often implied translation: “I have scruples with this issue and you should too.”

“If someone saw me befriending this person, they may think I am condoning their actions. Therefore, I sacrifice my liberty for the sake of their frailty.”

Often implied translation: “I can’t be friends with people who are that sinful.”

Okay, to the passage: Romans 14.

“As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions” (Rom 14:1 ESV).

“So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding. Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats” (Rom 14:1 ESV).

You see, here Paul is talking about one who is “weak in faith” who has scruples over the food that someone else was eating. Some were vegetarians and did not eat meat at all (probably because of its connection to the idol temples). They thought that it was morally wrong to eat meat. Paul makes it clear that it is not wrong in and of itself: “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself” (14:1a). However, because someone thinks it is wrong, for them it may be: “But it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean” (14:1). Therefore, when one of these “veggie only” guys is around, be careful or you might cause him to stumble (i.e. he will see you eating meat, and do what he believes to be wrong).

However, we can take this too far. I don’t think we are obligated to bow our liberty to everyone who has a problem with our actions. A “weaker brother” is one who is truly weaker, not just one who has a misguided interpretation of things. He is weaker because he has not been educated in these issues. You must understand, he is not supposed to or expected to stay “weaker.” Eventually, he is suppose to become stronger. Unfortunately, far too often these weaker brethren realize their power and become “professional weaker brethren.”

Don’t misread Paul. He certainly had no desire to compromise his liberty. We must temper the Romans passage with  Galatians:

“But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you” (2:4-5).

These “false brethren” should have played the “weaker brethren” card.

“Hey, Paul, you cannot do that or I will stumble.”

“Paul, what if there is someone who has scruples with what you are doing? Do you want them to stumble?”

In fact, they may have played these cards. However, Paul did not put up with it. Not for a second. Why? Because when you do, the Gospel is lost. Notice Paul said he did not subject to them even for an hour “so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.” Without liberty, there is no good news. Bondage only begets bondage. The Gospel is about being free.

Think about this: If we were to give in to every so-called weaker brethren what would the result be? We would always be bowing to the least common denominator. All actions would be off-limits. Think of all the things people have scruples with:

1. Going to movies
2. Dancing
3. “Mixed” bathing
4. Caffeine
5. Tobacco
6. Reading Harry Potter
7. Watching Glen Beck (because he is a Mormon)
8. Reading C.S. Lewis (because he denied inerrancy)
9. Sending my kids to public schools
10. Wearing flip flops to church
11. Drinking alcohol
12. Reading any Bible other than the KJV
13. Listening to Rock music
14. Going to church on Sat rather than Sun
15. Making a purchase that others think is a sinful waste of money
16. Playing video games that have blood
17. Taking anti-depressants
18. Women wearing pants
19. Saying “oh my God”
20. Going to a “seeker” church

For all of these things, I really do have representatives in my life right now. Every one of them would be offended if I crossed their line. If I were to follow this “no-offense” policy, I would be completely immobile in my life and actions. So would you.

“It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery” (Gal 5:1 NAS).

We need to be sensitive, but not to the point where we are simply fueling others’ faulty understanding and legalism. People will control you to the degree that you let them. If you allow this to go on without discernment, not only will you be immobile, but you will have lost your liberty. Lose liberty, lose the Gospel.

Believe it or not, there are people out there who hate our liberty and will do anything to make us lose it. Beware of “professional weaker brethren” (and those who yield to them).

Other ways to get TUP:

It is a trustworthy statement:

For if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him; 

    If we endure, we shall also reign with Him;

If we deny Him, He also will deny us; 

   If we are faithless, He remains faithful; for He cannot deny Himself.”

There is strong agreement that this passage, introduced by pistos ho logos (“this saying is trustworthy”), is an early creed set to meter. In other words, this is not Paul’s original composition, but was a common among the early church. It could have been a saying or a part of a hymn. This is significant as it demonstrates early Christian dogma which predates Paul’s letter by many years.

Each of the four lines is introduced with the conditional participle ei. The creed (or at least this part of it) seems to consist of two parallel sets of lines each of which represent escalation (climatic parallelism). I have distinguished by font and indentation here:

For if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him; 

    If we endure, we shall also reign with Him;

If we deny Him, He also will deny us; 

   If we are faithless, He remains faithful; for He cannot deny Himself.

In the first line, the protasis is a past tense, “If we died with him.” The second is set in the future, “we shall also live with him.” While Paul may not be the author of this creed, it does seem to represent Pauline influence. In Romans 6 Paul informs Christians that we have all died with Christ, meaning the old condemned man has been done away with, being buried with him (Rom. 6:2-3). It would then follow that the future “living with him” is not eschatological, but a present reality that follows our death with Christ. If we have died with him, we live with him becoming united in his resurrection (Rom. 6:8).

Our “enduring” is the subject of the next protasis. It would seem that it escalates the previous apodosis, “live with him.” Christ’s life was one of endurance, so we should expect the same (Rom. 12:12; 1 Cor 12:7; hupomeno). The final escalation, paralleling “live with him” is our future reigning with Christ. 

However, there is a turn in the creed. This turn is from one of hope, to a stern warning. The first person plural (“we”) is retained, but the protasis introduces the opposing option that people can take concerning Christ—denial. If we are to deny him, he will deny us. Our denial is the polar opposite of dying with him. Therefore, it would seem that this has to do with the progressive response of unbelievers (who neither die nor live with him), not a slip of faith like that of Peter who denied Christ three times. The fearful result is found in the apodosis, “he will deny us.” This denial is reminiscent of Christ’s words in Matt. 10:33. Christ’s repetition of this theme in his ministry demonstrates it importance in his message (Mark 8:38). 

What follows is hard to be too definitive about. “If we are faithless, he remains faithful.” Though this is often quoted as referring God’s perseverance in his love for us even when we are weak in faith, I don’t take it as such. Don’t get me wrong, I do believe that God is faithful to his promises when we waver (Rom. 3:3), but the creed here seems to be escalating in the direction that the previous stanza. If this is the case, “If we are faithless” is not a waver of faith from a Christian, but a result (or cause) of our denial (which it parallels). Supporting this is the use of the word apistos, which always, in the New Testament, references unbelief, not wavering unfaithfulness (Mark 16:11, 16; Luke 24:11, 41; Acts 28:24). Even in Roman 3:3 when Paul uses it, it speaks of the fact that unbelieving Israel does not make God unfaithful to his promises (further explained in Rom.9-11).

If this is the case, then the parallel continues in the apodosis of the last line of the creed. If we are unbelieving, Christ is still faithful. Faithful to what? To deny us in judgment. Why? ”Because he cannot deny himself.” His own character demands that those who don’t believe be judged.

Why all of this exegesis? Good question.

Because this early creed demonstrates how important it is for us to communicate both hope and warning, both heaven and hell. This is one of the first summary statements of the Christian faith ever created. In this summary, the church was not shy about the reality of what it means to deny Christ. They were not shy about how important God’s righteousness is to the Gospel message. They were not about to let the message of hope be lost, but neither were they going to sweep God’s righteous character, demanding of judgment and beyond being denied, under the rug of emotional accommodation.

This tells me that hope cannot be preached without warning. The sting of judgment has been their from the earliest creed. How can we compromise on it today?

The preacher used this story wisely to explain the danger of compromise. Like any preacher, he had examples that would take the eternal principle of compromise and contextualize it for our day so that we might see the immediate danger that we face (since most of us don’t have the temptation to take too many wives!). Yet the examples he gave evidenced the misplaced priorities of many in the church to misdirect the application of the principles to acts that in-and-of-themselves did not represent compromise.

Here is the list of examples of compromise he gave and expounded upon for nearly thirty minutes:

1. Going to the movies with an “R” rating.

2. Listening to a dirty joke at work.

3. Accepting a mixed drink at a party.

This preacher focused on the pressure that often comes to participate in these actions. He said that others will think you are a “goody-two-shoes” if you don’t take part, but if you do, you will have crossed the first line compromise which is the most dangerous line to cross. Following up these examples, he encouraged the listeners with these exhortations:

“We must obey God’s word”

“God’s word is not about not having fun”

“God knows best, and if he says don’t do these things, then we obey without question”

While I agree with what this preacher said about compromise, its danger, and about God knowing best, I felt that the examples he gave were irresponsible, representing a legalistic folk-theology which is more destructive than constructive. Not only this, but as I sat there and listened, I found myself thinking, “This guy has compromised by giving these examples without qualification.”

I want to focus on the example of drinking for just a moment to illustrate what I mean. Let me loosely quote how the illustration was laid out:

“If you are at a party and someone tries to give you a mixed drink, what do you do? You say, ‘I am a Christian and I don’t drink.’ But what if the person says come on, just one. You say ‘I really can’t.’ Then the person just tells you to hold the drink and you do. . . This is compromise.”

From the preacher’s point of view, the person crossed a dangerous line of compromise by even holding the drink. Holding the drink will cause you to take a drink and then, as the preacher said, say, “Give me another.”

The assumption behind this illustration is that drinking an alcoholic drink—especially a mixed drink—is the sin that we must avoid at all costs. This is where I think this preacher has compromised himself. He has given in to the temptation of setting up a legalistic standard. He has built a wall of protection around a sinful act and the wall itself has become the object of sin.  Drinking an alcoholic drink—even a mixed drink—is not a sinful act (much less holding a drink compromise).

Instead of listening to this, I would like you all to take a few theology courses:

“Under the Law Again” 101, room 314 - 1pm-1:15

“How to Scare Sin Out of People” 201, room 500 – 3pm-4pm

“How to Return to the Oldness of the Letter” 301, room 225 - 6am-10am (once a week)

“The Pharisees Were Right – How Evangelicals are Antinomianism Historical Revisionists” 1100 (doctrate level), room 220 - 5pm-until you get it!

I sat at a friends house not too long ago and had a glass of Cognac and a cigar (they are supposed to go good together). While I don’t really drink often, I have no problem drinking beer or even mixed drinks. I even had a shot of Tequila not long ago (and that is not even mixed with anything!). This issue is not drinking, but being controlled by alcohol. Even then, the issue is not simply that God does not like an altered state of consciousness that drinking causes, but it is being out of control.

Ephesian 5:18 “And don’t get drunk with wine, which leads to reckless actions, but be filled with the Spirit [which does not].”

Notice, the emphasis is on the “reckless actions,” not simply an altered state of consciousness. The encouragement of Paul is to be “filled with the Spirit.” This does not refer to an esoteric state of mind, but one of perpetual control being given to God, not something else. The Bible speaks much about drunkenness (i.e. being controlled by alcohol as a lifestyle) because it encourages a state of being where your actions are perpetually in your own control so that you might yield that control to God.

We must balance the warning passages in Scripture with those that speak positively about alcohol. Some encourage its celebratory, medicinal, and emotional purposes and effects.

John 2:1-11: Christ turns water into wine (“the best wine”) so that the marriage celebration could continue. If holding a drink is compromise, how much more so was Christ’s actions? Let’s face it—Christ was a bartender here.

Psalm 104:14-15 14: “He [God] causes the grass to grow for the cattle, And vegetation for the labor of man, So that he may bring forth food from the earth, 15 And wine which makes man’s heart glad, So that he may make his face glisten with oil, And food which sustains man’s heart” (emphasis mine). Here, “wine which makes man’s heart glad” is spoken of as a gift from God.

Proverbs 31:6-7: “Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to him whose life is bitter; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more. (emphasis mine). Here, strong drink and wine are encouraged to be given to those who are in pain.

1 Timothy 5:23: ”Don’t continue drinking only water, but use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.” Paul encourages Timothy to drink wine for his ailing stomach.

Deuteronomy 14:26 “Spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.” The NET Bible translates “strong drink” as “beer.” The NJB translates it “fermented liquor.”

Even Christ was accused of being a drunkard. Why? Because he drank alcohol!

Matt 11:18-19: “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon!’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!”

The sin of being controlled by alcohol is spoken of in the Scriptures as being very serious and many people are effected—even destroyed—by this in our culture. I understand. Alcohol can cause them to be someone who they are not, thereby dishonoring God and His image which they bear. It can lead to destructive behavior. We must do our best to be in control of ourselves if we are to have a consistent witness. But we have to realize that drinking itself is not the sin. And we should not attempt to build walls around it so that it is.

Please know that I understand the dangers of alcohol. Believe me I do. Both sides of my family have members who are totally controlled by alcohol. My sister was controlled by both alcohol and prescription drugs before she took her life. For these and others with this problem, the simple act of holding a drink might be compromised were they attempting to overcome their addiction. However, this compromise would not be unlike the glutton who eyes a chocolate bar, the sex addict who watches a movie with slight sexual provocation, or the person with anger problems owning a gun. If you have a particular bent to certain sins, you must know yourself well enough to act wisely with regards to its provocation. But this does not mean that assumptions must be made about everyone’s ability to handle the same circumstances.

In the end, these things must be dealt with carefully and with much wisdom. We must understand that the possible abuse of something neither makes the abuse necessary or even likely. Most importantly, we must recognize that it is a sinful compromise to deem that which is not sinful sinful, due to misapplied folk theology, no matter how good our intentions are. Drinking alcohol is not sinful. Let us get over this legalistic fascination and represent the principle truly and with perspective.

Some may say that it is irresponsible for me to say such things because of how some will take it. It is true. I know some people will take this the wrong way and see it as a license to sin. But how much more wrong is it for me to build walls around the truth in fear that someone will abuse it? I can’t temper my understanding or teaching upon how it might be mishandled and abused. I will leave room for the Holy Spirit.