Our esteemed and honored 1st VP suggested something on Facebook, and in the space of about 3 minutes, we have the core of a plan. However, its an idea that would require some pre-planning and organization, so I thought I’d float it and see what the folks at Voices thought of the idea.

The SBC is in Baltimore next year. Baltimore is near Washington DC. I’m guessing most of you are aware that Washington DC is where the President and Congress work? I went over that for the sake of our SEC fans.

Anyway, we were thinking of gathering in Washington DC, perhaps on Saturday before the Convention, to have a time a prayer for our nation’s leaders. As one man pointed out, we can pray effectively from anywhere, but the idea of having a prayer time in the Capitol sounds pretty appealing to me.

So, I’m just wondering how many would try to make this a priority, and come a day early to DC to pray? My guess is that a few of you might be planning a little DC pitstop anyway.

There are arrangements that would have to be made. Permits. Etc.

So, I guess I’m just putting it out there. What do you think?

This article was originally posted at my site. Only some of my articles are posted on SBC Voices. If you would like access to all of my articles, you can follow my feed here. You can also connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.

A Brief Review or Critique

Summary

C. S. Lewis seeks to help other amateurs understand the Psalms in his book Reflections on the Psalms (2). His purpose is not to examine the theology of the Psalms, for he argues that this is not their purpose; he does not even seek to sermonize them, for he argues that this is not their purpose either (2). The purpose of the Psalms then rests on the fact that they are poems meant to be sung in worship to God (2). They must be read as poems if they are to be properly understood in light of the authors’ intentions (3).

Lewis’ “amateur” attempt at gleaning from Psalms begins with his emphasis upon the Psalms’ “Judgments” (ch. 2). He points to the fact that God’s judgment in the Psalms causes the righteous to rejoice as one (9). The righteous furthermore request the righteous judgment of God in response to the wrongdoing of the wicked (10-11). They trust that though God’s judgment may not be immediate, it will surely come in His timing (11-12). Finally, Lewis briefly examines the dangers for those who look forward to God’s judgment (17). These individuals must realize that they are not righteous (for no one is, save Christ), but may be in the right (17). Furthermore, the character of the individual is irrelevant in determining whether either individual is in the right or wrong within a specific situation (17-18).

Lewis’ examination of the cursings—those Psalms that have a spirit of hatred or happiness in the failings of others (20-21) —then follows (ch. 3) (20-33). He points to some of the most-difficult passages in Psalms to interpret.  He calls these Psalms contemptible (21-22) and devilish (25). Lewis believes these Psalms distort the truth of God, but God’s hatred for sin is yet shown somehow through them (32).

Death in the Psalms in then reviewed (ch. 4). Lewis argues that in most parts of the Old Testament there is little or no mention or no belief in a future life beyond this world (36). He believes that there is meaning lost is the translating process from Hebrew to English (36). For examples, he refers to “soul” in the English translation as actually meaning “life” in the Hebrew, “hell” actually meaning “land of the dead,” and the state of all the dead—good and bad—being “Sheol (36).” The early Jews, unlike the New Testament writers, spoke very little about eternal life (38-39). Lewis argues however that God may have spoken about and inspired writers to write little on the subject because of the Egyptian and surrounding nations’ obsession with the afterlife (39-40). He finally argues that in place of their hope of heaven and eternal life, the early Jews focused on temporal peace and provision on earth (42-43).

In chapter 5, Lewis discusses “the fair beauty of the Lord.” He argues that when the Jews discuss seeing the Lord or wanting to be with Him, they are describing being in the temple, the central aspect of their worship to God (44-48). The early Jews did not separate “beholding the Lord” and the act of worship itself (48). Though Gentile readers are unfamiliar with the temple and other Jewish elements of worship found in the Psalms, Christians can still glean from the Psalms’ God-centered emphasis and its pointing to the highest degree of joy found in God Himself alone (49-53).

The “Sweeter than honey” aspect of the Psalms is examined next (ch. 6). In this chapter Lewis gleans how the Psalmists describe God’s law as “delicious (54-55).” He finds this peculiar, and yet, he understands that the Psalmist has delicately woven his meticulous love for God’s Law into his poetry (56-60). Lewis further gleans that God’s Law is righteous, not because He decided it would be righteous, but because God Himself is righteous (61-62). Thus, God’s Law can be nothing but righteous, for it comes from God, flowing from His nature (61-62). These Psalmists then must see God’s Law as delicious especially when compared to the sodomy, sexual immorality, and human sacrifice of its neighboring religions (62-63). Christians today too can find God’s Law delicious due to the immorality surrounding them as well; however, with this delight in the Law, there is a danger that the sinful Christian will turn this into delighting in himself (64-65).

What Lewis calls “Connivance” is discussed next (ch. 7). He begins this chapter by arguing that God’s Word not only condemns those who do evil, but those who do nothing about evil as well (66). According to Lewis, silence concerning surrounding evil is indirect approval (67). Christians however must be very careful that in coming against evil, they do not become Pharisees (67). He furthermore argues that Christians should avoid, where they can, wicked men, because they are too weak to endure the temptations, and will at least silently approve of their neighbors’ wickedness (71-72). Lewis does argue however, that if Christians will argumentatively, not dictatorially, disagree with the individual(s), it will glorify God, and may cause the hearer to eventually repent (73). He then concludes this chapter pointing to the evils of the tongue described by the Psalter (74-75).

Lewis then examines “Nature” in the Psalms (ch. 8). He begins this chapter pointing to the fact that the early Jews in the Psalms were largely peasants and very familiar with the land in which they lived (76-77). Cities like we see today were non existent (76-77). Furthermore, the Jews could use nature to point to the attributes of their God, because He created nature (77-83). This separated Israel from pagan nations because nature, according to their gods, is presupposed, while in Judaism, God is presupposed (77-83). Lewis then notes that not only is humanity utterly and helplessly dependent upon God, but all creation needs and depends on Him as well (83-85). He concludes this chapter examining a 14^th Century B.C. Egyptian named Akhenaten and his poem Hymn to the Sun (85-89).

“A Word about Praising” is examined next (ch. 9). Lewis argues that God should be praised because of who He is and because He commands it (90-93). For those who enjoy God, praise is the natural result of their joy (93-96). Because of its sinfulness, the church’s praise today is simply a .01 % (if even this) comparison of the praise occurring in heaven now and that will occur in the future as well (96-97).

In chapter 10 Lewis examines “Second Meanings” in the Psalms. In this chapter, he refers to the Scriptures’ additional allegoric meaning (99). In order to determine whether the Psalms should all be viewed as allegorical, he examines the difference between prophecy, luck, and fact (103-104). Lewis spends the rest of this chapter trying to show his readers that intrinsically in God’s world there is truth accessible to non-Christians that unknowingly points to Christ because of humanity’s need for Him; evil naturally always seeks to “crucify” that which is good (104-108).

Lewis then examines how “Scripture” has second meanings as well (ch. 11). The first reason he gives for the multiple meanings of Scripture is because the Scriptures must be approached in a Neo-orthodox fashion (109-117). The second and final reason is that in Luke 24:26-27 Jesus taught that He Himself is the second meaning of the Old Testament (117-119).

In the final chapter, Lewis examines the “Second Meanings” found in the Psalms (ch. 12). He begins by pointing to the sufferer and conquering king (120). The sufferer he argues is identified as Israel and the king is the coming Messiah (121). Lewis furthermore points to David and Meclchizadek typifying Christ (122-124). He then briefly examines various Psalms that point ahead to God the Holy Spirit and Christ (124-127). This is followed by an examination of Christ and His bride, the church (127-132). Lewis concludes this chapter with a brief examination of the humanity of Christ; and a brief summary of the contents of this book (132-138).

Evaluation

Interacting with Lewis’ work is a daunting task because the man is a literary giant, and I’m not equal in comparison. Although Lewis did not seek to make theological arguments concerning the Psalms, because this is not their purpose (2), when studying the Scriptures, theological conclusions cannot be avoided because theology is “the study of God” and the Bible is a book about God. Furthermore, though the Psalms are indeed a collection of hymns that are to be sung to God (2), this does not mean that they are not theological in nature. After all, Christians must assume that God wants to be exalted (since the Scriptures throughout testify to this reality), and the only songs that do exalt Him, are true songs. Where the Psalter speaks, God speaks. I agree with much of Lewis’ “gleanings” throughout this book. There are however, several issues that need to be addressed. Due to the limits of time and space, only one example will be used for each issue.

The first issue that needs to be addressed is Lewis’ declaration that the cursing Psalms are wicked. Lewis references Psalm 137:9 as “devilish” because it says that a person will be happy if he takes up a Babylonian baby and smashes him or her against a rock (20-21). Lewis was on the right track when he argued that God’s hatred for sin is somehow shown through these Psalms (though he also argued that they distort the truth of God) (32). If these Psalms are “contemptible” and “devilish” as Lewis purports, then this must also mean that the acts they describe must also be “devilish” and “contemptible.” The problem with this assumption is that, carried to its consistent end, it calls into question the holiness of God. God Himself told Saul to kill all the Amalekites, including women and children; God Himself sent the flood to drown literally over a million people, including babies; the list can go on and on. In order to fit these “cursings” into the rest of Scripture, the best interpretation is that these Psalms are seeking to guard the holiness of God. Instead of viewing these as “hatred,” it is just as easy and more biblically sound to view them as a holy, righteous jealousy for God’s glory. Furthermore, if these Psalms were indeed sung to God, I seriously doubts that He would want to have “devilish” words sung to Him in worship.

The second issue that needs to be addressed is Lewis’ reference to there being little reference to eternal life in the Old Testament.  Though this is an interesting observation, I do not really understand the significance of including this in his book.  After all, “little” reference still means that there are clear references to eternal life in the Old Testament.  Because of these clear references, one cannot conclude that early Jews did not believe in eternal life.  However, it must be noted that Lewis’ reference to God inspiring writers to write little about the subject due to Him desiring their sanctification (in light of the surrounding pagan nations) is thought-provoking.

The third issue I observed is Lewis’ encouragement of Christians to withdrawal from culture in chapter 7 (71). He argues that it is good for Christians to basically avoid meetings with wicked people (71). I understand his argument, but I believe he is Pharisaical in this “gleaning.” The Bible indeed tells Christians to avoid every form of evil (1 Thess. 5:22); however, the question comes, “Is it evil to voluntarily surround oneself with wicked people?” The answer must be an emphatic “no” even with a cursory glance at Jesus’ life. I agree with Lewis that silence concerning surrounding evil is indeed indirect approval. The problem is that Christ has commanded the church to be salt and light (Matt. 5:13-16), and if His church is always surrounded by salt and light by choice, then they can never really shine in or permeate the darkness. The answer is being “in the culture” without being “of the culture.” Although I believe Lewis intended what I wrote above, I believe he should have been more precise in his description.

The fourth and final issue I observed was Lewis’ Neo-orthodox approach to the Scriptures. Based on Lewis’ own words, it seems he holds that the Scriptures are not the Word of God literally, but the words of God written in the words of men. For example, on page 97, Lewis says concerning “the bargaining Psalms,”

 As for the element of bargaining in the Psalms (Do this and I will praise you), that silly dash of Paganism certainly existed. The flame does not ascend pure from the altar. But the impurities are not its essence. And we are not all in a position to despise even the crudest Psalmists on this score. Of course we would not blunder in our words like them.

Lewis clearly says here that some of the Psalms were not divinely inspired or if they were, that they are not the “essence” of what God intended. They are not as “pure” as they were on the altar. He believes something is lost when God’s infinite Word is given to the finite. The problem with this is that Christians are only left with ectypal knowledge of God; and thus, God may be unknowable.

Lewis furthermore makes his Neo-orthodox approach clear on pages 111-117. Concerning the Scriptures, he says, “The human qualities of the raw materials show through. Naivety, error, contradiction, even wickedness are not removed (111).” Furthermore, Lewis argues:

The total result is not “the Word of God” in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science or history. It carries [Emphasis mine] the Word of God; and we (under grace, with attention to tradition and to interpreters wiser than ourselves, and with the use of such intelligence and learning as we may have) receive that word from it not by using it as an encyclopedia or an encyclical but by steeping ourselves in its tone or temper and so learning its overall message (112).

If the Scriptures only “carry” the Word of God, then how can the church know which ectypal aspect carries enough archetypal truth for His church to know Him? The answer is that the church cannot know if the Neo-orthodox view is true.

In the same vein as above, Lewis argues for more than one meaning for the Scriptures themselves. He writes:

If the Old Testament is a literature thus “taken up,” made the vehicle of what is more than human, we can of course set no limit to the weight or multiplicity of meanings which may have been laid upon it (117).

This quote is interesting because on page 121 Lewis says, “What we see when we think we are looking into the depths of Scripture may sometimes be only the reflection of our own silly faces.” He furthermore calls some allegorical interpretations of various texts, “strained,” “arbitrary,” and “ridiculous (121).” I wonder if there are multiple meanings and the Scripture writers’ words only “carry” the Word of God, how then Lewis can come against any interpretation. I believe he is being inconsistent, wanting to “have his cake and eat it too.” I further believe Lewis’ arguments “fly in the face” of all of Scripture. Thank God, however, that Lewis chose to be inconsistent and serve a knowable God.

In conclusion, although Lewis claims Reflections on the Psalms is an “amateur” attempt at gleaning from the Psalms, it must be noted that if Lewis is an amateur, then I’m a beginner. Although I have some major issues with some of Lewis’ theology, this does not mean solid Christians should not read this book. I wouldn’t recommend this book to young or immature Christians, but all mature Christians should read this work. Lewis is a literary giant, and all of his books are beneficial to discerning believers. This book is no different, and should be read if for its illustrations alone. Moreover, most of this work, the overall majority, will be beneficial and encouraging to its readers. Lewis succeeded in his purpose to examine the poetry in the Psalms; however, he only somewhat succeeded in his purpose to understand the Psalms in light of the authors’ intentions.

What are your thoughts?

This article was originally posted at my site. Only some of my articles are posted on SBC Voices. If you would like access to all of my articles, you can follow my feed here. You can also connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.

“You never met a fence you didn’t straddle.” 

Those were the words of a “frenemy” – someone I enjoy interacting with in the real world, but usually cross swords with online. We were discussing the Gospel Project breakfast in Houston and the interesting discussion between Ed Stetzer, Eric Hankins, Trevin Wax and Jonathan Akin. Akin articulated a hardcore “Christ-centered” hermeneutic. Eric Hankins advocated a hermeneutic that was more grammatical-historical and emphasized authorial intent more strongly. Trevin seemed, to me at least, to fall in between the two in his approach. I told this other man that I was probably somewhere between Eric Hankins and Trevin Wax on this one. To him, this was a sign of weakness – that I was too wishy-washy to make up my mind. Of course, I countered that he was only able to see black and white and was unable to see any gray scale in between. He viewed my position as a lack of conviction and I viewed his as a lack of appreciation for theological subtlety.

I’m not here to fight that battle – it was playful and no one left with their feelings hurt. But his comment got me thinking, because it is safe to say that my blogging would represent me generally as one in the middle on a lot of issues. Blogging is the only place I’ve ever been accused of being moderate. In real life, words like dogmatic, rigid, and opinionated are more common. I received a t-shirt one time, which I have worn almost completely out.

I’m not opinionated. I’m just always right. 

But, in blogging I have advocated for respect, grace and understanding, for unity in spite of our theological convictions. So, that comment got me thinking. Have I lost my passion for truth? Am I wishy-washy? Do I truly lack theological and spiritual conviction? I do not think that is the case. But, as the years have gone on, I have developed a new conviction, one that has moved me toward the middle on a lot of issues.

Most of the issues we argue about are not black and white, but shaded in a palate of grays. 

No human-contrived theological system is ever going to corner the market on biblical truth or account for all the biblical facts. These systems have varying degrees of truth, but each is also fraught with imperfection and inadequacy.

• Calvinism has truth, but the Reformed system does not hold all truth. Traditionalists have some truth, but not all truth. They are not, I believe, equally true. I think the Calvinist formulation is much closer to truth than the Traditionalist – that is my understanding. But neither side holds all truth, nor is either side so fundamentally flawed as to fall outside the range of biblical truth.
• Cessationists have some truth (granted – not much), but they have a little. Charismatics have some truth, which they often take to scary extremes. To me, the continuationist position is closest to biblical truth,  but it does not hold the monopoly.

Parenthetical story: at the convention, Bart Barber offered to share his WiFi connection with me. I gave him my computer to enter the password. He did so, then opened my Facebook and posted a note in my name that I had rejected continuationism and embraced cessationism. One friend, whom I won’t name, because I don’t want to embarrass Joel Rainey, made this statement. “There is more supporting evidence in the Bible for keeping a concubine than there is for cessationism.” What insight!  Don’t you cessationists agree? I kid. I kid!

• There is much truth and insight to be gleaned from the Christ-centered hermeneutic. But Eric Hankins made a lot of sense to me as well – emphasizing grammatical-historical interpretation and authorial intent. (NOTE: for both sides, it was a matter of emphasis. Both sides acknowledged the value of the others’ point.)
• Being culturally relevant has a lot of positives and a lot of downsides. It’s not black and white, it’s gray, gray, and gray.  (I’m trying hard to avoid saying “shades of gray” so our smark-aleck brigade can’t bring in pop-culture references.)

So, yes, I think most of the time, in our internecine battles, the truth is somewhere in the middle. The extremes often accept some truth to the exclusion of other truth. In fact, I believe this basic truth.

Most biblical truth is held in tension (even conflict) with another biblical truth.

God is one, but also three. Christ was fully God and fully man. We are completely accepted by God in Christ; we must strive to please God through holy living. We are kept in Christ for eternal life, but we must also persevere. Most biblical truth is held in tension with other biblical truth and it is beyond the ability of the human mind to resolve those conflicts (called antinomies).

And, because this is true, on most issues in theology and Christian living, the extremes tend to have a point, but the truth is often found in the gray areas between the deep black and the bright white. I a afraid that those who hold absolute certainly on their theological systems often do so less on the basis of sound, comprehensive exegesis, and more by reliance on human theological systems.

And NOW, to My Point!

I have now devoted almost 900 words to setting up the point of this post. I know that is a mistake, because many folks just read the first paragraph or two and jump to the comments. But, as an advocate of calm, of unity, of peaceful discussions, of a moderated tone in our blogging discussions, I want to make one thing absolutely clear.

There is a time when faithfulness to God demands harsh, intolerant and unyielding words. Sometimes, harsh words are God’s will and anything less is compromise!

Jesus’ Harsh Words in Matthew 23

I wish I had a buck for every time someone has invoked the harsh words of Jesus in Matthew 23 as justification for their harsh words to their fellow Baptists. In fact, there was a short trend a few years ago to rewrite Matthew 23 to specifically direct it toward those with whom the blogger disagreed. We are on shaky ground when we rewrite God’s word as a method of attack. I saw one where conservatives were the Pharisees, another which applied to the Baptist Identity crowd. Both were wrong. It is never justified to direct the harsh words of Jesus against our brothers and sisters in Christ.

But, the fact remains that Jesus spoke harsh words in Matthew 23. He called the Pharisees some pretty strong names.

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves. Matthew 23:13-15

Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind fools!  Matthew 23:16-17

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. Matthew 23:27-28

And, the coup de grace…

You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. Matthew 23:33–36

Honestly, is it any wonder they wanted to kill him? Those are harsh words. So, the perfect Son of God insulted the Pharisees personally. He had a conviction about the Pharisees that was so strong that this sinless Lamb was justified in calling them these awful names. He was harsh, and it was God’s will.

Does that not justify us when we use harsh words? Doesn’t that mean that if we have a strong conviction, we can battle those with different opinions forcefully, as Jesus did? NO! NO! NO!

We must remember who the Pharisees were. They were not errant brothers. They were not Christians with a different perspective on end times events. They were false teachers proclaiming a false gospel that led those who followed them to hell. Look back at verse 15. The Pharisees were leading their followers not to God, but to hell. I wrote on this some time ago, and identified the work of the Pharisees. They attempted to articulate a path whereby human beings, on their own strength, could fulfill the law of God. They were providing a false path to God.

Jesus’ harsh words were reserved for those who proclaimed a false gospel of legalistic righteousness that would condemn its followers to eternal hell. 

Paul’s Harsh Words in Galatians

Paul also had some harsh words for people in Galatians – words that we could not probably accurately translate and describe in our pulpits.

In Galatians 1:6-9, Paul sets the theme for the book.

 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

Paul brought the gospel to Galatia – that Jesus died on the Cross for our sins and rose again as Lord, offering eternal life to those who believe – and now people were abandoning that gospel for “another gospel.” Paul was flabbergasted that they would turn from the saving truth of the true, biblical gospel to false gospels that can only condemn. There is only one true gospel, one saving faith, Paul maintains, and that gospel was being perverted by people who were “troubling” the Galatian believers. And Paul had no uncertain words for those who proclaim a false gospel.

“Let him be accursed.”

It is a strong word, anathema, and means to be given over to God’s condemnation and judgment. Paul was not playing around. “May those who proclaim a false gospel be eternally condemned to a fiery hell where they cannot lead anyone else astray.”

Later, in Galatians 2:11-14, Paul confronts Peter about his hypocrisy. That is very different. It is redemptive and comparatively gentle. “You are wrong, my brother.” That is very different from his words to those who proclaim the false gospel.

But in Galatians 5:11-12, Paul says something that would make many of our members cringe. He says,

But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!

There is a wordplay here that is only evident in the Greek. The word for circumcision is peritome – to cut around. I’ll let you google that if you need a diagram or more information. But in verse 12, he uses the word apokopto – to cut off. Basically, Paul is wishing that these guys that are so interested in cutting around it would just go ahead and cut it off. Them’s fighting words, of course – a violent and harsh word.

Did Paul not know about love and tolerance? Did he not know that he must always be “positive and encouraging?” Paul realized something we must not forget.

When someone is advocating a false gospel, it is no time for words of kindness and unity. Strong words are the only godly response to false gospels.

I am convinced that most of our disagreements are family discussions. Exegesis and rational discussion are the order of the day. Neither Calvinists nor Arminians (or the points between) are enemies of the gospel. Neither the culturally relevant and the cultural traditionalists are enemies of the gospel. Even cessationists are not enemies of the gospel. We must treat our disagreement on such issues properly – honoring one another, guarding our words and yes, seeing all the grays in between the extremes.

But as to the gospel, there can be no compromise. We can still be tactful, perhaps. There is no need to adopt the methods of the Westboro cult. But when someone is advocating a false gospel among us, we must not tolerate it or sugarcoat our response.

It is important to note that I said “advocating.” Most people have believed a false gospel of religious ritual and good works. They are relying on their baptism, on the Lord’s Supper, on their efforts to be a good person to win God’s favor. They are deceived; victims of false teachers. Adherents of false religions are not our enemy, they are those for whom we fight! They must be loved and the gospel must be patiently and carefully proclaimed to them. But those who advocate false gospels that damn to hell for all eternity must not be mollycoddled (yes, I’m old), tolerated or received as fellow-Christians. They must be answered forcefully and clearly – especially those who work within the church to lead God’s people astray.

The harsh words of Jesus and Paul were reserved for those who preached a false gospel. We cannot tolerate what God condemns.

For those who are familiar with my writing, this will come as no surprise: personal stories that examine the point of encounter between life and theology fascinate me.  However, I do not “out” people, spewing their private struggles across the internet for all to see.  Personal stories inspire my thoughts and drive my writing, yet I am not writing about any one person.  If you see yourself or someone you know in my  reflections, it is only because I’m referencing experiences that are far more common than any of us realize.

Jeffrey is a Christian.

He reads his Bible.  He lives as a disciple, not just a convert.  He is involved in the local church and makes his personal witness open and obvious.  Sure, little pet sins surface randomly, like those mushroom rings that sprout irresistibly from nowhere and for no reason.  Nothing remarkable, though still worthy of repentance.

While unanswerable questions abound – Calvinism, alcohol, homosexuals in the church – they don’t really grab his attention.  If you really want to reel him in, to set the hook and compel him to think and emote, ask deaf Jeff about his hearing family.

“Dad bludgeoned me into attending the reunion again, saying he would make sure I know what is going on.  Same old story, year after year – ‘I’ll help you understand!’  Never came to pass.  This always happens, and I always swear it is the last family event I’ll ever attend.  I was in the room the entire time, and I was clueless.  Even when I’m far away, I have no idea what is going on.  My folks never write.  They don’t mess with email, nor do they text; they are phone people.  Always calling someone, never writing. Being deaf, I need something I can see; you know, like an email.  Guess who didn’t know about my uncle’s cancer?  My sister’s gall bladder surgery?  My grandparents’ impending move from their home of 47 years?  Yeah…that would be me.

“Mom always took me to church, a hearing church.  She doesn’t like deaf churches, but never felt comfortable explaining the hearing sermon to me.  ’Just watch the preacher’s lips,’ she would say.  Yeah, lip-reading from 30 feet.  That’s great.  Wasted 10 adult years before getting past that and finding someone who would tell me the gospel in a language I can understand.”

“I’ve been around the world, you know.  North Africa, South America, Russia – all on mission trips.  You know what?  It’s the same thing all over.  Deaf folks around the world say the same things I do:  ’I  made it through Christmas/Easter/ Ramadan/New Year’s/birthday party with my family – ugg.  After a mere 8 hours of watching my hearing family sing/talk/laugh/listen to music/have a great time, I was finally able to sneak away and meet my Deaf friends. I get so tired of having to be there when they don’t seem to care that I’m around.’

“And it’s not like I have any answers.  I can’t point to the hordes of Deaf Christians in different parts of the world who have resolved these questions because quite simply I don’t know of any.”

Jeff’s struggle is not simply what to do when these issues come along.  If only it were that simple.

There’s a perpetual, always-open scar from all of this; years and years of daily wrongs, never resolved because they never cease.  Jeff is never fully included, apparently never listened to, never quite equal with everyone else.  This isn’t stuff limited to childhood; we all have lingering issues from Mom and Dad.  Instead, these are lifelong experiences fundamental to the Deaf experience.  These relational scrapes and bruises never heal because they never end.  In fact, they hurt worse as folks age; a 12-year old has no idea exactly how wrong it is to be so excluded from his family.  A 48-year old  knows quite well, and as a result the pain and outrage are greater.

“How do I tolerate my brothers telling me that I should try harder to keep up with the family’s conversation, as if there is some muscle I can flex to hear better.  I do my best – when are they going to do the basics to keep me involved?  You know – maybe making sure I can see their faces when they talk.  Or turning on the lights in the evening so I can see.  Or not sitting outside at the beach, chatting while looking at the stars.  It’s not rocket science, folks.”

How does Jeffrey tell new Deaf Christians to manage the emotions of all of this?  The emotion of all those years of living on the edge of their families, scrabbling to understand?  Crossing over to spend more time in the Deaf community than with their siblings, then living a lie while pretending to understand what is happening at family gatherings?  Realizing they would never feel as much of a part of the family as everyone else?  Day by day, facing some sort of reminder of their position in life – at the bottom, free to catch only the informational crumbs that fall from the family’s table?

It isn’t really about deafness, you know.

How does a godly woman bear up under the weight of a father who spends his time berating, criticizing, lambasting her for imagined failures and petty flaws?  Does she forgive him, every day, and return tomorrow for a little more?  Or does she reach a point where she stands and walks away in order to “take care of herself”?

When church members tolerate repeated verbal attacks from the same cadre of fellow-Christians, week after week, project after project – what’s the solution?  When the events are never resolved, never put to bed, and never, ever ending – what happens?  Leave the church?  Or do we heed Paul’s impassioned “Why not let yourselves be wronged?”

In 1 Samuel, we read about how King Saul spent years chasing David, a self-proclaimed flea hiding in the desert.  After a final encounter, Saul admitted his flaws and accepted the inevitability of David’s ascent to the throne.  He even called for David to return to his side, but 1 Samuel tells us that “…David went on his way, and Saul returned to his place.”

How did David manage the emotions of all this?  Those years of living in caves, scrabbling to survive?  Crossing over to the Philistines, living a lie while running raids in the desert, residing far from family and houses of stone?  Realizing he was the head of a rabble of malcontents and tax cheats?  Day by day, I imagine, some sort of reminder came his way of his position in life – at the bottom – when he had been at the top and lost it due to another’s sin.  Day by day, he had to live with Saul’s persecution and his own loss.  And in the end – David just walked off, leaving Saul to go home alone.

Was this a wise choice?  A godly one?  Is this something Jeff can do?

Jeffrey’s family doesn’t get it.  The cousins speak for the family when they say, “He’s all preachy about being godly, but would rather spend his time with those deaf friends than with his family, people who love him.”  For his part, Jeff struggles guilt from wishing he could just walk away from with the pain of what seems to be his family’s rejection

In the end, the biblical account makes clear that whatever David’s emotions, he rested secure in the rightness of his actions and his place before the throne of God.  He pointed out that, “The Lord rewards everyone for their righteousness and faithfulness…As surely as I valued your life today, so may the Lord value my life and deliver me from all trouble.”  I suppose the answer that Jeff must be prepared to give – the answer I must accept myself – is each of us is responsible for our own actions before God.

In David’s case, this meant spending years fleeing Saul, and guarding his heart from anger or hatred.  The Bible records not a single act of David’s against Saul.

For the rest of us, I have no idea what to say.  Do Deaf Christians sit perpetually at the edge of their families and stare straight ahead, uncomprehendingly?  Do they decline to attend family gatherings in order to avoid the pain and subsequent bitterness, knowing that their families are likely to respond with anger and resentment and blame over their absence?  Do they forthrightly state their needs at every gathering and just hope it works out differently this time?  Is it a different answer for each of us, depending on what is necessary to guard our hearts from anger and bitterness?

I know this: the forgiveness required is perpetual and daily.  Forgetting what happens – daily – is a bridge too far.  Even so, when we find the proper path, God will give us the strength to manage it.

That’s a comforting answer, but it sure isn’t an easy one.

“His mouth is most sweet….” Who may measure the sweetness which flows from the mouth of our dear Savior?! What a boundless metaphor of the beauty and distinguishing character of Him who is Altogether Lovely! He opens His mouth and endless rivers of salvation, comfort, and assurance pour forth in resplendent beauty. He but speaks and the winds and waves of this life’s trials obey His omnipotent voice. He whispers sweet words of peace and our troubled souls are afforded refuge in the midst of storms. Indeed, the words of his mouth are most sweet!

Consider the posit of ancient Job, who suffered such overwhelming sorrow as few in this life have known: “Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food” (Job 23:12). How often are we caught up in circumstances that press hard upon us and find ourselves exhausted by the seeming “necessities” of those circumstances? Isn’t it remarkable how easily we leave off the reading and meditation of our Lord’s Word in such trials? Notice that Job, though pressed upon to the extreme, is careful to avoid retreating from the commandment of Christ’s lips. He even considers the “words of His mouth” of more necessity to him than the daily food which sustains his physical body. How precious and comforting are His gracious words in the midst of the trials of life. His mouth is exceedingly sweet!

Consider the kind assurances of the Gospel as spoken from the lips of our Savior: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Mt. 11:28-30). Have sweeter words ever been spoken?

How burdensome and wearying life can be at times. Who of us have not labored under the weighty load of failing personal health or the suffering of those whom we love? What family has not been troubled in some way by strained relationships, or even been crushed by the sad effects of divorce and separation? Who has not, at times, faced financial difficulties that stretch us to the point of breaking? Who among us does not labor under the burden of loved ones who know not Christ in the free pardon and forgiveness of their sins? Hear the sweet words from the mouth of our dear Savior “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”

Rest, saith He? Does He somehow magically cause the trial and difficulty to disappear? No. But He gives us rest. Rest in the midst of trials. Rest under the load of burden. Rest in the midst of sorrow.

This idea of rest in the midst of turmoil seems a foreign concept in our “therapeutic” culture. To most, rest is the absence of labor, the absence of trial, the absence of difficulty. But this is not compatible with the concept of rest in Scripture. The rest which Christ here speaks of is a different kind of rest, a rest that is deep and abiding, and a rest that is possible even when we are sorely pressed upon by the trials of life.

It is a rest and a peace that, once we have laid hold upon it, can never be taken away from us, regardless of our circumstances. It is that rest which takes refuge in the fact that every circumstance of our lives comes to us by the hand of our good God. It is that rest that finds comfort in every Providence of our Lord, knowing that He is causing even the difficult things in life to work together for our ultimate good (Ro. 8:28). It is that rest which is content in every situation because we hold fast to the promise that Christ will never, never leave nor forsake us (He. 13:5).

It is that rest which by faith is convinced that God is for us, therefore there is nothing or no one who can be against us (Ro. 8:31). It is that rest which assures us that we cannot be condemned because God has justified us and Christ intercedes for us (Ro. 8:32-34). It is that rest which understands that neither tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or want, or danger, or even death can separate us from the love of God, for we are more than conquerors in all these things because we are loved by Jesus Christ (Ro. 8:35-39). “I will give you rest.” How sweet are the words from the mouth of our dear Bride-Groom.

How then do we find such rest? Again the sweet mouth of Jesus does not leave our question unanswered. “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” The students of rabbis in Christ’s day were said to “take the yoke” of their teacher “upon them” when they came to sit and learn at his feet.

How may we find rest for our souls? This is a paradox, for Christ says we find rest when we take the “burden” of His “yoke” upon us. We find this rest as we sit and learn at Jesus feet. We listen to the sweetness of the words of His mouth and we meditate upon them until His commandments and promises become our meat and our drink. In doing so we find that, compared to the merciless yoke (burden) of sin, Jesus’ yoke is easy! In the end, it is by taking the yoke of Christ upon us and learning of Him that we find rest for our souls.

Sometimes I feel that all I ever needed to know to love Christ and live for Him I learned while I was yet a child. In a certain sense, it seems that the simplest spiritual lessons are the most profound. To demonstrate what I mean, I leave you with the simple (yet profound) verse of a song that I learned as a child on my father’s knee:

I’ve found my Lord and He is mine;
He won me by His love.
I’ll serve Him all my years of time,
And dwell with Him above.
His yoke is easy, His burden is light,
I’ve found it so, I’ve found it so.
His service is my sweetest delight,
His blessings ever flow.

“His mouth is most sweet…..”

A glad debtor to God’s grace,

R. Cofield

I watched this clip earlier today:

I’ve played Xbox with people like this before. Their joy is contagious. Their giddiness transcends the game itself and makes you want to enter into their happiness. I want to be this guy when I’m 84 (actually when I’m 34–which isn’t far away). And I want my son to be this guy too. That has me wondering what I can do not only in my own life but also in the life of my son to teach him not to take himself so seriously.

Here’s what I’ve come up with. To the veteran dads that have cultivated the grace of a good time in the life of their children I could use your help…

1. Be that guy myself. Joy like that is caught better than taught. I’m guessing that if my children see me enjoying life that way they will join in on the fun.
2. Ground his identity in Christ. I don’t know if this old dude is a believer or not. But I do know that this type of joy ultimately comes from Jesus. It comes from learning that our identity isn’t in video game performance or any other performance.
3. Cultivate a culture of grace. When Isaiah gets upset at a video game the worse thing I could do is beat him over the head with the law because he doesn’t “get grace”. Grace conquers anger and pride not the law.
4. Community help. In order to sustain joy like this in myself and also teach it to my son, I am convinced that it will come through a community of grace. Friends like my buddy Mike—who just loves to have fun—are vital in this.

Anything you’d like to add?

Dr. David W. Manner is the Associate Executive Director for the Kansas-Nebraska Convention of Southern Baptists. He blogs at  http://kncsb.org/blogs/dmanner . You can follow him on Twitter:  @dwmanner. 

Now that I have your undivided attention, I do believe that full-time worship ministry is indeed a worthy calling and vocation that requires preparation, education and skills. And yes, it is a real job. But what if opportunities were no longer available for you to lead worship vocationally? What if you needed to voluntarily or were asked involuntarily to step aside from full-time worship ministry for an interim or extended period of time? What if you are unable to land a worship ministry position after graduation? What would or could you do to provide for your family while still responding to God’s call? Some of us have found ourselves in that situation only to realize we are not trained or are not training to do anything else.

Statistics show that 95% of churches average 350 or less in worship and that 75-80% of those churches average 150 or less. Forced terminations as a result of corporate business modeled leadership, unhealthy staff relationships, and ageism are all on the rise. The church planting movement has amplified the need for additional volunteer and part time worship leaders. Even larger, more established congregations are no longer realizing the need for full-time worship and music staff as they try to stretch their financial resources to accommodate their various multi-generational, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-venue worship needs.

With those statistics in mind, the present and future reality is that the need for full-time music and worship ministry staff is on the decline. In other words, there are and will continue to be more prepared full-time leaders than full time places for them to serve. With that understanding, are we being poor stewards of our calling by not being prepared and willing to lead bivocationally in those smaller congregations and church plants that long for gifted worship leaders to help them with Spirit and Truth worship? Reality dictates that while preparing for worship leadership many of us should also be learning additional marketable skills.

For this to occur, we must first agree that a call to bivocational ministry is not a mediocre calling but is in fact a call to full-time ministry that just happens to occur not only when we gather at church but also when we disperse to the marketplace. We must encourage our Christian colleges and seminaries to more actively challenge students preparing for worship ministry to also learn other skills. We must agree that it is never too soon or too late to learn something new. And we must agree that learning an additional skill doesn’t compromise our calling but in fact enhances it by expanding our mission field through our communication in other languages beyond choirs and chord charts.

This article was originally posted at my site. Only some of my articles are posted on SBC Voices. If you would like access to all of my articles, you can follow my feed here. You can also connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.

I am not going to reveal my source for this suggested evaluation of a pastor or church, but I feel sorry for the pastor and the church that adopts such a view. Based on this evaluation, most pastors in the world are failures, and most pastors in church history were failures as well. Even Jesus Christ did not meet the standards below (as far as we know). I have several problems with evaluations like the one presented below: 1) They are blatantly unbiblical. 2) They come from a CEO mentality. 3) They are arbitrary. 4) Such evaluations encourage pastors and churches to hide the glory of God. Pastors and churches cannot be blamed for failing in these standards unless they can be praised when they are “successful.” God alone gives the increase (1 Cor. 3:6-7). Jesus alone builds His church (Matt. 16:18). He does not need any of us to do it; not even the so-called “best” pastors or churches or denominations on earth. If you want to know how NOT to evaluate a church or pastor, simply follow these steps:

Although the task will not be easy, a number of things could be considered for measuring the effectiveness of a church or church staff position:

The pastor might be evaluated on the basis of attendance, budget, buildings, and baptisms.

Standards for a church could be developed based on purpose, organization, leader-ship, facilities and equipment, growth, finances, planning, reports, and other factors.

Some sample standards are suggested below:

1. An annual increase in attendance of 15%.
2. An annual increase in receipts of 20%.
3. A ratio of baptisms to church membership of 1 to 10.
4. Adding three times more church members than church members lost for all reasons.
5. An average gift of $20 each Sunday for every Sunday School attendee.
6. A budget distribution of 10% for missions and 30% each for staff, programming, and building.
7. No emergency financial appeals.
8. A Sunday School enrollment age distribution that has the same percentages as the age distribution of the surrounding community.
9. A fellowship group for every 25 adult members.
10. Seventy percent of adult members having a ministry position.
11. Sixty percent of Sunday School workers completing a training course in the past year.
12. Average of one pastor for every 125 people in attendance on Sunday morning.

What are your thoughts?

This article was originally posted at my site. Only some of my articles are posted on SBC Voices. If you would like access to all of my articles, you can follow my feed here. You can also connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.

I have a BA in English, and most of my undergrad time I heard people say “stop reading about life and experience it”.  Fast forward a few years later, I have found myself as a blogger, and I have heard “go out and do ministry instead of just blogging about it”.  I also write and speak, so I also get the “stop writing and talking about it and go do it’.  This leads me to the question of the day, is blogging ministry?

I think the key is defining ministry. What constitutes ministry? Is blogging, writing, speaking or even preaching or teaching? Is it ministry if you do it volunteer, or if you get paid? Is ministry relative, does what is ministry for me constitute as ministry for you? It’s becomes a muddy bog pretty quick, and we begin to judge if we think others are doing ministry. Is this a good idea?

If you will humor me I want to share with you my thoughts on the ministry od blogging. Understand that as a writer, speaker and blogger, I am slightly bias. I absolutely believe blogging and tweeting and posting can all be ministry. It doesn’t mean it is always ministry but if it fits some qualifications.

Any writing or speaking ministry must have a point or purpose. I have a purpose that i’ll explain later. If you are writing something that has no purpose, don’t write it. The purposes that are ministry are pretty straight forward.

1. It should edify or encourage. I am seeking to edify other bloggers and encourage them to do likewise. It should be constructive, and give practical suggestions if there are issues. It should bring together ths body and support further ministry. I haven’t always done a great job at this, but I’m working on it.

2. It should teach. A blog should teach you something or at least remind you of something. We should be learning from each other, challenging each other and sharing lessons learned. We need to write and comment in a way that sharpens us. Don’t write dull or dulling blogs.

3. Correct and restore gently. I don’t mean to correct individuals but blogs can be used to perform the ministry of doctrinal correction. My theology has matured due in part to those who have opened the scripture in a blog and corrected my faulty thinking. In the areas we disagree and clash, either someone is wrong or everyone is wrong. We can’t all be right. We want to pretend we are all right but someone is wrong. We should be able to Biblically reason together. When we begin to accuse and name call and get nasty we kill ministry.

Bottom line is, you should help someone when you write and blog. I hope I have encouraged my fellow writers and taught a little and maybe pointed out some things to correct. I enjoy the community here at Voices and hope we serve one another in Christ by writing.