A:  It depends on what you mean by “higher standard.”

Anyone who is serious about the authority of Scripture would agree that a church elder must satisfy the requirements that Paul lists in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9.

Some churches see these requirements as unique requirements for eldership, requirements that are not necessarily expected of all Christians.  Such churches might allow that there are cases where a Christian may legitimately divorce, but they would say that a divorcee may not be an elder, because an elder must be the “husband of one wife.”  Similarly, some churches acknowledge that, while the Bible warns about the dangers of intoxicating beverages, it does not forbid their consumption.  While acknowledging that the consumption of alcohol is a matter of Christian freedom, they may still require an elder to completely abstain from alcohol, because they believe that this is part of the “higher standard” to which elders are called.

I believe that this is a faulty view of the requirements for an elder.

There are not two different standards for Christian conduct: one for elders, one for everyone else.  All Christians are held to the same standard of conduct.  All Christians are expected to be chaste, hospitable, temperate, gentle, self-controlled, etc.  The standard is perfect conformity to the image of God.

However, no Christian can live up to that perfect standard.  Since no Christian actually meets the standard, should the role of elder be open to any Christian, regardless of how fall short they fall?  No, an elder should meet a “minimum” standard of maturity.  While no Christian is perfect, there is a range of Christian maturity.  The biblical requirements for an elder are a way of saying that an elder must be “this far along” in their sanctification.

So, if by “higher standard” you mean that an elder must meet certain requirements not expected of other Christians, then I say, no, the Bible does not teach that.

But, if by “higher standard” you simply mean a greater degree of conformity to the one high standard of Christian living, then I will agree that the “entrance requirements” for eldership are higher than say, the entrance requirements for church membership.

No related posts.

Benevolent and easy-going Father:
We have occasionally been guilty of errors of judgment.
We have lived under the deprivations of heredity and the disadvantages of environment.
We have sometimes failed to act in accordance with common sense.
We have done the best we could in the circumstances,
And have been careful not to ignore the common standards of decency;
And we are glad to think that we are fairly normal.
Do thou, O Lord, deal lightly with our infrequent lapses.
Be thy own sweet Self with those who admit they are not perfect;
According to the unlimited tolerances which we have a right to expect from thee.
And grant us as an indulgent Parent
That we may hereafter continue to live a harmless and happy life
And keep our self-respect.

from He Sent Leanness, by David Head, referenced in Mark (The NIV Application Commentary), by David Garland.

The original prayer of general confession from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer:

Almighty and most merciful Father,
We have erred, and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep,
We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts,
We have offended against thy holy laws,
We have left undone those things which we ought to have done,
And we have done those things which we ought not to have done,
And there is no health in us:
But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us miserable offenders;
Spare thou them, O God, which confess their faults, restore thou them that are penitent,
According to thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesus our Lord:
And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake,
That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life,
To the glory of thy holy Name. Amen.

No related posts.

“So it is,” said Mr. Syme.

“Nonsense!” said Gregory, who was very rational when anyone else attempted paradox. “Why do all the clerks and navvies in the railway trains look so sad and tired, so very sad and tired? I will tell you. It is because they know that the train is going right. It is because they know that whatever place they have taken a ticket for that place they will reach. It is because after they have passed Sloane Square they know that the next station must be Victoria, and nothing but Victoria. Oh, their wild rapture! oh, their eyes like stars and their souls again in Eden, if the next station were unaccountably Baker Street!”

“It is you who are unpoetical,” replied the poet Syme. “If what you say of clerks is true, they can only be as prosaic as your poetry. The rare, strange thing is to hit the mark; the gross, obvious thing is to miss it. We feel it is epical when man with one wild arrow strikes a distant bird. Is it not also epical when man with one wild engine strikes a distant station? Chaos is dull; because in chaos the train might indeed go anywhere, to Baker Street or to Bagdad. But man is a magician, and his whole magic is in this, that he does say Victoria, and lo! it is Victoria. No, take your books of mere poetry and prose; let me read a time table, with tears of pride. Take your Byron, who commemorates the defeats of man; give me Bradshaw, who commemorates his victories. Give me Bradshaw, I say!”

“Must you go?” inquired Gregory sarcastically.

“I tell you,” went on Syme with passion, “that every time a train comes in I feel that it has broken past batteries of besiegers, and that man has won a battle against chaos. You say contemptuously that when one has left Sloane Square one must come to Victoria. I say that one might do a thousand things instead, and that whenever I really come there I have the sense of hairbreadth escape. And when I hear the guard shout out the word ‘Victoria,’ it is not an unmeaning word. It is to me the cry of a herald announcing conquest. It is to me indeed ‘Victoria’; it is the victory of Adam.”

Gregory wagged his heavy, red head with a slow and sad smile.

“And even then,” he said, “we poets always ask the question, ‘And what is Victoria now that you have got there?’ You think Victoria is like the New Jerusalem. We know that the New Jerusalem will only be like Victoria. Yes, the poet will be discontented even in the streets of heaven. The poet is always in revolt.”

“There again,” said Syme irritably, “what is there poetical about being in revolt? You might as well say that it is poetical to be sea-sick. Being sick is a revolt. Both being sick and being rebellious may be the wholesome thing on certain desperate occasions; but I’m hanged if I can see why they are poetical. Revolt in the abstract is—revolting. It’s mere vomiting.”

“It is things going right,” he cried, “that is poetical! Our digestions, for instance, going sacredly and silently right, that is the foundation of all poetry. Yes, the most poetical thing, more poetical than the flowers, more poetical than the stars—the most poetical thing in the world is not being sick.”

from Chapter 1 of The Man Who Was Thursday, by G. K. Chesterton

Download an audio recording of this book from LibriVox.org

No related posts.

Mohler:

Joel Osteen is in the news once again, this time for saying that Mormonism is just another form of Christianity.
…
The main point of concern in Joel’s latest comment is the lack of any biblical standard of judgment and the total abdication of theological responsibility.
…
He doesn’t “get hung up” on doctrinal issues, nor has he “really studied them or thought about them.”

Not to heap criticism on Osteen, but Mohler is right that all Christians need to think deeply about what constitutes Christianity, and what beliefs separate authentic Christianity from non-Christianity.  We are constantly bombarded with different ideas about what “Christianity” should look like.  Are these different ideas just different opinions from various Christians, or do some of them deviate from actually being Christianity?

No related posts.

I took Dr. Powlison’s Antipsalm 23 and put it alongside Psalm 23 for a phrase-by-phrase comparison.

The text is in a PDF so that it will display correctly.  Click here to download.

No related posts.

• You can help it along (intentionally or unintentionally)

You may not feel particularly tired, but if you lie still on a comfortable bed with your eyes closed in a dark, quiet room, there is a very good chance that after a while you will fall asleep. If you want to fall asleep, then you will be well served by doing these things. If you do not want to fall asleep, then it would be rather foolhardy to do these things.

Similarly, you don’t have to be completely smitten with someone to fall in love with them. If the conditions are right for falling in love, then it should come as no surprise that people fall in love, even if that was not their goal. If a young man and a young woman start spending lots of time together, conversing and sharing their intimate thoughts and feelings with each other, then it would not be unusual for them to fall in love. If two people are courting, they can “assist” the process of falling in love, by buying each other gifts, writing romantic notes, holding hands, etc. On the other hand, two people who are not in a position to marry each other should avoid these types of things.

• but you can’t force it.

Sometimes, though, despite all your attempts to fall asleep, you just can’t seem to do it. You’ve set the conditions properly, but you’re still awake. Maybe it’s a medical problem, maybe you had too much caffeine, maybe your mind is too preoccupied. Whatever it is, in spite of your desire to fall asleep, your body isn’t letting it happen.

While love is a choice, and you can always choose to love someone, you can’t make them love you back. And you might find that despite all your efforts, loving them is a challenge. Differences in personalities, interests, maturity, etc., may present significant barriers to falling in love.

• You can push it away

You can avoid falling asleep. It might even be unintentional. You’re engrossed in a movie or something on TV, something you’re reading, or a project you’re working on. If you had gone to bed hours ago, you would be asleep now, but because you have been preoccupied with something else, you’re still awake. Or, even if you are sleepy, you can force yourself to stay awake (for a while, at least). You can drink some coffee, listen to loud music, go for a jog, etc. It might get progressively harder to stay awake, but you can increase your efforts, and usually keep sleep at bay for much longer than normal.

Same thing with falling in love. You can avoid it by being preoccupied with other matters, or you can recognize the signs and take intentional steps to prevent it.

• but you can’t always avoid it.

Try as you might to stay awake, eventually your body is going to give in to exhaustion. Even in the midst of a situation totally unconducive to sleep, if you are tired enough, you will fall asleep at some point, like it or not.

Here, perhaps, the parallel is weakest. I don’t know that there are any situations where you absolutely cannot resist falling in love. The similarity exists though, because there are times when the natural process just happens, sometimes before you even realize it. You weren’t looking for love, or expecting to fall in love, but you meet someone seemingly irresistible, and BAM!, you fall in love. Maybe you even tried to avoid it, but the attraction was just too strong to resist for long.

I don’t think that there is one “right way” to fall in love. There is nothing inherently superior about instant mutual attraction versus an intentional process. There are times when romance should be avoided or delayed, but it can also be a sign of immaturity to resist or put off a relationship (due to fear or unreasonable expectations).  The key is to be obedient to God and use wisdom in the choices we make.

The phrase “falling in love” is somewhat problematic in itself, as it implies chance or accident, and feeds into the false perception of love as being equivalent to romantic feelings. In a sense, “falling in love” is a code-phrase for “the emergence of romantic feelings.” I’m not sure it’s necessary to reject it as a false or worldly concept, but we should seek to imbue it with more meaning and convey a full understanding of what love is.

No related posts.

A comparison is drawn between salvation in the ark and baptism. In both instances, believers are saved through the waters of judgment, since baptism portrays salvation through judgment. The mere mechanical act of baptism does not save, for Peter explicitly says, “not as a removal of dirt from the body,” meaning that the passing of water over the body does not cleanse anyone. Baptism saves you because it represents inward faith, as evidenced by one’s appeal to God for the forgiveness of one’s sins (for a good conscience). Furthermore, baptism “saves” only insofar as it is grounded in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Baptism is a visual representation of the fact that Christians are clothed with Christ (cf. Gal. 3:27), and in union with Christ they share his victory over sin.

(from the ESV Study Bible notes on 1 Peter 3:21)

No related posts.

Ten years ago, I borrowed $68,000 to buy a house.  If I had made the regular payments for the full 30-year term, I would have paid $101,076.80 in interest, repaying a total of $169,077.60 on that $68,000 loan.  Ouch!  That’s an overall interest rate for the life of the loan of nearly 150%!

Today, I went over to the bank, got a cashier’s check for the remaining amount, and mailed it off to the payoff department.

As it is, I paid somewhere in the neighborhood of $25,000 in interest and fees over the last 10 years (including initial closing costs and a refinance 8 years ago), which is about 34% of the $73,000 purchase price of the house.  Still a hefty chunk of change!

Looking forward to getting the title to our house in a few weeks!

No related posts.

The socialist prescribes methods for caring for each other, and assumes that people will comply with these methods.  They assume the productive will contribute just as much as before.  They assume the needy will become productive once their needs have been met.

The libertarian believes that people will generally do the right thing on their own, and that the few “bad apples” will be held in check by market forces.  They believe that self-interest is ultimately good, because each individual’s self-interest is best served by working in harmony with their fellow men.  They assume that the majority are forward-thinking enough to see the benefit in helping their neighbors so that society in general, themselves included, can be more prosperous.

Unfortunately for both socialism and libertarianism, there is no limit to the laziness, selfishness, and greed that lives in the heart of man (Jer 17:9, Eccl 9:3).

Under socialism, the producers will scale back, seeing no personal benefit to increased productivity.  The needy will not seek to be more productive, because someone else will provide for them.  Poverty will increase, and the powers that be will attempt to exert more and more control.

Under libertarianism, individuals will seek their own profit with minimal personal effort, and as each person’s goals conflict with others, society will decay into anarchy.  After a period of anarchy, someone will rise to power, seize control and crack down on the anarchy.

So socialists and libertarians desire the same thing, make the same mistake in estimating man’s goodness, and both lead to totalitarian control.

1. Socialist may not be the best label, but I am using it as a description of those on the very far left of the political spectrum.
2. Libertarian may not be the best label, but I am using it as a description of those on the very far right of the political spectrum.

No related posts.

No related posts.

As I was pondering this topic, my thoughts turned to Paul’s statement in Philippians 3:10, where he says, “I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death.”

Fueled by that statement, I would like to explore what it means for us to share in the cross of Christ.

Sometimes I have a tendency to view Good Friday as primarily a time to look back, and remember what Christ did for me in the past, and be grateful for the forgiveness of my sins, and thankful that I can go to heaven.  And certainly, we should do that.  But, we should not fall into the trap of viewing the cross as simply the means of becoming a Christian, as though the cross is just the starting point, and then we move on from there.  Our continued affiliation and participation in the cross of Christ is also the means by which we live a Christ-centered life.  Our unity with Christ is a unity of sharing with him in the cross.

There are three ways that we share in what Christ accomplished on the cross:

1. We share in his suffering.
2. We share in his death.
3. Because we share in his death, we also share in his resurrection.

We share in Christ’s Suffering

Let’s look first, then, at what it means to share in Christ’s suffering.  I already mentioned Philippians 3:10, where Paul said he wants “to know Christ … and the fellowship of sharing in his suffering.”  Just to drive the point home, let me read a few other passages that reiterate this idea of sharing in Christ’s suffering.

Philippians 1:29 – “For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him.”

Romans 8:17 – “Now if we are children (God’s children, that is), then we are heirs–heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.”

1 Peter 2:21 – “To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.”

1 Peter 4:13 – “But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed.”

To me, it’s a little unsettling to look at the many verses that talk about suffering, and see that suffering isn’t just inevitable, but it’s actually necessary.  Not that we earn or merit any reward because of our suffering, and not that we in any way make up for our sin.  It is simply that experiencing suffering is part of what it means to follow Christ.

Part of being an imitator of Christ, is experiencing suffering.  Christ was a “suffering servant.”  As Isaiah 53:3 says, “He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.”  Part of being a Christian is being like Christ.  So, if Christ was a “man of sorrows,” “familiar with suffering,” then in order for us to be like him, it is necessary that we also must be acquainted with suffering.

Since we’re going to experience suffering, we need to be prepared for it.  We need to prepare for suffering before we experience it, not wait until suffering strikes, and then attempt to handle it appropriately.  When you’re talking to someone who is going through a time of suffering, that is not the best time to tell them how they should respond.  You may have the best of intentions, and you may be speaking truth, but you may be received as someone offering spiritual platitudes, when what the person really needs at that moment is a shoulder to cry on and a helping hand.  If we haven’t learned how to respond to suffering before suffering strikes, the suffering will be that much harder to handle.

So, what are some ways that we may experience suffering?

First let me exclude some categories that are not relevant to sharing in Christ’s suffering.  For one, I’m not referring to penance or self-inflicted punishment; that is unnecessary suffering that someone might subject themselves to for improper reasons.  Another type of suffering that we’re not talking about is suffering the consequences of our own wrong doing.

I read 1 Peter 2:21 already, but let me read verses 19-20 also:

“For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.

The type of suffering that we share with Christ is unjust suffering.  I have divided the unjust suffering we may experience into two categories: One is suffering as a direct result of our faith.  The other is suffering simply as a consequence of living in a fallen world.

Suffering as a result of our faith

In the first category, suffering as a result of our faith, there are two subcategories.

Persecution from those hostile to Christ

The first, is suffering persecution from those who are hostile to Christ.  Much of the suffering the apostles and early disciples experienced was this type of suffering.  This is what Jesus referred to in the Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew 5:11 – “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.”

Christians in countries around the world suffer persecution like this simply because they are followers of Jesus, and people who hate Jesus will also hate his followers.

Although we are relatively free from this type of persecution right now in America, there may come a day when we see more of this type of persecution.  While we don’t yet suffer the blatant persecution that Christians in some countries face, we may still experience persecution on some level from those hostile to Jesus.  Maybe it comes in the form of someone who talks down to you or says bad things about you because of your faith.  Maybe it’s a neighbor who purposely shows disregard for your property because you’re one of those “Christians.”

How should we respond when we encounter persecution like this?  Just like we are to follow Christ in our expectation of suffering, we are also to follow his example in our response to persecution.

As 1 Peter 2:23 says, “When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.”

We should not demand our rights, or seek to get even.  We can accept the injustice, because it helps us identify with Christ, and we know that God will make all things right.

Consequences of taking a moral stand

The second way that we may experience suffering as a result of our faith is by doing the right thing even when that may expose us to undesirable consequences.

Some have experienced this type of suffering by being arrested for standing in the way of allowing abortions to take place.  Other examples might include telling the truth when a small lie could save your hide; or obeying the law when you could easily get away with something that would give you a huge advantage.  Instead, you tell the truth; you abide by the law; you refuse to get involved in something immoral, and it costs you.  When we sacrifice our time, energy, or money for the cause of Christ, we may experience suffering as a result, but that suffering is part of what unites us with Christ.

Random suffering

In addition to suffering because of our faith, we also experience suffering that is simply the result of living in a fallen world.  The way that we respond to this suffering can also be a means of identifying with Christ.

Examples of this type of suffering might include physical pain and sickness, accidents, natural disasters, financial hardship, the loss of a loved one, and other emotional burdens like depression or other forms of mental illness.

Excluding, again, suffering that may be the result of our own wrong choices; when we are intentional about enduring random calamity for the sake of Christ, it is a means of identifying with him.

This is how James could say, “Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance.  Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.” (James 1:2-4).  To be “mature and complete, not lacking anything,” is to be like Christ, and that requires suffering.  Knowing this, we can be joyful in the midst of suffering.

We share in Christ’s Death

Not only do we share in the suffering that Christ experienced, we also share in his death.

Galatians 2:20 says, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

As human beings, we are both physical and spiritual creatures.  You might say that sharing in Christ’s suffering is a means of physical connection with Christ, whereas sharing in his death is a spiritual connection.

What does it mean that we have died with Christ?  There are two different ways of looking at our spiritual death.

Paul says in Galatians 6:14, “May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”

In one sense, the sin that used to be our master is put to death.  In another sense, our old self, who was a slave to sin, is put to death.

Using the analogy of a master and a slave, there are two ways to sever their relationship.  Either the master dies, or the slave dies.  If the master is dead, he obviously can’t boss around the slave.  If the slave is dead, he obviously can’t obey his former master.

Sin becomes dead to us; our sin nature is put to death, so it no longer controls us.

On the one hand, our previous master (the world, the flesh, or our sinful nature) has died; and a dead master is no master at all; a dead master can no longer control us.

Romans 8:9 says, “You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you.”

We used to be controlled by the sinful nature, but not anymore:

Galatians 5:24 – “Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.”

We die to sin; a dead man cannot obey his former master.

However, in another sense, our old master still beckons to us.

1 Peter 2:11 says, “I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul.”

Although our sin nature is put to death, ending its mastery of us, we are still at war.  The way that we war against these sinful desires is to count ourselves dead to their influence.

Colossians 2:20 – “Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules?”

A slave who dies can’t obey his master anymore.  So why do we still obey the rules of the world, if our relationship with the world was severed through our death?

Romans 6:6 says that “our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin.”

We used to be slaves to sin. But when a slave dies the old master can no longer command obedience.  Our “old self,” the person we were prior to conversion, is dead now.  We should act in accordance to the reality that our old self is dead.  We should not drag the dead old man around with us, prop it up, or act like it is still alive.

We share in Christ’s resurrection

Finally, because we share in Christ’s suffering and death, we also share in his life.  His resurrection gives us spiritual life now and forevermore, and guarantees the resurrection and renewal of our bodies as well.

Romans 6:4-5 – “We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.  If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.”

Continuing on to verse 8 – “Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.”

We share in Christ’s victory because we share in His death.

I started out mentioning Philippians 3:10, where Paul said he wants “to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,” (continuing in verse 11) “and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.”

So let us look forward to Easter and the celebration of Christ’s resurrection and the promise of our own resurrection with rejoicing that we share in his suffering, that we share in his death, and that we share in his life.

No related posts.

Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. (NIV1984)

In 1998, the New International Reader’s Version was published, which simplifies things for those who read on a more basic level.

Brothers and sisters, we ask you to have respect for the godly leaders who work hard among you. They have authority over you. They correct you. (NIrV)

In 2005, after attempts to revise the NIV generated controversy, Today’s New International Version was published as a separate version alongside the NIV.

Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, to acknowledge those who work hard among you, who care for you in the Lord and who admonish you. (TNIV)

Now in 2011, the NIV has been revised, replacing both the 1984 version and the TNIV with a single version that incorporates many of the changes that were made in the TNIV.

Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, to acknowledge those who work hard among you, who care for you in the Lord and who admonish you. (NIV)

Has there been a weakening of the “authority” language?  I’m not a New Testament scholar, so I cannot attest to which translation is best.  However, compare the NIV with these other translations, which are touted as being very accurate:

But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction (NASB)

We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you (ESV)

Now, you might argue that having “care for” someone is essentially the same as having “charge over” someone, and that the NIV still indicates spiritual authority.  But in an age of freedom and independence, are readers of the NIV going to read this verse as an indication that we have people over us, leaders whose word carries more weight than ours?

I’m a Protestant.  I believe in sola scriptura and the priesthood of all believers.  I have no desire to elevate pastors or elders to an undue level of authority.  I am still responsible before God for obeying His Word, regardless of what my pastor might say about this thing or that.  However, I’m worried that there is a high degree of individualism in the church that prevents people from recognizing spiritual authority. Most people have the idea that “we’re all equal,” and “it’s just between me and God.”  They might listen to their pastor because he studies a lot and is more knowledgeable than they, but they don’t really see him as being “over” them.  And yet, Scripture says that there are those who are “over [us] in the Lord.” (TNIV and NIV 2011 notwithstanding.)

What, then, does proper spiritual authority look like?  What are the bounds of pastoral authority?  How is it different on an interpersonal level compared to a communal (local church) level?

No related posts.

On three corners of Fairfield and Airport Expressway stood a few dozen people holding American flags and a few signs.  We stood with these people, silently expressing our opposition to the hate on display on the fourth corner.  These co-counter-protesters were one audience, our presence communicating to them, “we’re with you.”  Unfortunately, some of our fellow counter-protesters unhelpfully expressed their disdain for the protesters on the other corner by shouting profanity at them.  I wish I could have told them, “I’m with you if you’re standing up for Christian love and patriotic honor, but I want no part of your counter-hate.”

Together, we told the audience of drivers and passengers in the passing traffic, “we honor our country and those who die in service to our country.  We oppose those who spew hatred.”  Some of those passing by tooted their horns appreciatively, expressing support and gratitude for our stand.  Others blew an extended blast of their horns at the hateful protesters as they drove by, extending the middle finger of fellowship through their window.  Unfortunately, some of the counter protesters cheered on this behavior.

On the other street corner, flanked by Fort Wayne police officers, four members of Westboro Baptist Church (WARNING: link to an offensive site) formed another audience.   They were there to protest America’s acceptance of homosexuality, happily rejoicing in the death of an American serviceman as evidence of God’s judgement.  We showed up to let them know that we disagree with the hateful things they say and the despicable way they spread their message.  (Denouncing homosexual behavior is not itself hateful, but the message of Westboro Baptist Church is filled with hate.)

I was also an audience member, on two counts.  For one, by putting my beliefs into action, I was demonstrating to myself that beliefs really matter, and beliefs should lead to action.  There are lots of people and things in this world that I disagree with, but I wouldn’t normally bother to protest most of them.  However, it is especially troublesome to have people who claim to be Christians, who claim to hold the truth of God’s Word, behave in such ungodly ways.  Because I cherish the truth of God’s Word and sincere devotion to following God’s commands, I felt that it was important to express my opposition to the way they twist God’s Word and character.

However, I was also an audience to the protesters from Westboro Baptist Church.  They weren’t just there for the passing traffic or the media.  As they waved their signs, trampled their American flags, and sang their songs, they were performing for those of us on the corners opposite them.  It makes me wonder if it would be better to just ignore them, rather than show up to be part of their audience.

No related posts.

Confession, at its core, is a statement or affirmation of what we believe. It can be a statement of what we believe to be right, i.e., a confession of faith, or it can be a statement of what we believe to be wrong, i.e., a confession of sin. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, in its definition of confession, notes that confession is “uniting in a statement that has previously been made by someone else.”

Our most important confession is that Jesus Christ is Lord. Churches or groups of believers have at times written confessions that explain how they interpret God’s word, and provides a basis for agreement (the Augsburg Confession, Belgic Confession, and Westminster Confession are three examples of confessional statements that arose out of the Reformation).

Confession is also an admission of sin. Sometimes, it means revealing to others sin that was hidden. Sometimes others were well aware of the sin, and confession is an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and an opportunity to agree that something truly was wrong.

What things are we to confess?

I don’t think there is anything that we shouldn’t confess. We should not hide our faith, and we should not hide our sin. The question, then, is about who to confess to, and in what setting.

To whom should we confess (God, individual, church)?
How, or where, should we confess (publicly or privately)?

There are examples in Scripture of both public confession and private confession. Private confession could be made in prayer to God, or between individuals.

1. Sins that are against another person should be confessed to that person.
2. Sins that are against the church body should be confessed to the church body.
3. Sins that take place in the public eye should be confessed publicly.

Why should we confess our sin?

For starters, God commands us to. But there are two significant reasons why we should confess our sin, and understanding these two reasons can help us in determining who should hear our confession.

1. Confess sin in order to achieve reconciliation. When unity has been severed, or damage has been done to another person or group of people, we need to confess our sin to them in order to be reconciled. The other side of the coin in reconciliation is forgiveness, which the offended party needs to offer. The order is not important (someone may confront you with your sin before you confess), but reconciliation requires both confession and forgiveness.

All sin is offensive to God, so all sin should be confessed to God, but some sins also need to be confessed to other people, if those people have been hurt by our sin. If the sin was private, between you and God, then there is no need to reveal it to others, necessarily.

2. Confess sin to keep from being dishonest. Sometimes, other people have no reason to believe that we have committed a certain sin, or that we haven’t committed a certain sin. Just because we have, doesn’t mean we need to tell them about it. However, there are also cases where someone may be led to believe that we have not committed a certain sin, and it would be dishonest to continue to give that false impression.

No related posts.

You can read her speech here: http://americaviaerica.blogspot.com/

It’s not a bad speech, and there is certainly reason to be critical of the way public education is structured today.  Rather than cherry-pick quotes from the speech, I’ll leave it to you to read it in its entirety.

My question is this:  what would it look like if she got her way?

What if teachers quit “teaching to the test,” and we weren’t so worried about grades, and we didn’t try to make everyone take the same subjects?  What if teachers focused on encouraging students to pursue their passions, question authority, and spend their time being creative and innovative?  What if school was less about “training” and more about “expanding the mind”?

Particularly in the context of American public education, what would that look like?

I think it would be a miserable failure.  At least in our culture of entitlement and tolerance, I do not believe this approach would work.  There would be some students who would thrive, but the overall level of education and competency would drop significantly.

When objective facts are “too restrictive,” then we are left with subjective experience.  If someone doesn’t like something, isn’t interested, or wants to do something different, then who are you to tell them otherwise?

We have a society of adolescents who want life handed to them on a platter.  Do you think they are all going to buckle down and pursue their dreams if we just stop “oppressing” them with our ideas of what they should be learning?

Developing passion, exercising creativity, and implementing creative solutions are best developed under a mentor, not via classroom instruction.  Our American public educational system is not going to abandon classroom instruction, because it cannot afford to.  You can’t hire enough teachers to spend six hours a day with a few students.  Especially when it is expected to have programs for every activity someone thinks is worthy: sports, art, music, theater, etc.  The kind of interaction that helps children develop into thinking, passionate adults comes from parents, not a teacher in the front of the classroom.

So, rather than taking Erica Goldson’s critique as an impetus for (the wrong kind of) change in our education system, look at the home, and think about the values that parents should instill in their children.

(P.S.  For extra credit, write your own essay explaining the viewpoint that Ms. Goldson expresses when she compares workers to “slaves of the system,” decries the “inhuman nonsense of corporatism and materialism,” and describes schooling as “brainwashing techniques in order to create a complacent labor force working in the interests of large corporations.”)

(P.P.S.  For even more extra credit, write another essay discussing the following questions: Are humans “basically good,” or are humans inherently lazy and selfish?  Should we expect great things from people if they are simply encouraged to develop and pursue their interests?  Should a foundational element of education be instruction in past human failures and successes, and the benefits of knowledge and diligence?)

No related posts.

Verse 19 says, “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.”

The contrasting verse is verse 21, which says, “But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”

It seems to me that this is not a case of men seeing the light of Christ and then evaluating how they should respond.  It’s not like they were presented a choice and could go either way.  On the contrary, their response was predetermined by who they were.

Those who love the darkness do so because they are evil doers.  Those who accept Christ do not become lovers of truth as a result of coming into the light; rather, they come into the light because God has awakened them to the truth.

Going back up to verse 8 (and preceding), Jesus compares the Spirit (Gr., pneuma) with wind (also pneuma).  He says that a re-born spirit is the work of the Spirit, and the Spirit is like the wind in that it “blows wherever it pleases.“  The main point is that spiritual rebirth is a very real thing despite the mechanism being unseen.  However, the passage also implies that the Spirit is not only the “mechanism” that does the regeneration, but also the reason why regeneration takes place.

John 3:16 (and 15) is frequently read as if belief is the criteria for being born again, which is in turn the criteria for eternal life.  However, that is not what Jesus said.  He simply said that those who believe will have eternal life.  I contend that it makes more sense in the context of the chapter to think that those who have been born again are those who will believe.  In other words, spiritual rebirth is the criteria for belief, not the other way around.

No related posts.

A necessary component of developing precise definitions is understanding how people interpret the things they hear.  I’m going to make some assumptions about what people think about a “Calvinist with tension,” but the most helpful thing would be for you to tell me what you think when you hear this.

One of the things I assume people hear in this statement is a distinction from a dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist or a militant Calvinist who is completely unwilling to listen to objections or arguments from another point of view and thinks non-Calvinists are either uninformed, deceived, or worse.  That sort of Calvinist does not feel any tension; instead, they are rigid in their beliefs.  I would say that this understanding is, at least in part, a proper part of what it should mean to be a “Calvinist with tension.”

It’s also possible that hearers may interpret this as saying, “I consider myself a Calvinist, but there are aspects of Calvinism that I have doubts about.”  The understanding here is that the speaker favors Calvinism over other formulations, but isn’t really satisfied that Calvinism has the right answers.  While this is probably true for some people, I do not think this is a good understanding of what I would mean if I said I was a Calvinist with tension.  I think this understanding infers that the speaker is a Calvinist “for lack of a better option.”  If someone could show them a system that relieved their “tension” (doubts about Calvinism), they would gladly accept this other system in lieu of Calvinism.

In contrast, I would not define “tension” as doubts, but as a realization that some aspects of Calvinism may be difficult to grasp (not only for others, but for myself!).  I understand why people might have objections to Calvinism, and I recognize that some of these objections stem from principles that are true.  There are not always simple, cut-and-dried explanations that are satisfying.  It’s not a matter of a simple proof-text for all issues.  The tension comes from the very real need to reconcile things that are true that seem to be at odds with each other.

I think that an intellectually honest Arminian must also be an “Arminian with tension.”  This need not mean that they are not convinced of the truth of Arminianism.  It means that they don’t see objections as smoke-screens or man-made resistance to their position.  Instead, they recognize that a human explanation of divine truth may not be satisfactory to everyone.  There is limitation on both ends, in the human who gives the explanation and the human who listens to the explanation.

I believe that Calvinist positions are faithful to what the Bible teaches, but there is a tension between two (or more) different directions someone may take on an issue, and it is not always easy to explain how everything fits together.

No related posts.

The series is now over, and I find myself asking, “Can you have a good story without having a good ending?”  Reading a few reviews and comments on the series finale, you find some people who are completely thrilled and satisfied with how the series ended. Others, like me, are disappointed and feel like the ending lacked a sense of meaning and resolution.  We had followed the stories of the various characters, hoping to understand the connections between various events.  We were hoping to be let in on the secret story arc that explained “why,” but we walked away empty-handed.

In my view, the letdown is primarily the result of writers who have been infected by existentialism.  Many people have bought into existentialism, whether they realize it or not. To an existentialist, existence is meaningless, outside of the meaning that you bring to your existence. The individual, and their choices, is all that really matters. It is not important for there to be “reasons” that tie the story together.¹

The biggest problem with this (from the standpoint of a compelling story) is that when the individuals pass on, so does the meaning. There is no meaning for an outside observer; the “meaning” of LOST is trapped inside the church with all the characters.

Some good stories feature a mystery that is solved, or a problem that is overcome. When the mystery is solved, we understand what transpired and why certain things happened. When the problem is overcome, we are relieved, because we understand why the problem was bad and why the solution is good.

As LOST ended, some questions were answered and some problems were solved, but there was a lack of meaning. LOST had lots of storytelling, but the overarching meta-narrative or story arc was incomplete.  The smoke monster is defeated, but it’s never quite clear why he was so evil, so powerful, or what would happen if he wasn’t defeated. The island is saved, but it’s never quite clear why that was so important, what role its unique characteristics played, or what the consequences would be if it were destroyed. The primary role of the island seems to be a plot device that generated experiences wherein the characters could interact.

It’s okay to have a character-driven story without mysteries to solve or hurdles to overcome. However, one normally expects the characters to reveal something to us about ourselves or our fellow man.

Throughout LOST, there have been references to finding deeper meaning in life, to pursuing one’s purpose, and exploring the mysteries of free will and destiny. Although we should not expect a TV show to provide satisfactory answers for all these questions, many people were hoping for some explanations that would make some sense of all that has happened on the show.

In some sense, each of the characters discover their purpose and fulfill it. But it’s a hollow purpose that doesn’t add any meaning to the story. If Jack had failed, if Hurley had not taken his place, would it have really mattered? People have experiences; they do bad things; they do good things; they end up back together again with the people they love. But there is no substance behind it. There are no reasons to explain why those experiences mattered.  It might have even been okay if it had simply ended as a battle between good and evil, where good won out.  But the ending made the actual events irrelevant.  It’s simply, “here we are, all together again, isn’t this nice.” As Richard Vine blogged, “Heaven is a Drive Shaft gig: altogether now, ‘You all, everybody!’” Or, as one commenter summarized, “Sentimentality 1, Making sense 0.”

1. Contrary to existentialism, Christianity declares that God defines human essence, He gives us our purpose, and He determines our destiny. We belong to Him, and our life is meaningful if we live according to His purposes. Read/Listen/Watch John Piper give a great explanation of this reality.

No related posts.

I would just like to thank you for your many years of service as a representative for our area.  While I may not have agreed with every vote you cast or decision you made, I believe that you served our area well.  I do not doubt that you honestly tried to do your best to vote according to your convictions, and I believe that your commitment to godly standards and strong families is sincere.

Thank you, too, for not seeking to deflect or minimize your sin, and for doing the right thing in stepping down from your position.

As a fellow Christian, I encourage you to not back away from your church or switch churches, but to allow your elders and friends at Emmanuel to assist you in seeking complete repentance and reconciliation.

My wife and I will keep you in our prayers.

Sincerely,

Steve Long

No related posts.

Some of his detractors are practically giddy. (The only thing they would like better is if it had been a homosexual affair.)  Here is a conservative, evangelical Christian; a staunch proponent of family values; if anyone should take the high road, it should be him.  Yet here he is, caught in the worst kind of hypocrisy.

I’d like to examine that hypocrisy.

Here are a couple definitions of hypocrisy:

• a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess. (dictionary.com)
• a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially: the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion. (merriam-webster.com)

In a sense, there are two ways in which one can be a hypocrite:
1) Saying something that you don’t really believe.
2) Doing something that is contrary to what you believe.

In a strict sense, hypocrisy mainly belongs in the first category.  As someone has written on Wikipedia, hypocrisy “is not simply an inconsistency between what is praised or admired and what is done.”  The line between the first and second category is sometimes blurry, as our actions typically reveal our true convictions.  However, there is a difference between pretense and inconsistency.

I think Souder’s hypocrisy falls into the second category, of failing to live up to his beliefs.  I do not think that his stated convictions have been a “put on” to appeal to conservative voters.  I suspect that he truly believes in biblically-based morality.  If his affair had gone undetected, and if he continued to serve in Congress, I think he would have consistently voted for laws that affirm Judeo-Christian ethics and strong families.

The reason I’m glad Souder is resigning, is not primarily because I see him as having a hypocrisy problem.  It’s because I see him as having an integrity problem.  Many of the things Souder supported are things that I support too, and I think that his convictions were honest.  The problem is that he failed to live according to his convictions.

Somewhere along the line, Souder allowed himself to believe a lie.

Maybe he believed the lie that his situation was special, and his actions were justified.  This is possible, but I suspect he fully understood that his actions were wrong.

Maybe he believed the lie that the benefit outweighed the consequences.  I’m speculating that he thought they could keep it under wraps, and that this “one little indiscretion” would not impact his work.

This is the type of lie that I’m prone to succumb to.  I know something is wrong, but I think it’s not really THAT destructive, and the payoff is worth it.

No related posts.