Archive for the ‘Commentary’ Category
What follows are some random thoughts relative to the legalization of homosexual marriage in the United States.
As I wrote a year and a half ago, Jesus’s own thoughts on matters like sex, shrimp and sacrifice are a matter of public record. Jesus’s church rightfully shares his judgment on all sexual sin. More than that, the church is called to disciple the nations, “teaching them to observe all that [Jesus] commanded” (Matthew 28:19-20). The church calls upon all rulers to obey God and “punish those who do evil and . . . praise those who do good” (1 Peter 2:14) — not the reverse. A necessary part of this is to rightfully judge evil and good, so that we do not “call evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20).
Adam Ford makes helpful clarifications about the non-hateful Christian response, along with some wise insight into how much love is really being conveyed by all these rainbows everywhere. It is partly because a Christian fervently hopes to share a table at the heavenly feast with his opponents that he strenuously opposes their position. It is because a Christian has already wholly set aside her will to autonomous self-determination that she believes there is any possibility of inviting others to join herself in doing so.
In all this, the West is moving towards a Girardian dénouement. All individuals and societies must be justified. They will either be justified by God or must justify themselves. Self-justification takes place only by scapegoating others. It is clear that the new normal is not a classically liberal mutual understanding but is seeking to justify itself by scapegoating those who are opposed to it. There is no category for opposition other than “hatred,” and the cure for such hatred begins with steep fines. To their credit, some activists recognize this dangerous path; Camille Paglia has long been just such a breath of fresh air.
In some ways this is just one of many other ways in which Jesus’s church has been and will be scapegoated. But we all know that scapegoating does not end with steep fines; it must progress to the “death” of the scapegoat in order to feel wholly self-justified; otherwise the scapegoat is a constant bit of sand in the teeth reminding society that it is not justified. And this is also why the scapegoating can become such a pile-on—everyone desires to be justified. Scapegoating is a powerful agent of unification, surpassed only by Jesus the great scapegoat himself. All this is why everything must come to a crisis. Because of the power of unity and justification, the crisis must be almost as drunkenly, giddily grotesque as Lewis’s That Hideous Strength.
The crisis can be resolved either by the “death” of the scapegoat (e.g., as with the church under communism in the past century) or the “death” of the society (in repentance, as with Jonah’s Nineveh). Even in the death of the church there is great hope for the church because that is always the seedbed of future growth of Jesus’s kingdom. Scapegoating does not produce either enduring unity or enduring justification, and society will continue its search until it finds permanent justification in Jesus. So whatever may come, the church can continue to confidently call people to repentance, and confidently endure any kind of suffering knowing that Jesus will cause it to bear fruit.
It is important, however, that the church does not justify the scapegoating. We must be like Job before his scapegoating “friends.” We are confident we are justified; and in this matter we are in the right and we are not actually filled with hatred, full stop. It must be clear that the scapegoating is unjustifiable. It can even be made clear where and how the scapegoaters and their scapegoating are ridiculous. Scapegoating is shameful in itself and it always exists to cover up more shame—shame that has a proper covering only in repentance and the death of king Jesus.
Lastly, here are some bracing thoughts from Toby Sumpter. In the meantime, carry on singing the Psalms!
We have a tendency to regard the truly spiritual as that which is most contemplative and peaceful. Consequently, we bemoan the many mundane and frustrating distractions that tear us away from spiritual things.
It is true that we will enjoy mountaintop experiences where we meet with Jesus and are refreshed by him. In fact, we are privileged to meet with him in this way every Lord’s day. However, consider this description of what it means to be spiritual:
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another. — Galatians 5:22-26
There is no better time to practice this than when we feel distracted, frustrated, unspiritual. It is little work to be patient when we are surrounded by peace and quiet, but it is great work to cultivate patience when we are beset by storms. In a sense, the time that we feel the least spiritual is our greatest opportunity to be spiritual — not by escape, nor by stoicism, but by walking in faith and in the fruit of the Spirit. Not that this is easy: it requires constant death to ourselves, regular repentance and renewal of our faith.
The Spirit is not opposed to the physical and the natural; the Spirit is opposed to the flesh, that which is of sin and death. As we walk in repentance and faith, the Spirit brings resurrection life to the physical and the natural, to the very messy moments of our daily life.
Creationists insist that the amazing world of the Bear Hunt sprung up ex nihilo for the purpose of telling a beautiful story.
But we know better. By Scientific observation and inductive reasoning we can prove the existence of enormous negative page numbers. We know that inductive reasoning functions as incontestable proof, because we are the keepers and guardians of the sacred truth that all worlds are impersonal machines and not stories. Worlds have no plots, and are filled only with particles, not characters. Creationists are stupid. So are all authors, artists, composers and poets — they are all conspiring in a tremendous lie about worlds and Science (all rise!).
I’ve just finished the book Freakonomics, and it was very interesting and thought-provoking. Seeing how an economist approached life’s situations and problems made me wonder if we could construct an economic argument (speaking in broad terms of cost and incentive rather than merely money) against atheism and for God’s existence. By its nature such an argument wouldn’t be conclusive, but then most arguments for God’s existence function that way — encouraging the faithful but not sealing the deal for non-believers. Here’s how I think we could develop such an argument:
Let’s assume for a moment that there is no God. Does this fit the data that we see? Disregarding the conventional wisdom that religion is an “opiate,” I think we can actually argue that if there is no God, religion is economically unsustainable. If there is no God and man has evolved, then belief in God and the practice of religion consist entirely of costs and no incentives (since there is no God responding to your prayers, nor providing any future hope or joy or reward). This creates a powerful incentive not to believe in God — it is a perfect waste of time and energy. From an economic standpoint we would hardly expect religion to have developed in the first place, and from both an economic and evolutionary standpoint we would hardly expect religion to persist. As supporting evidence, monkeys in zoos don’t form cargo cults; instead, it seems quite obvious that if they worship anything, it is simply themselves. But if monkeys are so sensible about how much of an economic and evolutionary waste religion is, why do so many humans practice religion? Our hypothesis (there is no God) simply does not fit the data.
Let’s assume for a moment that there is a God and that man is uniquely created to fellowship with and worship God. The atheist is quick to point out that this hypothesis does not fit the data either; where are all the indications of God’s fellowshipping with man? Why does God allow such confusion among men as to who God is and how to fellowship with him? Putting aside for a moment the fact that we see God’s fingerprints everywhere, let’s agree with the atheist that if our hypothesis were true we would very much expect to fellowship with God walking in the garden in the cool of the day.
But now let’s assume that there is a God, that man is uniquely created to fellowship with and worship him, but that there is some estrangement between man and God. This, then, seems to explain the data! The fingerprints of God can be identified in his careful and thoughtful design of the world. Our being created for the unique purpose of fellowship can be seen in the fact that humans alone are able to reason and communicate. There is now a great economic incentive to believe in God, since there is great joy and blessing to be had as his children; and in fact, it is precisely where Christianity has most flourished that civilization and freedoms have most thrived. Yet this estrangement also creates a great economic incentive to disbelieve in God, or to fabricate one’s own gods and religion, which explains the great confusion man has about God. This estrangement suggests that God might allow himself to be hidden from our sight to a certain degree, but also that he might be working to reconcile us to him — so there is even a suggestion of the gospel!
There are, of course, ways that this argument needs to be further developed. More work needs to be done to demonstrate that religion truly has no economic incentive if God does not exist. And we have assumed one type of God here (a personal and good and gracious God who pursues fellowship with man), but the atheist will be quick to point out that this is a fallacy of limited choice; perhaps there is another type of God who delights in causing chaos — does this explanation fit the data? To the Christian it is certain that it would not, but for apologetic purposes this argument must be developed.
And of course, we should not see God as a mere hypothesis. Stay tuned for Friday’s quote.
What is this trial? It is my wise and loving father teaching me to grow in trusting and loving him. Faith grows best when he is all there is to cling to.
My pastors have been preaching through Exodus, and just finished ten weeks in the ten commandments. They have done an incredible job of helping us to feel the weight and glory of God’s holiness; but without letting us forget that the law sits on the bedrock foundation of the gospel (“I am the Lord your God, who brought you . . . out of the house of slavery”), and that our reading of the law absolutely must be infused with gospel hope.
Yet it is still so tempting for me to hear such a message and nurse my conviction, without really going any farther. Perhaps I resolve to change some things, but in reality my ears are tuning out the very gospel hope and power that are the only way I can possibly move beyond conviction. Mark Lauterbach critiques his sermons on this point, but we should also critique our listening — are our ears tuned in to savor conviction, or savor the gospel:
Is conviction of sin the measure of a sermon? … I used to notice that people would give me the most response to a sermon that was the most demanding. “Oh Pastor, that was such a wonderful sermon, I was so very convicted.” Should I have found this encouraging?
[But] while conviction is a gift to us, it is always conviction to lead people to the cross. I know the arguments about people needing to be slain by the law — and agree that awareness of need of forgiveness is crucial. But if I leave them there, I have not been faithful to the Savior. Conviction should drive people to the cross — and they should leave with hope toward the Savior.
We want to welcome the Holy Spirit’s conviction, and repent, but we shouldn’t get off the bus there. Our conviction should drive us to look upward to our Savior rather than inward on our sin; the gospel is our only hope and power for forgiveness and for real change.
How do we make that something more than a mantra? How can we practically seize this gospel power to change? Here are some regular practices that can strengthen our faith and empower our obedience; please comment to add more:
- Regularly recount the gospel to ourselves, thanking God that our sins are completely forgiven and that we approach him clothed in the righteousness of Christ.
- Regularly acknowledge that whatever success we have in obedience is a gift from God.
- Regularly pray for the Holy Spirit’s help to change, knowing that this grace and help will surely be given to us because of the cross.
- Remind ourselves of the reasons that we should obey. Regularly feed our souls with these truths as a way of provoking joyful, grateful, faith-filled obedience:
- God is my creator, and he is good; he knows what is best for me.
- True and lasting joy are only found in God and in pleasing him; these idols that I cling to cannot compare to God’s glory and beauty and goodness and joy.
- God has saved me from condemnation and wrath, and my gratitude at this precious gift should overflow in obedience.
- God is my loving father and I should reflect his character.
- Christ has purchased my very life with his blood and I should reflect his character.
- The Holy Spirit indwells me and empowers me to reflect Christ’s character.
- Read books that fuel our appreciation for the gospel and our love for God, such as Jerry Bridges’ The Gospel For Real Life, C. J. Mahaney’s Living the Cross Centered Life, and John Piper’s When I Don’t Desire God (download, purchase).
Crossposted to Reflections on Upchurch
God gives us rest and leisure as a gift to be enjoyed. Since it is a gift from him and since we belong to him, the way we receive and enjoy this gift is an important part of how we worship and honor God. There are some principles we can draw from this:
- We ought to see leisure as a gift and enjoy it with gratitude to God. We routinely thank God for providing our food; do we thank him equally for our leisure?
- Leisure is a gift and not a right; we should not make an idol out of it. Do we selfishly demand it and spend it? How do we respond when God allows it to be interrupted or taken away? What are the things we value enough that we are glad to give up our rest and leisure for them?
- Christ is our Lord; our very lives are purchased by his blood. We should spend our God-given leisure time in ways pleasing and honoring to him. We need to do more than ask “is it sin?” We need to ask whether our general pattern is to stir up fleshly appetites or to enjoy Christ-honoring refreshment.
This last point doesn’t mean that we necessarily avoid most movies, TV shows and secular music; nor does it mean that the books we read are always theology books. God is honored even in the eating of ice cream, after all, if it is done with a heart of gratitude. Since it is our heart that is on center stage, two different people may be enjoying the same good gift, but only one might be doing it in a way that acknowledges, enjoys, and honors our Lord. In general, our question should be, what appetite are we feeding: our appetite for the world or for God? Are we generally growing in our appreciation of God’s greatness and glory and beauty as revealed in creation and in his gifts to men? Are we generally refreshing, stimulating and stewarding our God-given minds, souls, bodies, families and friendships? Or are these things beginning to waste away as we enjoy our leisure just because it feels good and because we think we deserve it?
Often we will be able to see a connection between our approach to leisure and the sins we struggle with such as lust, greed, jealousy and envy. As we grow in seeing leisure, sex, wealth and possessions as good gifts from God, we will grow in a faith and gratitude that loves to please him with our enjoyment of these gifts.
Crossposted to Reflections on Upchurch