When Tolerance Will No Longer Be Tolerated

          “With the country moving toward inclusion, the leaders of the Boy Scouts of America have instead sent a message to young people that only some of them are valued…They’ve chosen to teach division and intolerance.”  Such was the response by the president of the Human Rights Campaign (described as the largest U.S. gay rights group) to a recent decision by a Boy Scouts of America (BSA) review board to maintain its existing membership policies, as reported by the Associated Press.  After reading the article I am left with feelings of dismay and wonderment; and with a lingering question: In contemporary society in the United States of America is this what passes for rational thought and legitimate argumentation?  Based on the frequency of such statements it would seem the answer to that question is “yes." In my opinion, the reason for such disconnected thinking is systemic yet explainable if one considers the foundational principles undergirding contemporary viewpoints on fairness, tolerance and the like as expressed in the AP article.  Indeed such reasons are worth taking time to consider.

The first foundational principle emerges with the following: “With the country moving toward inclusion…”  Notice please the question begging, as the dissenter assumes the good to be defined by the direction the country moves and then proceeds to use that assumption as proof that those who move differently are wrong.  Obviously this is nothing more than foisting an arbitrary ethic on American culture and demanding its acceptance.  Surely what is good and right and true must come from outside culture, from outside the individual in a culture, lest morality become transient and ultimately meaningless for all members in a society.

Secondly, the assertion is made that the BSA “has sent a message to young people that only some of them are valued.”  This is nothing more than a bald and baseless assertion.  Once again, it is assumed in this statement that valuing young people is equivalent to celebrating any lifestyle any individual youth or group of youths might choose to adopt.  However, it is obvious all ideals are not equally true and legitimate.  Values are not so capricious as to be defined by some select group in society.  They also must transcend culture.

Like much of the reasoning permeating American culture today, the president of the Human Rights Campaign is doing nothing more than foisting, conditioning and presenting question begging and self-stultifying arguments.  His view that everyone must accept his groups definitions of values, fairness, inclusion and tolerance (which are based on the current whims of a segment of contemporary American culture) or be derided into submission seems somewhat less than tolerant of others viewpoints.  Apparently the position that a young person can be valued for their personhood while declining to celebrate their lifestyle is tolerance that will not be tolerated.

This nation was not founded on such arbitrary and vapid principles.  Our Declaration of Independence begins and ends with transcendent, objective, self-evident truths: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”  American society was established on the principle that each member is created by a divine Sovereign Creator that He endows with unalienable rights by members who once pledged themselves to the sacred.  This Creator then is the definer and arbiter of the right and the good, and He says: “at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be untied to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?  So they are no longer two, but one.  Therefore, what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:4-6, NIV) and “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened” (Romans 1:21, NIV).  Futile thinking and foolish hearts permeate the society who neither glorify nor give thanks to the Creator who has created them in His image.

In my opinion, the only hope for mankind, the only way back to reasonableness of thinking undergirded by foundation of the Truth, is Christ Jesus.  “Jesus said, ‘If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.  Then you will know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” (John 8:31b-32)  With this firm foundation, ideas of tolerance, fairness and equality can be carefully considered against the backdrop of a transcendent absolute moral law that does not ebb and flow with the cultural current, for the betterment of society.

Clearing Away The Brush

          As follow-up to the last post I thought I would continue on the topic of abortion and politics.         

          I remember fondly the times of my youth when my father, sister, brother and I would trek into the woods to spend a Saturday morning gathering wood to replenish our fuel source for upcoming winters.  My job was much the same each year: wait for my father to complete trimming with the chainsaw and then proceed to clear away the brush.  Although our focus was to be on the main trunk of the tree, we could not see how to attack the problem until the brush was removed.  Cutting, splitting, loading, hauling and stacking efforts could not proceed until the impediment was cleared away.  I was reminded of this process recently as scrutiny of comments made by a national politician regarding abortion in cases of rape has intensified.  Were the politicians’ comments just misunderstood or misconstrued because of a verbal misstep or were they completely disgusting and inappropriate?  Should the candidate resign because of the insensitivity of his words and for the good of the party or continue in the race?  Are there, or are there not, natural processes in women’s bodies that react differently in the reproductive process in cases of extreme trauma?  Have the presidential incumbent and challenger correctly handled responses to the comments made and successfully distanced themselves from the political fallout?  In my opinion, these questions and many others surrounding the issue are, at best, secondary.  Similar to the Saturday mornings of my youth, the rightful focus of attention with the issue at hand – abortion - is being obstructed.  The brush needs to be cleared away.

            In every case of abortion something is being killed.  The central question when abortion is discussed is: What is being killed?  If what is being killed is a tumor or parasite, then by all means terminate with impunity regardless of the situation.  If what is being killed is a human being, however, much more thought needs to be given.  Even in the most horrible and unthinkable atrocities of violation, like rape and incest, do the acts and manifestations of the violator substantiate killing another innocent, albeit unborn, human being?  After all, we do not sentence the violator to a penalty of death for committing the crime.  One could argue that a child born from such a horrible circumstance would be a constant reminder of the traumatic event, but again would the horribleness of the event warrant the killing of an innocent human being?  Moreover since the only differences between a child in the womb and a 2-year old is size, location, environment and level of development, would we consider killing a 2-year old that was a constant reminder of a past traumatic event?  What is at issue is the value of human life.

            In the United States of America our very Declaration of Independence makes clear the position of the nation:   “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Because all men are created and endowed by their Creator with an unalienable right to life and liberty then the Creator, the One responsible for the imputation of the unalienable right, establishes the inception of life.  “So God created man in His own image; He created him in the image of God; He created them male and female” (Genesis 1:27 HCSB).  In short, because we are created as image-bearers, human life is valuable, precious, sacred and must be preserved to the greatest extent possible.

            Answering issues of tragedy, suffering and loss are incomparably weighty and deserve a response beyond the 40-character-or-less variety.  “For God who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” (2 Corinthians 4:6 HCSB).  If the brush is cleared and we can view unobstructed Christ and the Cross, then we will see the light of the truth and be able to give meaningful answers for such weighty matters in human experience.

A Question for the Candidates

           This year the citizens of the United States will cast their ballots for the office of President.  As I sit and write in this election year the prospective candidates of the challenging party have been through their first primary vote and have gone through a number of debates.  Following the final choice of contender and running mate, another series of debates and advertisements of both challenger and incumbent will take place en route to the November elections.  Amid all the advertisements and debates, I would contend that the single most important question to be asked of every candidate is never directly raised.

            Is human life sacred?  I have noticed that this question is never directly asked.  Perhaps that is because the answer is seen to be rhetorical: yes.  Which candidate if faced with the question would stumble around with a diatribe of double-talk or an outright response in the negative?  We testify to the truth of a positive response with our very behavior.  Do we not celebrate a stranger charging into a burning building to drag out another that is incapable of escape?  Do we not honor one who sacrifices her own life for that of another?  Does not our own Declaration of Independence clearly state the inalienable right of life to every individual?

            All other topics in a debate depend on the answer to this question.  Economic issues concern goods and services exchanged between people.  Domestic and foreign policy issues concern the interaction between citizens of the same, or of different nations, respectively.  Any issue relative to governance involves people.  If human life is trivial then the issues concerning how people treat or interact with each other must also be trivial.  If human life is sacred, then in issues of governance the primary concern ought to be that the sacredness of every human life is preserved.

            I stated previously that the question is never asked directly, and that is because it is routinely asked indirectly; something like, “Would you say your position on abortion is pro-choice or pro-life, and why?”  Responses vary based on the stated platform of each candidate.  I contend that those holding the pro-choice position, as it is most commonly held, does not hold all human life to be sacred.  This is because the choice being made is to kill a unique unborn human.  From conception a unique human life is growing in the mother’s womb; not a mass of benign cells akin to a tumor, not a parasite like a tapeworm, but a unique human life.  Other than size, location, environment and level of development that unique unborn human life is no different than a four-year old toddler, and we do not determine rights of life based on such differences.  To be six feet four inches tall does not make one more deserving of life than another only five feet four inches tall.  Similarly, we do not designate one to be less deserving to live because they take up residence East of the Mississippi River, or because they are underwater.  We cannot choose to kill an eight year old because they have not developed enough to drive an automobile.  If we cannot choose to kill a four year old toddler for these reasons then we cannot kill a unique unborn human for those reasons either.  One might ask about cases of extreme violation like rape or incest.  As horrible and vile as those acts are, the violators themselves are not killed for the crime nor would we advocate killing a four-year old toddler because they are reminders of a horrible violation once endured.  Only in cases of tubal pregnancies would termination be warranted as in that case if the dreadful act of killing one human life is not carried out two human lives will be lost.  If all human life is sacred then we must fight to preserve all human life possible.

            An acute observer will note that the reasons presented above not to kill an unborn human life do not provide a reason why life is sacred.  Why does our Declaration of Independence state in the clearest of written word that all human life is sacred?  If we are here as a result of some combination of undirected natural causes, random chance, evolution by natural selection, genetic drift and the like then human life is remarkable and highly improbable but not sacred.  No, our Declaration makes clear that all human life is sacred because we are created and are endowed by our Creator with those inalienable rights.  The Christian worldview is the only one that could provide for such a statement and in Genesis 1:27 we read, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”  All human life is sacred because all human life is created by the God of the Bible in His image and we all at least act as if it were true.

            January 22 is the 38^th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision giving legal rights for the killing of unique human lives and this is an election year.  In my opinion, we should think soberly of the question of the sacredness of human life and put each candidate under great scrutiny as all other issues of governance hinge on the answer to that question.

Welcome Back

Wow, it's been over two months since I last posted.  It really is unbelievable how time flies.  Much has happened since last I wrote.  I'll take the one of first importance and then follow up with some others in the coming days.  My wife and I were blessed once again with a beautiful baby girl, born on Memorial Day one week ago today.  As has been the case with our four other children, the process of that precious life coming into the world is a miracle that is indescribable.  Mother and child are both well, and the whole process has been another opportunity to witness God's faithfulness and goodness.

That brings me to a small point that has been on my mind for the last several months and has recurred as a theme in my devotions and meditation on the Word, namely God's Sovereignty.  Everything associated in and around the birth of our fifth child (and really all five, truth be told) has been extraordinarily good.  We praise the Lord for that, and for answering our prayers for a healthy baby and delivery.  But there are many births that do not end out so well.  Many babies and mothers die in childbirth.  Many babies are born with disease or complications.  A worker at the plant at which I am in leadership has a granchild that was born prematurely and with complications and has never been home from the hospital.  Many times the parents of that child have gone to the hospital wondering if that day will be the day they have to say goodbye to their child.  Those parents are believers as well, and no doubt prayed for a healthy pregnancy and birth for both child and mother.  So the hard question for the believer is, if we pray for things to go well and they don't what do we think of God?

If feelings are supreme, which they seem to be these days, then we might be tempted to say that our circumstance was out of God's control, or He didn't hear our prayers, or we did something bad and are being punished for it, or that He is not loving and kind but cruel curses some and blesses others.  We can deal with things several different ways and there isn't time right now as I have a two-year old on my lap trying to help me type.  But, suffice it to say that either God is Sovereign (in control of all things) or He is not (not in control of all things).  I am fully aware of the problems the view that God knows of and is in control of all things, but the alternatives are simply unthinkable.  Moreover, the only Biblically sound foundation in reasoning is that God is in complete control and orders all things.  So, God knows about and is in control of both situations I described - mine where everything has gone swimmingly, and in the case of the grandchild of my employee where things have been difficult.  I'll open it up to comments from there as there are a host of Scripture references that hopefully will come out, but i'll leave it with a nugget to roll over in your mind.  How does God operate?  Do we even know such things?  In turns out we do, God does all things in accordance with His own good pleasure and for His ultimate glorification.  The further question is how do we react when God, acting in accordance with His own good pleasure and for His ultimate glorification, and in control of all things determines an outcome for our lives that we don't think is best for us in our limited knowledge?

I know, i've just gotten back on the blog and I throw such a weighty challenge at you right off the bat.  Well, such is my thought life these days.  The answer to this issue brings much to bear on many other areas of life and the faith.  It is important that we not neglect or purposefully avoid such difficult topics, but seek God's Truth on the matter and wrestle with it as the process will surely be a blessing in itself.  I look forward to the discussion that will follow.

It's good to be back.

Godliness with Contentment

In keeping with the expositional nature of our weekly sermon format, we are quite predictably in chapter 6 of 1 Timothy verses 6-8.  Although a powerful message from beginning to end, most of my thinking before, during and after the sermon centered around the single sentence of verse 6 - "But godliness with contentment is great gain."

The starting point of course is that the Bible is Truth - beginning to end the same, same Holy Spirit inspiring, equally efficacious.  Therefore we need look no further than the text itself to derive great benefit.  We are told quite simply that great gain is available - it can be had.  How?  By way of godliness with contentment.  Godliness has been Paul's theme throughout 1 Timothy and some of the ways to train to that end have been discussed in previous posts and are equally plain.  We have here that godliness with (or alongside, or joined together with, or acting simultaneously with) contentment.

Godliness has been defined as: "A right attitude and response toward the true Creator God."
Contement has been defined as: "Satisfaction with what we have and with what we don't have."

So, we train to be godly and learn to be content - that is to say we train to have a right attitude and response toward the true Creator God and learn to be satisfied with what we have and with what we don't have - and that is great gain.  Easy to understand and end of story, right.  Well, yes and no.  That is definately enough to be of great benefit.  At the very least we can strive toward godliness and in being content.  But no in that we can see deeper the same Truth without contradicting or losing the plainness of it.

As believers (well, reformed believers at least) we are substance dualists, which are two big words that mean we subsist in two forms - soul and body, spiritual and physical, eternal and temporal.  Some additional thought into those two forms will have us agreeing with C.S. Lewis that we are a soul and we have a body.  That is to say it would be a mistake for us to misunderstand our nature and believe ourselves to be finite fleshly human beings that happen to have a soul.  If that were the case, then we might be dissuaded by fine-sounding arguments relative to abortion (infanticide) and when the physical life actually begins as if that is the real point of concern for disciples of Christ.  From Genesis 1 we know that God created man in His image, that He breathed life into man and that man has an eternal destination.  We would only entertain notions of life beginning with the physical if we were to neglect or forget that transcendent Truth about mankind.  But I digress, as many more misunderstandings besides infanticide stem from the same misunderstanding.  The point here is that as created beings created in the image of our Creator and existing forever, we are a soul and we have our temporary fleshly form for a while.

So what does that have to do with godliness and contentment?  Well, if we are a soul and have a body, then our focus will be on the eternal, the spritual, the soulish nature first and foremost.  Aren't we told over and over in Scripture that this is the case?  In Romans 12:1-2 alone that our minds need to be renewed to know God's will and that our bodies should be offered as living sacrifices as spiritual acts of worship.  Our manish nature must legitimately be addressed (if we don't eat and drink we will surely die a physical death) but must be made subservient to the soulish nature.  We "beat or bodies" and "deny ourselves" such that we live with focus upon, and pursue with delight that which edifies our soulishness, even if it be to the detriment of our manishness (many times intentionally so).

I have been making a case in the positive for this deeper understanding of the same Truth, so let me present a completed negative formulation, then end with the positive formulation to which end we are to strive:

To be discontent with our temporal circumstances is to prioritize our manishness and suppress our soulishness; to prioritize the temporal over and above the eternal; to choose as more important the physical instead of the spiritual; to misunderstand our very nature and to travel down the wide, well traveled path away from Truth and Life and is to lose much.

To pursue godliness with a desire that God be glorified in all things and with a desire that we be transformed into the likeness of Christ, while resting on the knowledge that God is Sovereign and the promises that the One True God has made toward working all things out for our good (whether immediately evident to us or not) according to His will (which may or may not align with our prayers and petitions) and providing for all our needs, and therefore being satisfied with whatever material things that may be credited to our earthly account whether great or small and seeing those material things as blessings given to us to manage well and to bless others in abundance is to rightly understand our nature and to walk the narrow Way, in Truth and Life and is to gain much.

Men of Action and Politics

When last we left the book of Ezra, the discussion was focused on several men that were instrumental in the re-building of the temple of God upon return of the exiles from their Babylonian captivity.  In particular, Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Jeshua son of Jozadak began the work under the order from Cyrus king of Persia; stopped the work under orders from King Xerxes and Artaxerxes (based on the complaint of the enemies of Judah and Benjamin); and began the work afresh on the order of God through the prophets Haggai and Zechariah which was later ratified and endorsed by King Darius.

In this post I want to look at the political aspect of this account and what we can and cannot take from it in terms of application in contemporary culture.  Firstly, the return of the exiles and re-building of the temple was ordered by official proclamation.  In the last post we discussed the reason behind this return and how it was nothing short of the miraculous change of heart of the King of Persia, Cyrus himself, by which God brought the return to pass.  This point bears further emphasis here, that God detemined in His Sovereignty and timing that the re-building should take place and so He changed the heart of the King to bring that about.  So, generally speaking God used those in power to bring about His plan for His people.  Can we then make a specific rule then that God works this way all the time?  Obviously not.  Cyrus was King of Persia, not a Jewish leader.  God allowed Nebuchadnezzar to carry away His people into captivity.  God also sent Moses to Pharoh and in that case his heart was hardened such that plagues and death forced a ruler whose heart was hardened to relent and release those under his rule albeit reluctantly and who he later determined to seek to re-acquire only to lead his army to ultimate destruction.  So what we can say without making errors in specifically limited application is that God Sovereignly works all things according to His own good purposes to accomplish His own ends, which are by definition right and good.

Politically speaking God used a king to release His people so that they could re-build His temple.  So what of the stoppage ordered by Xerxes and Artaxerxes?  Was God unable to see that one coming?  God had brought his people from captivity with orders and supplies so why did His people stop when orders came down from governing authorities?  Were God's plans thwarted by a simple decree and disruptive behavior by a small group?  Obviously that would be an error in thinking since that sort of description of God does not comport with the rest of Scripture, nor does it acknowledge the many accounts of God Himself fighting the battle for His people, turning opposing forces against themselves and routing whole armies without the loss of even one of His people.  Again, we don't want to make a mistake in the particular case, rather we want to see the Truth that is applicable across circumstances.  Again, God is Sovereign - it may not seem to make sense to have the work stop, but whether it is obvious to man or not, God is most capable of knowing how things must work such that He receives maximum glory.  In this case, the work stoppage brought about two prophets who spoke for the Lord about not only the continued re-building in the absence of permission from ruling authorities, but also regarding the coming Messiah - all of which came to pass!

Finally, and again politically, why didn't Zerubbabel and Jeshua stage a rebellion when word came down that they had been ordered to cease and dissist in their efforts.  Why didn't they organize and declare that they were building the temple of the Lord (which He had directed by means of a heart change of previous leadership) and no human king was going to stop the Lord's work and fight to the death to continue working?  It seems best to always consider the context and the Truth.  In this time, God spoke to the people through the prophets.  Cyrus decrees the Israelites be given materials and released to re-build the temple - no problem there.  No prophet has spoken, but returning to their land and re-building the temple is a great blessing, so praise God for moving on Cyrus's heart to bring this about.  The stop work order comes down from the same authority that decreed the work start.  Perhaps confusing and disappointing, but God made a way before and He will do so again.  Then the prophets speak.  God has said re-build.  Now, there is no waiting and no fear of retribution from government.  The men immediately begin re-building.  Later the records are checked and the re-building is not hindered by government or others, praise God for working this out in His timing.  God's people are not called to political activism as a pursuit in order to bring about justice in this world.  God's people are called to love God with all their hearts and to love others as themselves, with this love manifested in the bearing of the fruits of the Spirit.  This is not to say belivers should not be politically active, but great care should be taken, as with everything else in the life of the believer, that motivations remain focused and pure and that we do not behave as though God is not Sovereign or somehow needs our help to make sure the problems of this world get solved, whether by sit-in, occupation, or armed rebellion.  Where the sacred is being profaned, believers must be in opposition even unto personal persecution, without fear, but in much prayer and knowing that God is Sovereign and will bring about all things according to His own good pleasure and for His ultimate glory.

What is the one main idea to take away - God is Sovereign over all things and He knows best how things must come to pass such that His glory is maximized.  Let us not presume to need to help out or know better than God.  Love and obedience is a great place for us to start, and i'm thankful we can see that even in a book like Ezra written so long ago.

Timothy Update

Things have been busy.  That is probably quite common to all and a common refrain in our lives as there are many responsibilities tugging at our time.  It has been several weeks since the last post on 1 Timothy.  Quite a lot of ground has been covered in that time, from verse 20 in chapter 5 through chapter 6 and verse 2.  Again, due to time constraints this post will cover these passages briefly, and possible the discussions spurred on from them is where more considerable time can be taken.

Entertaining an accusation against an elder provoked a discussion that was quite possibly entertaining in iteself.  Ultimately the context of the passage and principle presented is for the protection of the elder against slanderous accusations.  Also in the comments following the previous post, additional clarification to the word "entertain" brought more light to the imperative not to take to heart accusations brought against elders without witnesses.  Obviously the Bible, in this passage which is specifically dealing with eldership, is not advocating a "gag order" on all reports of abuse.  In the 1 Timothy church the current elders and membership have a responsibility to look carefully at the man being presented for eldership and his meeting of the clearly written qualifications (both things he must exhibit in his character and things that must be absent in his character) so that such cases would be a great exception.  Also in the 1 Timothy church there will be a plurality of elders, such that if a report of abuse did arise the member to whom the accusation was brought can present the accuser to the other elder(s) so that the abuse is not neglected but also not entertained.  Verse 20 then moves to what action is taken in the case of legitimately discovered sin in the life of the elder.  Public rebuke.  That seems harsh in today's moral economy.  Think about how many times in your lifetime an elder has been publicly rebuked for sin.  What did you come up with?  10 times?  5 times?  2 times?  Never?  Personally I cannot recall ever having experienced such a public rebuke.  Now, I must also explain that until my current 5 year membership I have also never been in a church that was established according to the 1 Timothy church.  So it stands to reason that since the leadership was not arranged according to 1 Timothy that church discipline would not be handled according to 1 Timothy.  So what?  What is missed if sin in not publicly addressed, even among the eldership?  Just read verse 20 again - so that the others may take warning.  No warnings to the membership regarding discipline and consequences for sin in the church, this is a huge loss.  If part of the responsibility of the church is to watch their life and doctrine closely, then what good does it do the body to make things so lax with respect to discipline that there is no encouragement from the church to watch their life and doctrine closely?  If relationship with Christ is the most important thing in an individual believers' life how could the church not address through discipline issues that hinder or block altogether growth, worship, adoration of God with those who are living in active disobedience?  The church should love them enough to seek reconciliation through discipline, in this case public rebuke even for elders.

Chapter 6 references masters and servants, and in today's common scenario in the United States employers and employees.  Very briefly here, everyone for whom God shines the light of Truth into his/her heart lives a certain life in a certain place.  Those temporal circumstances may or may not change immediately or over time, but what is significant is that the miracle of a change of heart has taken place.  So, one person may have 200 people in his employ when she becomes a believer.  The question before her is how will the love of Christ and the change of heart effect her life as an employer (her treatment, her expectations, her demands, her compensation, her attitude toward her employees).  Another person may be employed by a great boss, a terrible boss or something in between.  The question before him is how will the love of Christ and the change of heart effect his life as an employee (his treatment, his expectations, his thoughts, his attitude, his appreciation toward his employer).  Much can be said regarding slavery, the yoke placed on others, and the outworking in a culture with the understanding of the equality of all mankind as image bearers.  However, suffice it to say for this post that each person who is brought to a saving knowledge of Christ will be responsible for how he/she worships God in whatever situation they are in or transition into for the remainder of their lives.  We are all responsible individually to God for how we behave as disciples of Christ and striving to live in contentment with godliness, which is great gain.  Whatever any of our current situation, we can all find something to change so that we can do better at being content and godly right where we are, for His glory.

A Report From Abroad

We had a wonderful report Sunday morning from our team that went to Colombia for a short term mission project back at the end of 2011.  It was a real blessing to hear the team, from youngest to oldest, speak of how God had taught and moved them about the real physical, emotional and spiritual needs abroad.  Each team member expressed the humbling nature of going to serve and seeing in person both that there are needs worldwide and that God is moving worldwide.

Personally, the richest portion of the testimony was hearing of how the family that once was present as a local member of our body and is now a foreign member of our body, serving full time in Colombia, is impacting lives in another culture.  God is receiving glory because this family is not impacting lives by pressing American culture on the people, but rather living a Godly life in the midst of these peoples and preaching Christ crucified and raised from the dead and discipling through biblical teaching applied in daily life applications.  Something as simple as asking a local man to consider taking his son with him to work on a side job in a culture where boys do not interact with their fathers as they are often left to grandparents for their daily training can change a generation.

We need to teach sound doctrine, we need to preach the gospel, we need to care for the needs of the hurting, we must have the strength and ability that comes from a Sovereign God so that He is glorified in all things.  I am so thankful for the testimony of faithful brothers and sisters, for those willing to serve both at home and abroad, for a loving God that turns the hearts of a sinful nature to Himself and uses those sinners to accomplish great things for His glory.  May we all continue in the faith, hold fast to the Truth, love God with all our being, love one another, and live according to the purpose for which we were created, for God's glory as we proclaim the gospel and live lives according to the calling for which we have been called as God gives us strength.

Rich blessings and much love to our brothers and sisters around the world, and to our dear friends in Colombia.

A Changed Heart and Some Persevering Men

I felt compelled to spend February in the book of Ezra and so I have been reading daily through the short 10 chapter book concerning the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem in Judah following the return from captivity in Babylon (among other things).  There is a wealth of issues to cover, so i'll take them as time permits in brief and hope that you will be encouraged from the reading of them to read through Ezra yourself, and be blessed.

Just two quick points today.  The first is a phrase that reaches out and slaps me across the face every time it appears in scripture.  I'm speaking here of the first two verses of the book:

"In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah, the Lord moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and to put it in writing:"

Wow, it's amazing every time.  Cyrus king of Persia ruled over all the exiles from Jerusalem, taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezzer, and had no intentions of letting them go back home.  Then something happened, no less than a miracle.  God, in keeping with what He spoke through Jeremiah, moved the heart of Cyrus.  Then the king sent them back home, and not only sent them back but sent with them silver and gold, goods and livestock and freewill offerings the temple in Jerusalem that was yet to be rebuilt.  So we see several things here.  God is not sitting up in heaven, having wound up the universe, just sitting back letting things happen as they will.  He is intimately involved.  You know, like what is written in Colossians 1:17 "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."  Not sitting back watching, but Sovereign over and in control of all things.  All things that God has said will come to pass - will come to pass.  Also, only God can change hearts.  Many fine arguments can be made to make someone consider changing their way of thinking about a certain topic, but no amount of human effort can bring about a change in another's heart.  This is a possible source of error for many people who rigorously pursue apologetics.  Obviously there is nothing wrong with study, with discovering the wealth of resources and evidences of God's existence in all aspects of human existence and with making arguments for God among people who do not believe.  However, we must be so very careful not to become so proficient in making arguments for God that we put ourselves in the place of God - believing that it is the argument and the arguer that turn people to God, moving to the place where we devote all our time to arguing for God that we neglect a relationship with God, spending a larger percentage of our time reading what other people say about God than we do reading what God Himself has revealed in His Word.  I thank God for the surge in interest and captivation by a new generation who have the largest abundance of resources in the history of the world at their fingertips, but we can have all that and still go astray.  Let us never forget that our commission from God is not to make converts, but to make disciples, and that only God can move the heart of man.  So we study to show ourselves approved, we stand up for the Truth and pray that God will have mercy and extend His grace to those He places before us, that He will shine the light of Truth into their heart that they may believe and confess in the Son and be set free so that we may have the privilege of continuing the process of discipleship all for His glory.

Second, we must persevere.  Paul speaks of finishing the race and keeping the faith as he implores Timothy to press on toward the prize.  We see in the first few chapters here an example of this lived out and recorded for our edification.  Consider Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Jeshua son of Jozadak:

"When the seventh month came and the Israelites had settled in their towns, the people assembled as one man in Jerusalem.  Then Jeshua son of Jozadak and his fellow priests and Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and his associates began to build the altar of the God of Israel...Despite their fear of the peoples around them, they built the altar on its foundation...though the foundation of the Lord's temple had not yet been laid...Then the peoples around them set out to discourage the people of Judah and make them afraid to go on building.  They hired counselors to work against them and frustrate their plans during the entire reign of Cyrus king of Persia and down to the reign of Darius king of Persia...As soon as the copy of the letter of King Artaxerxes was read to Rehum and Shimsai the secretary and their associates, they went immediately to the Jews in Jerusalem and compelled them by force to stop.  Thus the work on the house of God in Jerusalem came to a standstill until the second year of of the reign of Darius king of Persia.  Now Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the prophet, a descendant of Iddo, prophesied to the Jews in Judah and Jerusalem in the name of the God of Israel, who was over them.  Then Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Jeshua son of Jozadak set to work to rebuild the house of God in Jerusalem. And the prophets of God were with them, helping them." (Ezra 3:1-5:2)


So much to say here so I will continue on this theme next time, but notice two things now.  First that these two men are mentioned by name as leading the building effort based on the decree of Cyrus king of Persia, whose heart was turned by the Lord, were forced to stop by the people of Israel who petitioned the then king Artaxerxes, and resumed the effort with the proclamation by the prophets of God (Haggai and Zechariah).  These two men persevered.  What an encouragement to us, that although there will be times when people (even the people of God) set themselves to discouraging and frustrating God's will that ultimately what God has decreed will come to pass.  It is reasonable to believe that the reason Zerubbabel and Jeshua did not lose heart and fall away is because they were not looking to their plan or their efforts.  How easy it would have been when the decree came down from King Artaxerxes to have exclaimed, "Oh no, our plans have been thwarted, why oh why did you stop us, Lord.  All we wanted was to rebuild your temple and worship you as you've commanded us to do.  We built the altar and offered sacrifices and yet you have abandoned us!"  Their confidence must have been in something beyond themselves.  It is also reasonable to believe that their confidence was in their Lord, not themselves.  They began building based on the decree by King Cyrus, but not because he decreed it.  Cyrus decreed the people be allowed to return and rebuild the temple.  Zerubbabel and Jeshua first built the altar and offered sacrifices to God, before setting the foundation for the temple.  There was something beyond King Cyrus driving these men, the God that moved the King's heart.  This is also why the men did not wait for another King to give them permission to return to building, the prophets of God spoke and they went back to work.  They served God, they placed their confidence in God, and God was with them.  More on these men and the prophets of God next time.

Honoring Church Leadership

Sure enough, we camped out in 1 Timothy 5 this week for about 40 minutes.  Specifically the focus was on verses 17-20 and honoring the church leaders was the topic.  Several important points came out that we can look at today.  First, a plurality of elders.  Any mention of leaders (elders, overseers, bishops) is always in the plural.  Even generic instructions when establishing a new body has a plurality (Acts 14:23), and when speaking of a fellowship already in existence where supplies are being distributed the gifts are given to "the elders" (Acts 11:30).  In each instance where the office is being discussed there is a plurality given.  Only the requirements for qualification are given in the singular, and then because the qualifications are those to be met by each individual that is to serve as part of the plurality.  So then how many make up the plurality?  Ah, and here we can get into trouble.  Elders means more than one, and that is as far as we can go.  We are not told any specific number, so making a requirement of three, seven, twelve or any other number mandatory could bring disastrous results because there may not be enough men who meet all the qualifications in the body to fill the number mandated by the church policy.  In that case concessions would have to be made regarding biblical instructions (men not meeting qualifications for eldership, women installed, etc.).  If the best practice is to follow what the Scriptures say, then there must be more than one elder and each man must meet all the biblical qualifications for the office.  The local church is not to be headed by a single man with all authority.  Such a model is not biblical and therefore is a problem waiting to surface in the body.

Second, the position of elder is a position of honor by its very nature.  Men serving as elders have a spiritual calling for leadership.  They have demonstrated the character and conviction necessary to take on the task of handling the Word, leading the church body, and caring for the spiritual condition of each and every member of the local church.  It is not for the faint of heart, for the weak in moral standing, for those light in theological understanding, nor for those who cannot handle conflict well.  In short the majority of church membership do not belong in the position of elder.  It is almost as if the prospective candidate desires very much the position, but never feels quite qualified to serve in that position, yet he is nominated, vetted, approved and encouraged by his peers and feels such a conviction by the Holy Spirit that he accepts the noble and solemn path placed before him.  And in following, the one handling the Word is worthy of double honor which does include monetary compensation for service.  The two examples given in support for this appear in 1 Timothy 5:18 where reward for work and wages are specifically given in support textually.

Finally, elders are to be protected.  Perhaps the greatest disservice a body of believers does to their leadership is in this area.  How many say, if even under their breath or just in their heart: "The elders don't really do that much.  They meet once a week in the conference room all by themselves, drink coffee and talk about how the church is doing, like anyone couldn't do that."  Have we not read the qualifications necessary to serve in such a position?  Can we not see the passion for every member of the body that causes the men of God serving as elders to cry out to God on their behalf?  Can we not think of the spiritual warfare conducted on a regular basis undertaken by such men to maintain personal integrity and gospel fidelity in the church through handling day-to-day issues and discussions, teaching, etc.?  How many of us are in the practice of praying for the deacons and elders that are serving the body?  How may of us would want our children to take a similar position?  "Dad doesn't really do that much, just go off 'to work' every day and then tell us what to do when he comes home, like anyone couldn't do that.  I don't need to pray for him or support him, what's the big deal?"  It breaks my heart to think my children would think that little of me; likewise it breaks my heart to think that anyone in my local fellowship would think so little of the leadership in the church.

Verses 19 and 20 finish the thought with instruction not to entertain (or receive) an accusation against an elder unless it comes from two or three eyewitnesses.  We must be diligent here.  If the enemy is out to steal, kill and destroy kingdom work then we must assume accusations will come against the elders and that most of those accusations will be false.  We must not even entertain talk about elders coming from one mouth.  Saying something like, "Let me stop you right there, by continuing down this line (by yourself) you are in violation of 1 Timothy 5:19 and I will not hear it.  If you have another eyewitness or two and are committed to the common testimony of misconduct then come together and present your case.  Otherwise do not attempt to spread this to me or anyone else, the Word of God demands it of you and I will hold you to it, for my part."  Me must honor the membership of the church by not receiving an accusation or gossip about another member, and we must not entertain such accusations against the eldership all the more.

My final written note about the sermon this week: "The membership should be joyful about giving honor to the men whom God has put in a place of leadership and service to the body through working to equip, teach and impart sound doctrine."  May we all be challenged to consider carefully how we honor our leadership and commit to praying for these men whom God has installed for service.

Honoring the Family

Our text yesterday was 1 Timothy 5:1-16 and there were several points from the sermon that really hit home.

First, the blessing that expository preaching is to a body of believers.  Our pastor was able to say, "For any visitors, this is not 'Widow Sunday' at Antioch, we are simply working through 1 Timothy and this is where we are in the text this week." (my paraphrase).  No wondering about who called the pastor this week to complain about a member or family member of a church member that did not feel enough attention was being paid to widows and so the text of 1 Timothy 5 was brought up as a message meant to "convict" (synonymous here with scold) the body and bring out how everyone needs to set their priority for this week to go visit someone (which would probably last about a week, since there would be another priority to set after next week's scolding).  No, instead last Sunday's text was 1 Timothy 4:12-16 and so, we look in our Bibles and, yes this week it is chapter 5.  Not to mention the fact that if we the membership are doing our due diligence and reading and studying ahead with what we know is ahead then we have been convicted by the Holy Spirit that we have work to do before the preacher even opens his mouth.  So no one who is a member at Antioch was surprised at this week's text, and hopefully like me was convicted of his/her shortcomings (at least in part based on our reading and prayer about the text) before ever darkening the door of the sanctuary.  Let me be quick to state that the above is not a writing based on a belief that the Bible demands all preaching be done expositionally else it not be 'of God.'  I'm just really glad Antioch preaches through the Bible in an expository fashion and would strongly recommend it as a practice for others.

Next, the church is a family and so to deal with others in the body we should "show honor yet love enough to correct."  (again my paraphrase)  This is applicable not just to the local body of believers but to our 'extended family', the Church.  In dealings outside the four walls of the local church, and in large part due to the reach of the internet, it is a strong reminder of showing honor to other believers with whom we have even strong disagreements and yet loving them enough to correct them (correction of course coming by way of the Word of God not our own persuasions, as 2 Timothy 3:16 teaches reads, "All scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.")  We also know that the Word of God is a two-edged sword so we also need to be open to correction, again based on the Word of God as it is presented, by a brother or sister who would love us enough to correct us if we are wandering off course.  Did I make special note of the need for such correction to be biblical?  If not, let me be quick to state that all correction should be based on that which is useful for correction, namely all scripture.

Responsibility falls on the family, and on the church when there is no family or anyone else to act as caregivers.  This point has very far-reaching impact.  Think of what a culture steeped in a mindset demanding familial responsibility would look like?  How many parents would be left for some other person or group to provide care for the rest of their days, after reaching a point of little to no productivity?  How many runaways or deadbeats would be allowed to be comfortable, or even enabled in their irresponsibility?  There are some societal and cultural pressures that are good as they do promote  principles that are clear in the text of scripture.  "If families were doing their jobs, and if the church was doing its job with regard to the sick and the poor, the government would have no job to do in that area." (my paraphrase)  There is a real quantifiable sense in which the government in our country has overstepped its bounds and participates in the enabling previously mentioned, but there is an equally problematic failure on the part of families and the church that has aided and abetted such a mindset and neglect of the boundary.

All that and widows, too.  "Widows and orphans are the most vulnerable in a culture." (my paraphrase)  There are those who legitimately cannot provide for themselves in every society in the world.  The number and demographic of the constituents differ based on the culture and are unimportant.  The Church should always be on the forefront of caring for those whom society has cast out or who have no other means of support, remembering the responsibility of the family as the first lines of care.  There are ample, and quite sensible, points to be made regarding all members of all ages and we would do well to read them and think about both the grouping we fall in as well as what our place and task is regarding others.

Can't wait for next week.  I wonder where we'll be?  Oh, that's right 1 Timothy 5:17 and following.  Probably be something about elders, oxen and grain - who knows maybe that'll even be the sermon title "Of Elders, Oxen and Grain."

A Strong Recommendation

I have spent the last month steadily working my way through John Piper's book Bloodlines.  Having read the book I would like to recommend as strongly as I can that all put it on their list of things to read, and that they place it in the front of the list.  The book is a tremendous and heartfelt work on unity.  He speaks of his own experience and the racism of his youth, which he has set his heart to die to daily and pursue unity in the ethnic diversity of this world.

Mr. Piper develops his argument that the only solution to the sin problem of racism is the Gospel.  This is what makes the book such a marvelous work, that it is biblical.  He bases his position on the Truth, God's Word and shows through developing systematically his answer on the firm foundation of Scripture.  He begins with man's position of equality in terms of the sinful nature in all man, follows through with the justification and redemption that is available to all mankind based on what Christ did not any human distinctive and continues with God's plan to select for Himself the number that will be with Him from every tribe and nation.  The phrase that echoed loud throughout the book was that the Gospel message destroys ethnocentrism and pride.  Black, white, European, Asian, African, etc. all race and ethnicity takes one no closer to God and therefore is no platform for special favor.  All have sinned and are dead, life comes only through Christ and His finished work on the cross, God regenerates, justifies, redeems, sanctifies and glorifies lest any man should boast.  Boasting is excluded, ethnocentrism is excluded, racism is excluded because of the Gospel.  Unity in diversity is achieved solely by way of the Gospel, which puts to death the sinful nature.  Without the gospel of Jesus Christ, there is no hope for mankind.

If that is intriguing (and I don't see how it could not be for any believer) then pick up the book which is much better written and more detailed than my one paragraph summary.  You will feel Piper's sincerity and see his heart of repentance as he declares his intent to daily put to death the racial prejudice that dominated his youth and stalks his daily walk.  I have been in much prayer to have the same heart of love for all God's creation and to see more clearly the equal standing of imputed sin in which all stand without Christ and the equal standing of imputed righteousness in which all stand with Christ.  Please read this book.

What If...?"

Our sermon series has been traversing by exposition the book of 1 Timothy.  Our message this past Sunday was in chapter 4 verses 12-16.  A powerful list of leadership qualities was presented that I am unable to hold in, and compelled to share as a challenge to all.  Firstly, leadership is communicated by Paul to Timothy as a matter of character and conduct.  This is striking because when we speak of leaders these are rarely if ever presented at the front of our natural proclivities toward the subject.  In the main we are interested in strength, great natural talent, good communication skills, adeptness in motivational techniques, a natural persuasive personality, a skill set and knowledge base second to none in the field of specialization and the like.  If we look at Paul's list of qualifications we see a stark contrast to what our first instincts would tell us.

"Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in the word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity."


I realize these items are from Paul to Timothy for the example he is to be for the church, but how about applying that for a list of traits to those looked at in job interviews?  What if the first area of investigation was into the speech of the prospective leader?  What if, for prospective leaders in all walks of life the expectation was for one who was an example to others in love?  What if, leaders were expected to be examples in spirit?  What if there was an expectation of faith in those who would lead?  What if the standard across the board for those who would lead others was purity?  Before even looking to diplomas, years of experience, ability, etc., these character issues were held under scrutiny?  What kind of difference would that make?  Next up, following the character traits, Paul addresses the conduct:

"Meditate on these things; give yourself entirely to them, that your progress may be evident to all.  Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine.  Continue in them..."


Note two things especially here, first that one who possesses the character traits remains a work in progress and progress should be evident, and second that there is a continuing process of self-evaluation and personal work being done.  There is no room for lethargy or complacency.  There is an expectation of living out exactly what is being taught and a continued process of change and growth toward a more perfect outworking of those character traits previously listed.

Two final notes:
1) There is no doubt that absent the power of the Holy Spirit such character qualities would not really exist.  If we believe the Word then we understand that no man lives according to the purpose of their existence and even if some of the qualities listed were present in observance they could not be held with truly good motivation.  We cannot begin down a path of Truth until we have been made a new creation.  Theologically speaking, regeneration must precede true progress relative to lifestyle.  Heart change is required, and that is a work of the Holy Spirit.

2) Pride and boasting is completely discounted.  Embedded in this list and exhortation is the prior understanding that continued mistakes, asking for forgiveness, prayer and change of behavior will be expected.  How could one stand up and say they have arrived and all should follow them because of their perfect example when there is an expectation of a noticeable evidence of progress?  Leaders who possess the character traits can and should be followed, as they will no doubt have a grave sense of humility, understand better than anyone else how far they have yet to go to fulfill the expected requirement in these areas (perfection) and be completely reliant on the power of the Holy Spirit and not on any ability within.

What if these principles were expected and exhibited, with a continued desire to strive after them with abandon for all in leadership?  Thank God for common grace, and for the realization that we can all strive for such quality of character regardless of any temporal distinctive.

Truth Be Told

I'm coming to the close of my personal daily devotions in 1 John, 2 John and 3 John and wanted to post some of the common themes that emerged as prominent in my mind as I have been studying and meditating on these letters in the last few months.  There are three that are foremost in my thinking, and all three gained that place of prominence in my mind because of several verses in particular, although the themes were common throughout.

Theme number one: Jesus is Lord and Christ, the Son of God.

"We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.  And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.  If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God.  And so we know and rely on the love God has for us."  1 John 4:13-15

"Who is it that overcomes the world?  Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God."  1 John 5:5

The Gospel of Christ according to John also provides much textual support of the connection between the man Jesus and the link to Christ, Lord and God ("My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.  I and the Father are one." John 10:29-30, for example).

Theme number two: We know love and truth because we know the Son.

"...because of the truth, which lives in us and will be with us forever:  Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father's Son, will be with us in truth and love." 2 John 2-3

"It gave me great joy to have some brothers come and tell about your faithfulness to the truth and how you continue to walk in the truth.  I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth." 3 John 3-4

"But you have an annointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.  I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth.  Who is the liar?  It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ...Dear friends, if our  hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God, and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands, and do what pleases him.  And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us."  1 John 2:20-22a; 3:21-23

Theme number three: Resist false teaching that opposes the love and truth known through the Son.

"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.  This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.  This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world." 1 John 4:1-3

"Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.  If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him.  Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work." 2 John 9-11

"Dear friends, do not imitate what is evil but what is good.  Anyone who does what is good is from God.  Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God."  3 John 11

It would do all who call on the name of Christ to think carefully on these and spend some time reinforcing these truths each day as we live each day knowing truth and love because of the work of the Holy Spirit who shined the light of truth in our hearts so that we might know Jesus as both Lord and Christ and empowers us to study the Word of Truth to show ourselves approved and recognize deception and false teaching.  God doesn't need us to defend Him as He was and is and ever will be God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit regardless any earthly circumstance, but there are those who will seek to lead others away from the Truth and so we can be about lifting up Love and Truth as it is only legitimate - through Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior.

A Practical Application

The last post dealt with a general scenario about what was clear and explicit in scripture being extended to a similar position in which the Bible was granted to be silent.  Nice discussion so far as hypothetical general scenarios go.  Now, perhaps a specific case study that is actively and sometimes contentiously debated to put into practice what we have as yet handled just theoretically.

1 Timothy 3:2,4 and 12 says the following: "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife...He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect...," and "A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must handle his children and household well."  This is a clear and explicit establishment of men in the position of overseer (elder, bishop) and deacon in church leadership.  The Bible, however, is silent on the issue of women in the same position of leadership.  By silent we mean that we do not read explicitly worded anywhere in scripture something like "the overseer who is a woman must be the wife of but one husband, faithful to her children and husband;" nor do we read something like "only men are allowed to be elder or deacon, women shall not be allowed in positions of elder or deacon."  So what are we to believe about women as elder or deacon.  Well we look through the Bible and find the general principle of loving God, serving God and effective leadership to be a good thing.  We also find the general principle of working together in the church as a body, each with their own part to make the whole body function.  We also find the general principle of spiritual gifts, of individuals being called to specific gifts and functioning within those gifts.  We find principles of love and grace toward one another.  We look to churches thoughout the nation and see with ever-increasing regularity embracing women in positions of elder and deacon.  Therefore, since the Bible is silent on women as elder and deacon, and since we see many general principles and our observation of church operation today, we fix our position that God is pleased when capable, and responsible adults serve joyfully in positions of leadership in the local church.  We therefore endorse and celebrate women in the position of elder and deacon.  We further purpose to defend this position against all who would draw some line of non-compromise on an issue in which the Bible is silent and which encompasses so many general qualities otherwise stated to be good throughout scripture, and to encourage those holding to such hardline positions to see the danger in their uncompromising belief.


What do you think about this position?  Totally agree?  Any problems?

Think about it carefully and then scroll down for my take, and let me know your thoughts.



















Suppose you ask me to play chess.  I've never played chess before, but I like your company and have always wanted to learn.  You bring out your board (made of etched glass), your pieces (a nice hand carved ebony and ivory set) and your rule book and spend hours teaching me the rules, the spaces on the board the vernacular of the game, the pieces names, their strengths and weaknesses and how they move around the board, and how the end result can be a win or draw and what compromises either outcome.  I thank you for your time and ask you to come to my house the next day to play our first game.  You arrive at my house and i'm excited to see you express how ready I am to play and lead you into my living room where I have everything set up.  You take a look around and ask me what's going on.  I tell you I don't know what you mean, I have the board and pieces ready to go.  You point out that I have the gameboard for SORRY! set out with sixteen "good" Lego Star Wars figures and sixteen "bad" Lego Star Wars figures scattered all over the board.  And so naturally I ask you what the problem is, you told me explicitly what chess was (board, pieces, goal of the game, rules) but I noted that generally speaking games are fun, that there are lots of different kinds of games, that games are meant for two people to have a good time and since you never told me that a SORRY! board and Lego Star Wars pieces couldn't be used, obviously this is just legitimate an arrangement as what you went over with me yesterday.

The principle is very simple.  If a single set of explicit standards or arrangements are presented, implicit in that explicit establishment is the understanding that one need not exhaustively reject all other possible arrangements.  The fact that it is established in the Bible that the office of elder and deacon are set out for men (of but one wife, who handles his family well and children show him proper respect, etc.) implicitly leaves out all other arrangements.  One doesn't even have to spend time saying - "The Bible condemns women in all places of such leadership."  It is obvious and explicit as well as implied that the only arrangement for church leadership established by God through the revealed Word is men, not women.  The arrangement simply should not be recognized.

Now, having established men who are husbands of one wife, and who manages his family well, and meets the other requirements for either elder or deacon; one can ask questions about what qualities a married man that handles his family well might bring to church leadership that God felt important in the local body; about how that structure agrees with other arrangements throughout scripture; about how that arrangement should impact other members of the body and how it should augment our worship of God who set those established framework in place.  In short, we should not look at general principles and what we observe around us as common practice to see what arrangements that are not clearly and explicitly established we can incorporate into what is clear and explicit.  Rather, we should read what is clear and explicit, endorse and celebrate that which is clear and explicit and spend our time meditating on why God established it in that clear and explicit manner.  To do otherwise is to run the risk of endorsing and celebrating that which is in direct opposition to what was clearly and explicitly established by God; to stand on dangerous ground.

Dangerous Territory

I have been in a discussion on another blog site for a few days and a theme has developed that I felt important enough to address on its own.  Here is how the thinking is presented without reference to a specific topic so we can concentrate on the framing of the position and not the details of the issue.

"I read explicitly the words of the Bible on topic X, but the Bible does not make any explicit statements about a corollary topic X'.  Since the Bible is silent on topic X' I look at the world around me.  Contemporary culture says that topic X' should be viewed equitably with topic X.  Based on the observations I have made in the culture surrounding me in my every day life I conclude that topic X' is acceptable Biblically and further determine that I should accept and celebrate topic X' and treat it as equitable with topic X."

Is this a logical, proper and reasonable way for sincere Christians to think in areas where the Bible does not explicitly state anything regarding a specific topic?  I would say this is very dangerous territory and that this line of thinking is logical is not proper and is not reasonable for sincere Christians.

The line of thinking is logical because it begins with a proposition, states the assumptions and forms a conclusion.  That is all that is required to make a logical argument.  The conclusion is either true or false based on the myriad rules of logic that govern such matters.  So, the line of thinking is at least logical in that sense.  More on this point later.

The line of thinking is not, however, proper or reasonable and I will only present one reason below as it should be the only reason necessary.

God is Holy.

Is it really as simple as that?  Yes, I believe it is.  Think of the assumption made in the logic developed in the position.  If there is no explicit wording in the Bible for a position (X' in our faceless example) then we look to contemporary culture and the observations we make there to determine what is Biblically acceptable.  Did you catch that - look to contemporary culture to determine what is Biblically acceptable.  What is the danger there?  It seems obvious - the popular majority of contemporary culture will in the main behave contrary to God's will.  Granting that the law of God is written on the heart of man such that all recognize moral categories and non-Christians can do good things, this is not the requirement of the Christian.  God did not call us to be good.  Be holy, be perfect, be conformed to the likeness of Christ, live worthy of the calling to which you have been called - these are the requirements for disciples of Christ.  Even more striking is the dangerous ground on which one stands by using this reasoning, at it is similar to Pascal's wager: what if you are wrong?  Since you don't know because the Bible does not explicitly cover topic X' if one looks to contemporary culture and celebrates topic X' and deems it equitable Biblically with topic X and is wrong, what is been done is a profaning of that which is sacred.  Holding such a viewpoint is the trivialize the Holiness of God in that we are willing to make extensions of God based on the world around us which we are certain is fallen and by and large is still fighting against God.

If the mistake is made and the person is a disciple of Christ, whose sins have been atoned for by acceptance of Christ at the atoning sacrifice for sins then His blood will cover that sin as well.  But how are we to live our lives as believers?  The knowledge of what was done on our behalf and the resultant love we have for our Lord and Savior should drive us to desire to glorify God in every way and not tread on such dangerous ground, clearly placing ourselves in the terrible position of endorsing and celebrating that which is against God's will.  This should be reason enough to decry such an approach.

Bookends of Worship

I work in structural steel fabrication and so on my desk are bookends made of sections of large thickness angle. We have similar angle bookends elsewhere in the office, on opposite ends of catalogs and code reference materials.  These bookends are weighty objects that bound a group of books so that they remain in order and upright.  Without solid bookends, the grouping will fall apart.

In reading through the book of 1 John I noticed some powerful bookends that are worth looking at carefully.  The book begins with the following:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life - the life was manifested, and we have seen, and we bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father was manifested to us - that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

And ends with the following:

Little children, keep yourselves from idols.  Amen.

If we look at these two statements we see some striking ideas.  First that there is one thing that is true.  Second that our choice is between two things that are known.  Third that our confidence and love is bound by two poles.

There is one thing that is true, and that one thing is God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).  Truth is often defined in terms of correspondence; that truth is that which corresponds to reality.  In the opening lines of 1 John we have a description on what has been since the beginning and which has been seen, that has been heard, that has been touched.  We do not believe in something imagined in the minds of men with no physical manifestation in based in reality.  We believe in something manifested physically in our time and space and history - Jesus the Christ.  We remember that the child was born, the Son was given.  He, the Word of Life, walked among us and was seen, heard and touched.  He was crucified, died and was buried having been touched.  He rose again and appeared to many witnesses, for forty days walking, eating, talking and being touched.  The Son of God was handled.  Idols were fashioned by men as objects of worship, and remain today, being fashioned by men in the factories of our minds - oftentimes as the works of our hands.  We are told at the beginning of 1 John to follow the truth of what man has handled that was given by God, and likewise are told at the end of 1 John to not follow the lie of what man has handled that is fashioned by his own hand.  Do follow that which is true, do not follow that which is a lie.  These are the two poles that bind our love - the positive pole of the truth and the life, the love of God in which we abide and find our redemption; that Jesus is Lord and Christ - and the negative pole of lies and death, that we can be God and fashion for ourselves the objects of our worship.  There is but one way to life everlasting, and it does not flow through the hands of men.  Our love and confidence is in that which is testified to in heaven by the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit and on earth by the Spirit, the water and the blood.  This Jesus is both Lord and Christ and we have life if we abide in Him.

The challenge is to take up the truth and abide in Christ daily, not in ourselves - in so doing we will know what love is, we will be confident in that which we know that has been revealed to us, we can be faithful to do all things as unto the Lord and glorify Him in all things which is our act of worship (in all things all day long) in living in accordance with the purpose for which we were created and brings true meaning in our lives.

Beginning the New Year in Love

It seems only fitting to begin the year by writing of the Love of God.  Appropriate in the first place because I have been studying through 1 John for some time and am now reading through the whole book daily to soak in things I may not have seen in a verse by verse study.  Secondly, it is fitting because God has so chosen to bless my wife and I with our fifth child (due late May or early June 2012).  Children are such a blessing, and I say without hesitation that I have learned more about God's Love for me through parenthood and the love I have for each of my children.

Having said that, and with love as the backdrop for kicking off 2012, let me begin by getting right into 1 John and talk about the bookends of chapter 4- God is love.  In verse 8 of chapter 4, John writes, "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."  Verse 16b states just as explicitly, "God is love."  Between these bookends is the description and explanation of these bookends.  First, in verse 10 we are told what love is - namely, "not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins."  So we see that love IS sacrifice.  God is love, because God is sacrifice.  God is three in one, Father, Son and Holy Spirit - the Son is an atoning sacrifice once for all.  Therefore God is love.  How do we know this apart from the words in some book that is thousands of years old?  Verse 9, "God showed his love among us:  He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him."  God is love, and He demonstrates that love among us in time and space as a part of human history forever recorded and attested by Biblical and extra-biblical sources alike.

Love is inextricably tied to sacrifice.  We only know what love is because Christ Jesus laid down his life for us (Chapter 3 verse 16).  So any talk we may have about love that is devoid of an acknowledgment of sacrifice is no love at all.  It may well be a good description of temporary happiness, of physical pleasure or the promise thereof, of getting or being able to use something for one's own ends, but it will not be love.  So, what do we make of things like "irreconcilable differences" as a reason for divorce?  The only conclusion is that there was no love in the first place.  This is a very difficult statement to hear, but think it through.  If the only way we know love is through a demonstration of sacrifice, if we are told clearly that love is God sending His Son to be an atoning sacrifice for the sins of man, and that because we know this concerning love we ought to love one another just the same (chapter 4 verse 11) then there logically can be no differences that rise to the level of being irreconcilable.  Jesus Himself taught that divorce was the result of a refusal to forgive, a point at which one party was no longer willing to sacrifice for another.

Apart from the example of marriage, we are also instructed to love our brother in the same way God loved us and demonstrated that love.  We are told in scripture that the world will know His people by the love we have for one another.  We must not misunderstand the gravity of the word love as it applies to our relationships.  Loving God and loving one another.  In chapter 4 and 19-21 we see that the demonstration that we love the God we cannot see with our eyes is by how we love those we can see and interact with physically each and every day.  If we do not love one another - through sacrifice - we do not truly know what love is or love God.

There are two points that are critical in my mind that should serve as a challenge to us all in the new year.  First, we must not, we can not, attempt to separate sacrifice from love.  We must not try, as some have done, to present love as a tacit or celebration of anything and everything under the sun as if love is tantamount to acceptance of all behavior, that all is OK since the goal of man is to be happy in how we each choose to live our lives.  If love itself is God's sending of His Son to die as atonement for our sins, and if we only know love because of the demonstration of Christ's sacrifice for our sins through crucifixion, then we dare not be so cavalier with our understanding and universal application of the term.  Second, we must strive to continually reaffirm our love for God by preaching to ourselves the Gospel and to love one another by sacrificing of ourselves for the sake of the Gospel and by preaching it to others through our words and deeds.  Perhaps if we all as believers set out to accomplish this in 2012, the year will be marked with an increased awareness that the Church is set apart from the world and its members are easily seen as markedly different in that they love one another and therefore love their God and can then successfully preach to others the love of God available to all.

Happy New Year, and may it be one of great love for God an one another.