Evidence is not always obvious

EVIDENCE IS TRICKY

Previously I had written about a friend and former Christian brother’s, social media post. It led to a bit of a debate, which neither one of us shy away from, but that debate took a turn and went a little south rather quickly. In my reflection of the conversation broke down primarily over definition of faith, and over the conclusiveness of evidence. Both of which are tricky, and while I talked about the misunderstanding we had about faith in a previous post; evidence, can often be just as tricky to pin down. Just ask any fan of Netflix’s recent “Making a Murderer” series. If you have not seen the series I highly suggest taking a look, not only is it very compelling, but it demonstrates how are perceptions of evidence can be skewed by our own personal narrative, and that evidence all by itself, doesn’t really prove anything, as much as it serves to validate or invalidate a story.

SETTING THE STAGE

By way of reminder, my friend asserted that the definition of faith IS the NON-traditional view of blind faith,or faith without evidence. I say non-traditional because even though the concept is very popular on our current western Christian context, the actual idea is nowhere to be found in the understanding of Christian faith that we see in the scriptures. It is, at best, something that sounds vaguely spiritual enough that people believe it is Christian, like “cleanliness is next to godliness” or “spare the rod spoil the child“, and at worst, a false understanding so detrimental to Christian thought, that it gives good cause to people who wrongfully reject genuine faith, based solely on a false idea of this counterfeit faith. In fact I even told my friend that if genuine Christian faith was in fact “blind” and without evidence as he asserted, then I would have no problem renouncing my faith today. In short I disagreed and asserted that Christian faith does have evidence.

This inevitably raised a question, that question revealed our secondary problem. Once I asserted that his definition of faith was inconsistent with Christian faith; specifically that Christian faith is a faith that not only has evidence, but a faith that demands it, if faith is a faith with evidence, then the obvious question is “What evidence?” The common assumption by internet educated atheist is that there is none. This is simply not true.

WHAT EVIDENCE?

This second part of our argument did not fall apart over the actual substance of the evidence, but over whether or not my friend was willing to receive it as evidence. Spoiler alert, he was not. His common push back was “Even if that’s true, it doesn’t prove anything!” Which is true, and a claim I never made. I never once asserted that any of my evidence proved anything definitively. As such, I could give many reasons and evidences as to why I believe in Christianity, but me merely presenting the evidence cannot change whether or not someone choose to accept that evidence.

Think of it in terms of a court case. If your a fan of “Making a Murderer” like me, you know that sometimes evidence can be sketchy. Everything from how it is accepted and collected, to how it is presented and received. It is a far more complex subject than whether or not it “proves” anything. For instance, a court, before determining anything, first decides which pieces of evidence it will allow into the trial. My friend would not allow any evidence into the court room of his mind, as such, our conversation did not go very far because without first being allowed, we cant further investigate the evidence we have. Furthermore, his requirement that the evidence “prove” something conclusively (100%) is a demand that is not only unreasonable, but unlike anything we see in our judicial systems. It makes me wonder, does he hold everything in his life to that same standard, does he demand 100% proof for everything before he will accept it?

THE CHRISTIAN CRIME SCENE

Let’s build our analogy out a bit. Image you come across a room with a dead body inside. What do you know about the death of that person? Nothing, but maybe you see a gun sitting on the table, and you think, “Maybe this person was shot with this gun, maybe a murder or a suicide?” Is this a reasonable assumption? Yes it is. Is this a piece of evidence? Again, yes. Does this prove anything? No, not at all. A gun is just a gun, it is still a piece of evidence, but it shows us nothing about what happened, all you have proved is that there was a gun in the room with a dead body.

So we take that small piece of inconclusive evidence and we examine it. We notice the gun holds six bullets in its clip, and there are only five left in the gun. Does this prove anything? No, but it suggest that maybe the gun was fired. We go back over to the body and we notice an exit wound from a bullet. Does this prove anything? No. You still don’t know 100% that this gun is the gun that fired the bullet that made the wound. It makes a very good case for your assumption, but does not demonstrate your case with 100% infallibility, nor does it show what really happened. Was the gun shot self-inflicted, or a murder? Do we have a fired bullet to match with this gun? The evidence demands more investigation, and at some point you to make an educated guess based on all the little pieces of evidence you have.

Sadly, if a homicide detective held to the same standard of evidence as my friend, many pieces of evidence would not be allowed to be part of this investigation, much less part of a court case to determine what truly happened. According to my friend, in our imaginary scenario, sense the gun doesn’t “prove” anything 100%, it is NOT evidence. His words, “It’s not evidence, it doesn’t prove anything.”

In reality, it is hardly ever just one piece of evidence, in fact it is normally a collection of many pieces of circumstantial evidence that make or break a case. This is what I tried to convey to my friend. It’s not just one thing, it’s a multitude of things. Together, these things make a pretty compelling case.

WHAT EVIDENCE SHOULD WE CONSIDER?

This is a good question, but a question that has no real answer. It really depends on the conversation. In the particular conversation with my friend we started with the validity of the bible. If the validity of the bible is on trial, then there is a very easy string of questions we can ask to begin to build a case. While I wont go over all the evidence, there is simply too much for one blog post. I can tell you how I tried present the evidence to my friend.

First, we can simply start with Jesus, all of the bible’s claims fall flat if there is no Jesus. So, was Jesus an actual person? Yes, he was, some try to claim otherwise, but no serious scholar, even atheist scholars believes this fringe claim. All serious history points to Jesus being an actual person who lived around the time, and in the area, that the bible claims he did. If accepted, then this piece of evidence becomes a positive piece for the case of Christianity. Obviously if there is no Jesus, there is no Christianity. Does this prove that he was God? No, but it is a pretty obvious place to start. Granted, it still does not prove anything 100%, but if our two available options are “valid” versus “invalid”, the fact that Jesus is a real person points us more towards the “valid” category over the “invalid” category. My friendly opponent, would not grant this conclusion.

Secondly we could look to the writings of the bible itself. On the bible, there are a myriad of things we could ask along the lines of credibility, and I think the first and most obvious is simply is “Is our copy of the bible even accurate?” What I don’t mean to say is that all of it’s claims are true, what I do mean to say is “Has the bible been tampered with over time? If we are supposed to accept these documents as true, how do we know if we even have a fair representation of the originals? Which is a good question, but this blog is not about the reliability of the new testament, or the science of textual criticism, so I won’t go down that rabbit whole. You can click the highlighted links for more on that topic. This blog is about evidence, and after presenting to my friend a number of evidences that show that the bible is well preserved, accurate and not tampered with, he still refused to accept my evidence into his consideration. His reasoning still “It doesn’t prove anything!” In my view, it is intellectually dishonest.

WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON?

If this were a court room, and my friend the judge, those of us observing the trial might wander as to why the judge wont allow any of this evidence to be heard. We have demonstrated the evidence’s potential viability, and this evidence is certainly relevant to our case. Maybe we could assume that the judge refuses the evidence based on some personal bias against the story that we are trying to present. If this were an actual case, we would say that this judge, if not completely corrupt, is not impartial or fair enough to hear this case, and we would move for a mistrial. Unfortunately I do not think my friend is able to fairly give the bible and its claims and honest hearing.

However, if the bible is true, you would think that it would have something to about our partiality against it’s claims. In fact it does…

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

-Romans Chapter 1

If the bible is true, then what it says about the human condition is true. If what it says about the human condition is true, then the above verse is true for my friend. He has believed a lie, another story that is counter to the story of the gospel. That story is so ingrained into his mind, that it affects his bias so much, that he is unable to see the evidence in front of him with any sort of fairness. So what are we to do then? Well, if the bible is true, then the Holy Spirit of God regularly opens the eyes of the blind, and gives life to the dead. I will do my best to continue to faithfully present the evidence to any who ask, and I will pray for the Holy Spirit to open the eyes of all who are blind.

Defining Terms : The Nature of Faith

It’s no secret that I don’t mind a good debate, I mean I do have a blog and that blog is dedicated toward theology, in a way, I’m asking for it! While I like to think that I have gotten better at holding my tongue by choosing my battles, from time to time I still feel the need to interject some perspective whenever I think I see an error that can be easily addressed. My personal lesson from a recent Facebook interaction is, that if you are going to semi-regularly open your mouth, you need to be ready to defend what comes out of it.

Ultimately I decided to engage in conversation with this Facebook friend, because I love him. At one point we would have considered each other brothers in Christ, sadly that is no longer the case as he is a professing atheist. While everyone is responsible for their own choices, there are some external factors in place that I believe helped this young man leave the faith so easily. So maybe, in some small way, being that I knew him then, and I know him now, I feel responsible for what part I may have played in his poor understanding of Christianity. So, if I can do anything to help I will, and if I can do so faithfully, I hope God will give me the grace to continue.

A DEBATE OF DEFINITIONS

The first thing you must do In debate is establish common ground, you do so by agreeing on the set meanings of the terms and phrases being used in your arguments. In short, you simply cannot have a good dialogue if both sides are arguing from different understandings of the same thing. You have to endeavor to present your opponent’s position accurately.

For the atheist, if a Christian says you misrepresent their perspective, you should be charitable and listen intently, maybe you missed something. If truly intellect, logic and reason is on  your side, then you, above all the worldviews, should desire to have all the correct information at you disposal so that you can apply it to your way of thinking. For the Christian, since in our worldview we are to value truth higher than anyone else, we too must also listen intently to represent our opponents position truthfully, and to search for our own errors honestly.

A DEBATE WITH NO DEFINITIONS IS A SILLY ONE

Jumping right into to our debated definitions of faith is tricky, and it is more important to me that you see how this failure to represent your opponents position will leads us nowhere fast. So to illustrate my point I want to make a bit of a silly example of what this looks like, and during my debate, it felt like…

Person 1: “Jesus was an actual living person.”

Person 2: “Well that is ridiculous, we all know that you think Jesus is really a carrot.”

Person 1: “No I don’t, and my scriptures don’t say that, so please stop arguing against my faith insisting that Jesus is a carrot.”

Person 2: “You can’t just change the definition to suit your needs, that’s unfair, you’re shifting the goal post in your favor.”

Person 1: “I am not, I am simply trying to show you that what you are saying is not actually what Chrsitians believe. I know there are some who may think Jesus is a carrot, but you wont find that in the scriptures, you have to evaluate my faith by it’s actual teachings, NOT what some people wrongfully teach about it.”

Person 2: “Your wrong, Jesus is a carrot and therefore cannot be a person and cannot be God, your worldview and objections have been destroyed.”

Person 1: “No you just destroyed a straw-man definition of my faith that I am telling you is NOT true. You really only tore down your own representation of my argument, not mine. So I agree with you, if Jesus was a carrot, he can’t be a person or God, but I am telling you that Jesus is not a carrot, and biblical Christianity does not believe that.”

Person 2: “Wrong”

As cartoon-ish as this seems, this is certainly how it felt from my perspective. Essentially if you define things a certain way, it changes your perspective on that particular subject. In a debate, if you have one meaning in your mind, and your opponent has another, you must be clear over which definition that you are discussing, or else the conversation will go nowhere. A simple example to use is the dual definition of “orange”, it is both a color and a fruit. If you are hungry and ask “May I have an orange?” and someone hands your a crayon of a particular hue, you had better clarify your definition if you are really trying to satisfy your hunger. Or, if you don’t want to appear rude, you can just eat the crayon.

DEFINING FAITHS

When it comes to faith you can go lots of place for definitions. A continual place my opponents went to was the dictionary, they wanted to crucify the Christians understanding of faith by the dictionaries understanding. But we were not arguing against a dictionary definition of faith, we were supposedly arguing against a biblical definition of faith. The same word was being used, but with two entirely different meanings, like orange

Without laying out every detail of the conversation, what my friend and opponent, hereby refereed to as my “fropponent”, argued against was the idea of “Blind Faith”. He asserted that the definition of Christian faith is the same as blind faith, or faith without evidence. This view of faith is non-traditional, even though the concept is very popular on our current western Christian context, the actual idea is nowhere to be found in the understanding of Christian faith that we see in the scriptures. It is, at best, something that sounds vaguely spiritual enough that people believe it is Christian, like “cleanliness is next to godliness” or “spare the rod spoil the child“, and at worst, a false understanding so detrimental to Christian thought, that it gives good reason to people who wrongfully reject genuine faith, based solely on a false idea of this counterfeit faith. In fact I even told my friend that if genuine Christian faith was in fact “blind” and without evidence as he asserted, then I would have no problem renouncing my faith today. He asked me to clarify.

I told him how the picture of faith we see in the bible is not a faith without evidence, but a faith that demands evidence. We see in scripture that YES, faith does require belief, but not an un-reasoned belief. We never see the command to follow something blindly, we are never told in scripture that we should shut of our brains and go with our hearts, we never see a teacher, prophet, apostle or Christ himself say anything without trying to demonstrate its validity. The parables are a good example of this, its Jesus knowing that what he is asking us to believe is difficult, so he tries to break things down in such a way that we might learn to understand it through his eyes.

Furthermore we always see Jesus inviting people to come and “taste and see”. This is his common way of asking them to verify what he is talking about with their own senses. If there was nothing there of substance to verify, even if he was speaking in analogy, why would he invite them to try to verify something that is allegedly unverifiable? Most notably we see this with Thomas, he believes Jesus to be dead, and when Jesus shows up resurrected, what does he tell Thomas to do? He tells him to come and touch his wounds! In other words he wants him to see and even touch the evidence for himself. The entire Gospel of Luke was written by Luke as he interviewed and researched the claims that Christians were making about Jesus. He went and found the evidence and wrote it down. We see Paul, when defending the Resurrection, or giving account to all that he has seen, frequently name people and tell others to simply go and verify his claims by talking to these other witnesses. Unfortunately we are unable to do this today, yet even when we go to the the “go to” passage on faith in scripture, we see that Faith is described as evidence, substance, assurance and conviction.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance(substance) of things hoped for, the conviction (evidence) of things not seen.

“But the bible is hard to understand, I don’t get it!”

I know, so if I may, let me use a parable of my own…

I currently cannot see my wife, we are not in the same room or even the same building right now, she could be doing anything she wants right now. Yet, I have an assurance in what I cannot actually see, I am assured that she is currently not sleeping with another man. Do I know this for a %100 conclusive fact? No. Can I see it with my own eyes? No, not currently. Well then, am I completely misguided to place my trust in my wife? Absolutely not. Even though I do not have %100 proof do I still have good evidence or reason to believe she is faithful? Yep. Could I be wrong? Yes, but the absence of visual evidence does not prove me wrong, nor does this mean that my faith in my wife is “blind”, I still have perfectly good reasons to believe that she is faithful to me that do not require my ability to see her in all ways at all times.

In summary, the idea of “blind faith” is not in the bible, and it is therefore entirely un-christian, and therefore has implications for both sides of the argument.

So Christians, stop using the term, it damages our faith, and if you go to a church that teaches blind faith as truth, find a different church.

Atheist, to argue against the Christian worldview by attacking the notion of “blind faith” is a fallacious argument. You simply dismantle something that is not in the Christian understanding of faith. Therefore, in your attempt to dismantle Christianity, you actually leave biblical Christianity untouched and only dismantle your own staw-man arguement.

A TRUE DEFINITION OF FAITH GIVES US A TRUE DILEMMA

If all of this is true, then my “fropponet” has a problem. He cannot concede his error with the definition of faith without also implying that his atheistic worldview may also be mistaken. After all, it was this definition that lead to his rejection of Christianity, and if that definition is invalid, then perhaps so is his assumption that led to his rejection. At the least, he would have to admit that his assumptions are wrong, and therefore his argumentation based on this assumption is also wrong, and at the most, commit to re-investigate his own thoughts and ideas about his own worldview in light of this new information. As Christians, we should also do the same whenever we assume something wrongfully.

He is committed to his atheism, and I to my Christianity, but where we differ is that I believe that there could be some evidence out there that completely disproves my faith. For example, if I were to find out for certain that Jesus did NOT exist, then to be intellectually consistent, I would have to reject Christianity altogether. I don’t think my fropponent is willing to make the same claim about his atheism. If he was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, the honest thing to do would be to reject atheism. For him, I don’t know if there is any amount of evidence that could cause him to reconsider the positions he assumes, much more, lead to his conversion. This leads me to believe that the problem in our disagreement is more than just a problem about faith and evidence, but also a problem of the heart.

For more resources on what biblical faith ACTUALLY is, I would encourage you to look at the links below…

Faith Has its Reasons

Blind Faith

Is Faith a Leap like Sam Harris says?

A podcast if you like to listen…

Stand to Reason Podcast

And probably the best summary of the Christian Faith, a book for all of our readers out there…

What is Faith? By R.C. Sproul

Sadly, it would only take a simple google search to show any atheist that the notion of Blind Faith is NOT a Christian one.

 

{Stay tuned as I reflect more about this conversation when we look at the nature of evidence in our next post. If there is anything unclear, comment respectfully and I will try my best to clarify.}

50 Reasons I DO drink

Just a few days before New Years, an opinion piece, or at least what I assume is an opinion piece, because that is all it is, popped up of at the charismatic Christian website, Charisma News. It’s title, “50 Reasons I Don’t Drink” is exactly what it says. Written by a “Pastor” and “Ex-alcoholic”, it begins with a brief disclaimer, followed by a bit of personal experience, then the 50 points. So to begin, I will give a little explanation, my own disclaimer (I talk about sex and guns), then lastly, a point by point rebuttal.

The toughest part about being a Christians is the whole part about trying our best to follow the bible’s instructions and doing our best to let its teachings shape our hearts, and renew our minds. It is often uneasy business. Our author mentions that this issue is “hotly debated”, and in some circles it is, but in the bible it is NOT. Gathering all that we can read about alcohol from scripture, the picture does vary from verse to verse, but when we put it all together we see a very clear portrait about alcohol from the biblical perspective. A portrait I will try to paint as clearly as possible.

The bible allows the consumption of alcohol in moderation. Moderation is not a particular type of alcohol, or number a certain number of drinks. you should or should not take, the only prohibition we see is to not be drunk. Drunkenness seems to be a point of consumption to where self control is inhibited to a detrimental degree. It should be noted that many things can inhibit your self control, including your personal desires and emotions. If alcohol is bringing out those desires and emotions it is merely revealing what is in you heart, the problem is your internal thoughts, it is within you, not the external alcohol. Other than the strict prohibition from drunkenness, the only other prohibition we see is for some clergy members to abstain,  during certain personal oaths such as fasting, and personal conviction. Which is what we have a prime example of in this article, personal conviction. Other than that, this is basically all the scriptures has to say on alcohol in a nut shell.

Personal Conviction can be difficult. It can be very meaningful for you, you can find much to delight about in it, and when that personal conviction is designed to keep you safe from certain sinful proclivities of your own, it can be particularly life giving. This is the case with our personally convicted Charisma author in this article. As an ex-alcoholic, her personal conviction is meaningful and life-giving, and it keeps her from sin that she is specifically bent towards and weak too. So it makes it difficult for her to see why not all Christians see things her way. In matters like this we have the scriptures to counsel us, personal convictions are a great place to have great discussion, but we should never elevate them above what the bible actually says. This is what happens in this article, and this is the fatal flaw in which it’s reasoning is based.

This is where I find my main problem with this article. On the surface the obvious problem is a legalism where we elevate personal conviction to the level of God’s decree. This is a big deal, a real big deal, and something we should never do. However, what concerns me most is a blatant misunderstanding of what sin is, revealing that the main problem is a well meaning Christian who isn’t handling things like a Christian should. Which is according to the bible.

In a direct conversation I am sure our author could quote the correct passages on the nature of sin, but it seems obvious to me that she doesn’t understand them at all, and further more, she doesn’t want to. “This article is not a theological defense on the topic of Christians and alcohol (another article for another time), but it is a heartfelt plea.” If we are not thinking theologically, also known as biblically, then what are we doing exactly? Theology matters, and for the Christian, we look inconsistent at best when our theology doesn’t actually line up with our scriptures, and at worst, we make God look foolish when we think our ways are better than his.

I really do appreciate, and even agree somewhat with the genuine concern she has over sin, but the bible, if we are really Christian, must be considered in all that we say and we do! She seems to think the particular act of drinking alcohol is sinful, or that it causes one sin. This is not the case. Sin comes from the desires of our heart (Matthew 15:19), and our actions are only sinful when they coincide with those desires. I think the most obvious example of this is sex.

Is sex sinful? No, although some act like it is. Is sex sinful in a particular context? Yes, if you are married and have sex with someone that you are not married to, this is a sin. Was it the combinations of external factors that made it sinful? NO, it was the heart of the person who desired to have sex with someone who wasn’t there spouse that made the circumstances possible. Someone who’s heart is not bent towards infidelity id never going to accidentally find themselves in someone else’s bed. In fact if you change the context you can still have biblical sex, and it still be very sinful. So imagine this person is still with their spouse, and still in their own martial bed, but in their mind and heart they are imagining and desiring someone else. Guess what, all the external factors are there, the right person, the right place, but this person is still being and acting with atrocious sinful intent. They are having sex in a biblical context and still sinning! In her original article, our author clearly cannot see the difference between the external actions of sin, and the internal desires of the heart that lead to the external action.

Think of yourself like a gun, and you are loaded with bullets, these bullets are your sin. Just sitting there, you are pretty harmless, but you still have  great potential to fire off that sin at any moment. Your gun, because of its particular sins, can only be triggered by certain factors. For some, alcohol is the trigger that causes their gun to fire, for others, not so much. So for some, alcohol is indeed their trigger, and they should abstain until such a time that they can become unloaded of those particular sin bullets. External handling and self control is always needed, but we shouldn’t full ourselves into thinking that it can “unload” our gun, or that it can “load” our gun in a way that we are not prone to fire.

So while I see the value of her conviction for her and others like her (it keeps her trigger from being pulled), for me, a guy who has beer in his fridge that he really enjoys that he bought on vacation last year and still hasn’t drank. A guy who’s last beer consumed was two weeks ago at a friends house with a group of guys from my church. A guy who’s first drink ever was when he was 28. I simply cannot see the value for me. I think it is obvious that whatever sinful bents I have, and there are plenty, alcohol is not the trigger to my loaded sin gun. For others it is, and they may very well need to abstain, and the fact that I don’t does not make me any stronger or weaker or better than any other child in God’s kingdom, and neither does abstaining make anyone better. In fact, if alcohol can easily undo your Christians character and witness, then perhaps you are the weaker brother.

For the Christian, God’s law is where we need to debate, not over its validity, but over submitting to its understanding, and holding to its clear teaching that we may abstain not from alcohol, but from sin. This is where our fight should be, in the depths of our guts where our sin is hiding. If we are a gun loaded with sin and potential harm to ourselves and others, then our hope is that we would learn and grow and that over time, God, through His Son, and by His Spirit, would gently unload all of our chambers from their sin. Then and only then could we experience the freedom he has intended for us. The ultimate goal for a Christian that struggles with alcohol, is not that he would never drink, but that the underlying sinful desires that are triggered by drinking would be eliminated.

Hopefully I made a clear picture, sometimes I find it was much more clear in my head, and not so much in my typed words. If the picture is as clear as I hope, then we can see what happens when we apply a biblical understanding of sin to these 50 points. IF anything, maybe you’ll see how personal experience cannot be the test for corporate truth. It quickly disintegrates to personal truth versus personal truth, which gets us nowhere, except to show why truth must ultimately be objective rather than subjective.

50 reasons why I don’t drink vs 50 reasons I do

Her points in bold font vs my points in italics.

1. I can’t be sober-minded if I’m not sober.

Well I’m sorry to hear that, I can, so we ought not elevate out personal struggles and experience to the level of norm for all Christians. Maybe you are drinking too much when you drink, a clear violation of the prohibition not to be drunk. You should search your heart and see what underlying motives cause you to drink to such excess. Or maybe you are particularly sensitive, you may have some underlying medical issues and need to speak to a doctor. If you are overly sensitive, you should exercise caution around alcohol, which sounds like you do, so good for you!

2. Alcohol has an assignment: destruction.

Is this from scripture, the surgeon generals warning, a health and fitness blog or personal opinion…something?

3. Alcohol is a depressant. Anything that depresses should be avoided at all costs.

I have never been depressed after drinking alcohol, so maybe this is NOT true for everyone, and to act like it is is an unfair representation. Also I don’t know if ANYTHING that depresses should be avoided, sometimes I become depressed and grieved about particular issues, and it causes me to seek the Lord’s counsel with more intensity. Now if someone suffers from clinical depression, they ought to maybe exercise some caution, although in some cases, alcohol can be consumed with Joy according to Ecclesiastes 9:7, but why bring the bible into this now, after all, you did not use it in your original post.

4. I don’t want to make my brother or sister stumble in the name of exercising my “Christian liberties.” My choice to drink could lead to someone’s demise.

So we are no longer personally responsible for our own sin? That’s a relief! Now instead of “The Devil made me do it!”, I can say “You Christian liberties made me do it!”

5. Alcohol skews my judgment.

Not mine.

6. Alcohol leaves me worse, not better.

Not me.

7. What I do in moderation, my children will do in excess.

Not true, I drink way less than my parents. On the other hand, if this is true, then I can be a moderate bible reader and my kids will do it in excess, man my job just got easier!

8. Even the unsaved know I shouldn’t drink. Bible in one hand, beer in the other—any lost person could point this out as a confusing contradiction.

I’ve been able to have many conversations rich in the gospel because I was willing to go to the local pub and have a beer with my neighbor.

9. Alcohol doesn’t bring others closer to the Lord when they see me drinking, but further away.

See my response previous to this one.

10. Alcohol doesn’t bring me closer to the Lord when I drink, but further away.

See my response previous to this one.

11. I want to be fully awake and ready for the return of Christ, not drowsy, sluggish and fuzzy.

Good thing Jesus is faithful, and when he returns he will be faithful to receive all that he has saved in-spite of their mental ability at the time or whether or not that mental ability was impeded by a substance. Should a Christian on pain meds post surgery also avoid those medications that help them recover if they make them drowsy or sluggish, just in case Jesus returns?

12. Show me a family for whom alcohol has made a positive difference in their lives. You won’t be able to.

Mine! As I said before, many conversation because I was willing to share a beer, some of those with my own father. Also my favorite drinking partner is my wife, it helps us get all snuggly on the couch after the kids are in bed

13. I have never heard anyone say, “Wow, that gin and tonic made me feel so Christlike!”

* makes a gun and tonic, drinks it* “Wow, that gin and tonic made me feel so Christlike”

14. I want to avoid all appearances of evil.

Then don’t! Wait, how is alcohol evil again? Verse please!

15. Alcohol makes it much harder for me to practice the fruit of self-control.

I’m sorry to hear that, then maybe you should abstain from alcohol and ask God to search your heart for the underlying sins that cause you to loose the fruit of self-control.

16. Alcohol causes me to lose my filter.

Sorry to hear that, maybe you need to learn self-control of your tongue, and not just alcohol. If your sin is a loose filter, gossip or a sharp tongue, then alcohol doesn’t cause it, it reveals it. In that case, praise God for using alcohol to reveal your weakness, now you can zero in on it a prayerfully fight against it.

17. Alcohol is a legal mind-altering drug.

Whoa, then I must be drinking wrong, I have never had my mind altered

18. Alcohol is addictive.

Did you see the bit where I still have beer in my fridge that I bought a year ago? IF it was addictive I think I would of drank it by now.

19. Alcohol is a numbing agent for pain and sorrow only Jesus can heal.

Right, using alcohol to fill a need only Jesus can is a serious problem. This would be treating alcohol like your savior, but alcohol does NOT cause this sin, it reveals it. Also, I have never used alcohol to numb anything.

20. Many regrets are associated with alcohol. (I can give you a whole bunch!)

No regrets are associated with alcohol, (I can give you none). Your experience vs my experiences

21. No one has ever said, “If only I had taken a drink, things wouldn’t have gotten out of control.”

Right, cause that is a ridiculous statement.

22. Alcohol causes me to act in ways I normally wouldn’t.

You would normally act that way given the right set of circumstances, so yes, you should avoid those circumstance, but you should also understand that your weakness is not caused by those circumstances. Your problem is still very real even without those circumstances.

23. Alcohol kills brain cells.

Not if you are drinking biblically (in moderation)

24. Alcohol is a counterfeit and provides a false peace.

Right, but alcohol is not the problem, its that we are worshiping alcohol like a god. Alcohol is no more to blame than the Golden Calf in the wilderness.

25. The Bible says that no drunkards will enter the kingdom of God. Being drunk starts with one drink. I don’t want to see how far outside the lines I can color when eternity is at stake.

-_- I’ll just continue to believe that God will be faithful to save me, I’ll place my confidence in his ability to keep his covenant. *sips more of that gin and tonic*

26. Alcohol is a waster—money, gifts and talents, destinies and so on.

Then pretty much anything can be a “waster”, again, its not a problem with the “thing”, but with the heart of the person using that thing.

27. Alcohol leads to really bad behavior. It is a factor in 50 percent of violent crimes.

Let go back to my bullet analogy. Their chambers are filled with violent bullets, alcohol is the trigger. They still have issues with violence with or without alcohol. Your point also works both ways. Alcohol is NOT a factor in 50 percent of violent crimes. Do you know what is a factor 100 percent of the time? Sinful people who need redemption.

28. Alcohol distracts and derails you from living the victorious life for which Christ died.

Alcohol helps me celebrate my victorious life! *sip*

29. Wisdom is the principle thing that I need to pursue at all cost; alcohol makes me stupid.

Yeah, you should definitely see a doctor and continue to abstain. I don’t know you, so I can’t attest to this fact, but in your article, your poor understanding of scripture makes you seem foolish. Also Christ is the principle thing we should pursue at all cost.

30. Alcohol has ruined many, many marriages.

Those marriages may still be together if we only got past the external abuses of alcohol and really got to the heart issues underneath those failing marriages. In a way, alcohol is only the tip of the iceberg, the bulk of the problem is underneath. Also, did I mention that my wife and I get all snuggly after a few drinks? Being Snuggly is good for marriages. *makes wife a gin and tonic*

31. The only influence I should be “under” is God’s.

Which is why I don’t let alcohol influence me or drink to such excess that it does.

32. The Bible tells me to be alert; alcohol delays my reaction time.

Okay, sometimes playing around all day with my kids makes me tired which delays my reaction time, should I stop playing with my kids?

33. If I don’t start drinking, I’ll never have to stop.

Wow, we must live in entirely different context.

34. Alcohol severely tarnishes my testimony.

Wow, we must live in entirely different context.

35. Don’t want your teenagers to drink? Yep, same reasons apply to you.

Nope, same reasons don’t apply, the only reason I don’t want my teenager to drink is that it is illegal for them. If I see certain characteristics in my children that give other reasons for them specifically to abstain, then I will address them with my child biblically.

36. God is holy; alcohol is not.

I’ll take “Things not ever said in scripture” for 1000 Alex.

37. Alcohol and prayer don’t mix.

Hey, lets stay on topic, Praying and drinking is different than if we should abstain all together.

38. Alcohol and Bible study don’t mix.

Hey, lets stay on topic, bible study and drinking is different than if we should abstain all together.

39. Alcohol lowers my resolve to resist temptation.

If abstaining helps you resits, then great, and maybe others should too, but for me alcohol is not a factor, and it is not normative for everyone.

40. Alcohol = Brokenness (broken lives, health, dreams and so on)

Scripture citation please.

41. When the world sees us drinking, it sends the message that Jesus isn’t enough.

The “World”? Apparently you do not understand the cultural or missional implications of your opinion.

42. Moderate drinking? How about moderate pornography or moderate heroin use or moderate lying or moderate adultery?

How about moderate bible reading? I kid, but seriously your examples are setting up a straw-man argument. Specifically with adultery, adultery is the result of sex used sinfully. As we already covered before, sex is NOT a sin, sex with someone that is not your spouse is.  There is no such thing as moderate sin, drinking is not a sin, excessive drinking, also known as drunkenness, is a sin. So your example should say “Moderate Drunkenness?” There is no such thing because if you’ve already moved to drunkenness then you are already sinning, same thing with pornography and adultery. Is it a sin to be moderately aroused by your spouse? No, but this is they type of fallacious argument you are using. 

43. Christians are called to live a life of total surrender and separation from the world.

Yes, even in the way they partake of alcohol.

44. Alcohol makes me forget. It can make me forget that I am married, that I am saved and so on.

What the what? You have much bigger issues than alcohol.

45. “I don’t get drunk. I only have one or two drinks.” If they didn’t affect you, you would drink soda.

I am not sure what you are trying to say, soda in excess can have adverse affects too.

46. I should never look to the glass or bottle for joy, which can only be found in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yes, but I don’t not find my Joy in drink, I express my Joy in Christ with a drink.  “In Christ God has atoned for all my sins! Cheers and Amen”

47. Alcohol fills my mind with impure thoughts.

No, alcohol reveals them.

48. If it could hinder my faith walk or love walk or dishonor the lordship of Jesus Christ, I need to forsake it.

Everything potentially has that problem, so should we forsake everything that God has given us? Surely not if we are using it properly.

49. Alcohol doesn’t help me run the race that Jesus has marked before me to finish with more accuracy. It does the polar opposite.

Do you got a verse for me yet?

50. For any argument that tries to justify Christian drinking, there are at least 50 other reasons not to. The writing is on the wall. It’s not God’s best for Christians to drink.

I don’t care what wall the writing is on, or how many counter arguments there are, if it is not in the bible and we are not talking about what a Christian should or should not do, we are merely talking about personal experience and preferences.

Starbucks, Orphans and Face-less Charity

---

Recently a weird coffee mermaid lady corporation, Starbucks, announced a new minimalist design for their Christmas, or I should probably say Holiday cups. Red cup, regular logo. There are many reasons for a huge company like Starbucks to make this move. Obviously the design is both specific enough to invoke them holiday feels, while non-specific so not to risk any specific holiday or religious observance. Its smart, and safe, but not without some ridiculous controversy.

Apparently SOME Christians are upset by the removal of anything that may be Christmas specific from decorating the cups. To them this is blasphemy, part of the war on Christmas, because after all, if you remove Christmas, you also remove Christ, and this is apparently unacceptable.

Now there is a lot to learn from here about worldview, both Christian and non. Is this a valid reason for Christians, I believe a minority. to be up in a tizzy? Short answer, NO, but in response to some of the hubbub, more sensible Christian folk have responded in a variety of ways.

The first response was a picture of the red Starbucks cup, surrounded by a cardboard coffee sleeve with the words “If your coffee cups define your Christmas, Honey it’s you that needsJesus.”, fair enough, point made.

This was then followed by a post from a Kevin James look-a-like “Pastor”, suggesting that Christians lie and tell their barista that their name is “Merry Christmas” so they have to write it on the cups. The first one I like, the second one, well that guy gets way too much time on my news-feed. Not to mention, he claims to be a pastor and tells everyone to go in a Starbucks and lie about their name, but it was the third post that really got my interest.

One of my fave writers Jon Acuff echoed this sentiment posting

“I’ll worry about if Starbucks says Merry Christmas as soon as we Christians find homes for all orphans, comfort all widows & feed all poor.”

Theology and adoption, two things I am familiar with and love to talk about. I am a christian, and I have two daughters who share no biological similarities with me.

While there is no direct prohibition or edict in the bible that says Christians should not drink from cups near the holidays that do not explicitly mention that holiday, there are edicts that suggest that Christians can not be neutral when it comes to the issue of adoption. The most famous of which probably being James 1:27

“Religion that is pure and un-defiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”

 

Did I say “suggest”? I meant flat-out declare it.

Now i think a danger here may be to make this text too broad. Some might say “Well James is really making a general appeal to look out for the needs of the least of these as an essential part of Christian living.” Those same people may also comment on the picture above or Acuff’s tweet and reply “Exactly, if only more people would…” The problem two-fold. One, this that this is a very bad way to read scripture. Two, this is face-less impersonal charity.

On scripture, we are not aloud to make specific what the scriptures leave broad, nor make broad what the scriptures make specific. This is a very good bible reading rule, and I am afraid that far too many of us interpret this passage this way. As a result, our response to this very specific call is also very broad. We agree and post “Exactly!” and the enthusiasm is great, but the quote from the picture reveal that our outward enthusiasm does not match our actual activism, our reply doesn’t not make one less orphan homeless. The reality is that far more people will share this picture or Re-tweet Jon Acuff than those who will actually adopt a child, or foster a child, or adopt a foster or adoptive family to take care of.

Here the scriptures give us a specific target. “Hey God, what should I do?” we ask. “Read James 1:27 and do it!” He replies. “Can’t I just post to facebook about it?!” we wonder.

No you can not, and every time you do there is still a child without a home.

Brothers and Sister, this should not be so!

Think of all the negative attention Christians get in the media. How people often look at us like a joke, and therefore think of Jesus as a joke. Think of all the hot button political issues like abortion and ask yourself “is adoption is the answer?” Would abortion even be needed, if every time a child needed a home, a Christian was there to greet them? Would people take us more seriously if we took our faith more seriously? Not more politically, or even more militantly, but actually let the words of scripture change the way we live!

We must take this seriously, but enthusiastic non-activism and face-less charity are not going to cut it. Sure, give your old clothes to goodwill, but guess what, my two adopted daughters don’t need your unwanted worn out clothes. Volunteer at a food pantry, but families like mine, well I make too much money to qualify for that type of assistance, so while you’ll benefit some, there will be plenty of others that fall through the cracks of the system. Meanwhile I need new tires for my car. And there are numerous programs where you can donate and some people will be helped, but you will never have to touch. or know, or see those in need face to face.

So why does James get specific here? Why widows and orphans? Well ask yourself, “Who is missing from this family portrait?” The father. And who did Christ come to reveal to us? “The Father” This is no accident, it is no tricky reading of the text, it is no mere coincidence that the very picture that the scriptures use to paint a picture of our salvation is adoption, it is by design. And Christians, aren’t you glad that Jesus was specific when he rescued you? That he didn’t just send aide from far off, but he came down, took on flesh, touched you while you were filthy, lifted up your face so you could see his eyes and loved you while you we unwanted?

So you can adopt, you can foster, or you can seek out a specific family who does, and you can adopt them. Take care of all the needs that the system fails to meet, be friend and love that family and make a real difference. If one family out of every three churches is all that it would take, then that means that there are enough families left to make sure that that one family never lacks in their ability to care for their children. Surely if there is one family per three churches, then three churches should be able to support one family.

This is a Gospel Issue.

Everything is a Gospel Issue.

Especially adoption.

Your activism needs to be greater than your enthusiasm.

Your charity needs to be specific, not broad.

Your response towards widows and orphans need to have a face, your face.

You have been neutral on this issue for far too long.

God, in Christ, was not neutral towards you.

He was active, so be active.

#imachristianbut ( Jesus is a big deal )

The Cost of a Conscience is the Cost of a Baby.

I wasn’t sure if I should show my hand at the top of this blog. At first, I’d though I’d bury the lead and be clever about where I’m going with this particular blog post. I’d give you my  thoughts, that would hopefully sway you towards my point of view, then at the end, BOOM! Drop the mic and leave all two of my readers in a better place that would last the rest of their lives. Ultimately I decided against this. With the recent public discourse around abortion, and specifically around the fury surrounding the Center for Medical Progress’s expose of Planned Parenthood’s illegal profiting, I though it’d be best to put the thesis of my feelings in the title.

Now this is a theology blog, and some may say that this isn’t the place for theology, and they would be wrong. Everything is formed by the highest imaginable thought. The highest imaginable thought, is God, or some might saying meaning or purpose, but really it’s that attempt to get to the central idea of everything, God. As a result, every thought that flows from that original highest thought is theological. The fact that everything you believe can first be divided into two by starting with “Do you believe in God?”, means that every thought or action proceeding that first question, is theological in its conception.

With abortion, we simply follow the logic. IF there is a God, and IF he has revealed himself to be the Christian God, and then IF the bible is true, then it would seem to assert that all humans, and potential humans (fertilized eggs), are image bearers of that God, or at least potential image bearers. As such, they inherently have the right to life that the ONLY the maker of the image has the moral authority to bestow or take away. Now some would obviously argue the morality of this God, but that is for another blog, so I’ll ask you to please stay in the vein of this particular discussion.

Following this internal logic of the orthodox christian worldview, this would mean that any attempt to stop an image bearer from reaching their potential as an image bearer, that is NOT ordained by the maker of that image, is treason against that maker, also commonly called SIN. (In simple terms, God makes and gives life, and is the only one allowed to give it or take it away.)

There has been plenty of “He said, she said” through this public discussion.

“Oh, no we do not profit from illegal selling of dead baby body parts.”

“Well, what about this video?”

“That video is heavily edited!”

“Well here then, what about the full unedited video that in full context says the same thing?”

“Ummmm…”

Now I don’t blog too much, to which some of you may say “Yeah, we can tell.” I wish I could blog more, but time in my life is of short supply, so I only blog when something seems to be missing from the conversation. After both sides have picked their talking points (some more valid than others), and I’m left somewhere between the two with my hand raised saying, “Well what about this?”

For me, I try to get into people’s heads. In this particular case I might ask “How does a doctor or medical professional justify such acts?” To this I think the answer is simple, we just follow the logic of the pro-choice view.

The logic is as follows.

IF a baby is not a baby, but just a fetus, and that fetus is just a random bit of cellular material cobbled together and called tissue, then there should be no moral question when it comes to selling off, or destroying this tissue. IF it is just tissue, than it (the baby) is no different than a tumor being removed from a host. Or if you were to scrape your knee, and a great gash is caused, and a chunk of skin is peeled loose, dead baby tissue is no different than that chunk. Therefore, we should not make a fuss or mourn over it’s loss. After all, no one cries over loosing a tumor. This IS the train of logic of the pro-choice position. What happens internally to a person as they convince themselves of this logic is another thing.

To kill a baby we must first convince our gut that we are not killing a baby, so we must first recast what a baby is. So in the minds of some, a baby is no different than cancer, it’s merely tissue. Let that sink in. My five daughters, and one baby boy, for those who would say that this is okay, at one point in their development, believe that my children had no more value than cancer. So for my pro-choice friends, next time you see a child, or perhaps your own child, look them in the eye and tell them that at one point, before they were born, when they were very very small, that you thought of them in the same way that you do a tumor. Then ask yourself, what has changed that makes you no longer consider them a tumor?

The question then must be asked, “assuming that all babies are just tissue, and all tissue is equal, then why is baby tissue sometimes kept, then raised, and loved over other tissue? Should we also keep, love and raise tumor tissue? If not, then what is the difference?” Is there some intrinsic worth or value that baby tissue has over other tissue that may make it worthy of love? If so, then we must rethink our position and admit that baby tissue is dramatically different from other tissue. For now however, for the sake of argument, lets continue with this logic train in light of this most current fiasco.

If I were an oncologist (cancer doctor in layman’s terms), and I were to remove a tumor (tissue) from a patient, then after that surgery, a research group were to approach me and say, “Hey, can we have that tumor, when can study it and learn from it, and heck, we will even give you $50 bucks for it, and if you have any more, we will pay you for those too!” This is the logic behind these videos, this is how one can sale baby parts like it’s no big deal. A baby, is no different than a tumor, so why does it matter if I sell it? I would agree, it doesn’t matter at all, IF that were truly the case. (In this blog you should always pay close attention to the “If”s )

What is curious though, is the overwhelming moral outrage, yes from those conservatives, but also from those liberals, who, up until the talking points where finally hashed out, were remarkably quite. Now some did speak up, but only against the calloused and casual nature of which the planned parenthood leaders spoke, not to the horrors that they were speaking of, just that they should of been more considerate in the way the spoke of it. Unfortunately they did not think back through all the faulty logic that led to the “pro-babies are just tumors” position. Perhaps from political pressures, surly they don’t want to upset their financial backers, or maybe even deeper, they don’t want to admit that they are wrong. IF they were to completely retract their position, it would also be an admission that the “tumor babies” are human beings, and that up and to this point, they have advocated, and supported funding for, the murder of those humans. This is a hard pill for anyone to swallow.

As usual, the bible shows us that this is exactly how the minds of people, plagued by sin, would react. We blame-shift, minimize our part in the activity, maximize our other virtues, and simply skirt around the main issue, “This is an attack on women’s health!” Even though no one is suggesting that they end any of those other services, and ignoring the fact that it does not matter if a murderer gives millions to charity, he is still a murderer. We don’t call our sin “sin”, we recast it as a moral failure, a mistake, or a lapse in judgement. This is very similar to the way we recast a baby as nothing more than a tumor, and as we do, we sear our consciences up, and become more calloused, maybe to the point to where we can casually sip wine and eat food as we discuss how we crush a baby in such a specific way to keep most of him in tact.

The most recent, “as the bible would predict” moment, has been for Planned Parenthood to point to the other services, as mentioned before, that Planned Parenthood offers saying, “Look at all the good we do”, claiming that “abortions only make up a mere 3% of our services!” Now this is a good rabbit hole to go down, but I wont, because Kevin DeYoung already has pointed out how we should be suspect when an organization provides its own numbers for us to believe, and even shows how these numbers are myths. Furthermore, these other services, as Dr. Ben Carson pointed out, should be readily available through other legislation passed by our current commander and chief.

All that being said, at it’s best, Planned Parenthood, is funded by your tax dollars, even if you object of their activities, and is most likely is profiting from further illegal activities. Under current legislation, it’s other services are moot because they can be found anywhere, and is possibly fundamentally racist in its targeting of key low-income demographics. This doesn’t even bring into full account the morality of the central issue of abortion, but all things being equal, lets assume that abortion is no different that adoption.

These two options seem to be the primary options when it comes to babies who’s parents, for whatever reason, are unable to provide for them or simply don’t want them. So for the sake of thought, lets give them complete equality in merit and value and morality. Now lets say there is potential for you to profit from abortion through selling baby tissue, and in this scenario, there is no moral question or law in place to prohibit that sale. Which do you, as a counselor/provider, hope your client picks? Which one do you, potentially try to sway them towards? The profitable abortion, or the unprofitable adoption? Now I am not asking for what should happen, I’m asking you to be honest with yourself and ask, “What would you do in that situation?” Personally I’ve long fought a romanticized opinion of myself, and if all things are equal, in that position, I would be swayed to sway my client towards the end that would profit me more.

Now lets factor back in the morality so now your conscience also works against you as well. Now we just have to find the price it would take for you to shut your conscience up. Like in the videos, is it $50 per dead baby tissue, $75, maybe a $100? See how easily that small voice in your head and heart gets even smaller when the dollar signs start going up?

Let’s do some math.

Planned Parenthood boast that only 3% of its total services are actually abortions (you can read the Kevin DeYoung article mentioned above to see why those numbers shouldn’t be trusted), and for the sake of argument, lets accept them as fact. Planned Parenthood boast 11 million total services, of which more than 300,000 (327,653 to be exact) were abortions, roughly only 3%

So maybe you said, “Nope, I would never sell my conscience for the price of a baby, not $50, not $75, not even for a $100!” How about we take that low end price, $50, and multiply it by the number of abortions by planned parenthood in the last year?

$50 x 327,653 dead baby tissues = $16,382,650 potential income.

What about that number, is that enough for your conscience, 16 million a year?

The justification easily flows… “Well maybe I’m actually sparing that child from a hard life… maybe they’ll just become part of the system… there’s no guarantee that they will find a good family for them… they’ll just become a drain on society… in a way, I’m doing them and everyone a favor.”

With those numbers it becomes extremely easy to start justifying murder.

“These people shouldn’t even be having kids if they can’t take care of them!” Let’s follow that logic as well. In addition to telling all the children in the world that they are no different than a tumor, to be logically consistent in this view, you would also have to look at my two adopted daughters and tell them that it would of been better if their mom would of aborted them. No more Stella and no more Skylee, according to this worldview’s logic, they should not of been allowed to become human beings.

Don’t think to much about it, you’ll make yourself sad. Instead of dealing with the logical outcome of these lies, you can just believe them, and cover the hole in your conscience with some extra money.

Back to adoption and abortion, if there is no moral difference between the two, and there is no financial incentive towards one or the other, you would expect the number of adoption referrals to abortion, to be similar. Not necessarily equal, but close if both option are given fair treatment, but the numbers don’t reflect this either.

“In that same year Planned Parenthood listed only 31,098 “prenatal services” and a meager 841 “adoption referrals to other agencies.” Which means that if you walk into Planned Parenthood with an unborn baby you are 10 times more likely to get an abortion than prenatal screening and almost 400 times more likely to be offered an abortion than given an adoption referral.“

Surely, if all of these options have equal value and weight, then the numbers would reflect it. So what is tipping the scale? It must be that extra $16 mil. Now what if there was more incentive for Planed Parenthood agencies for adoption referrals, would the numbers even out?

Now, if you ever have read my blog before you’ll know I never scorn my opposition without also scorning my own team, so here is another set of numbers for you.

There are and estimated 40-50 million adoptable orphans in the world who are at risk of disease and death, and I know that is a lot, but they are ready, simply waiting for willing parents to cut through the red tape and save their lives. To this number, there is reportedly over 2 billion of the world’s total population that identify as Christian. Now identifying is one thing, but of that over 2 billion, 800 million claim that they have a definite relationship with Jesus Christ, meaning that their faith is not just part of their culture, but that it is important and real to them and their lives.

These Christians, who according to their bibles, were once useless, abandoned, helpless, unwanted and destitute as the orphans of the world, but they were adopted by God through his Son Christ and he has called them wanted. Think of that, the God of the universe wants you! Not because you are special, but because He is good!

So take the low number of Christians (800 Million), and tell them that true religion is taking care of widows in orphans (as it does in James 1:27), and tell them to tackle this problem and it would only take a mere 6 to 7% of the body of Christ to adopt a child, and there would no longer be any children available for adoption in need of a family. Christians could, and should, end orphans.

So my big question is this. Would the demand for abortion on demand, be in such demand, if more Christians were to say to those unwanted children that they are wanted, and through adoption, love them in the exact same way that they have been loved through Christ? How would that change the way that the world sees Christ and his church? How would the love of Jesus, through his followers, literally change the world?

Abortion is the sinful outcome of a lack of christian unwillingness to adopt.

It may not of caused it, but it sure as hell left the door wide open for it.

Dear Pastor Mark (some thoughts on Driscoll and Acts 29)

I grew up in a religious tradition that I now disagree with many, if not most, of its theological positions. Still, I spent 25 of my 30 years being shaped by this tradition. Today I’m still very much Christian, but firmly on the opposite side of the theological coin.

The results of this is that I often find it difficult to sift my old thoughts  and beliefs up against the truth of Gods word. For the past five years I’ve had to check these old belief patterns, informed by bad theology, and try my best to determine which of my old understandings are still true. I don’t dismiss or discredit everything I grew up in, there is plenty that still serves to help me as God continually sanctifies (sorry for using big churchy words) my mind and heart. I am very grateful for my upbringing. However, as often is the case, poison is mixed with the wine, and we lack the discernment to know how to separate the two of them apart.

I couldn’t be more in awe of God’s sovereignty over where the past five years of re-shaping has taken me. My wife and I are leading our family better than ever, our relationship is the best its ever been, we go to a great bible adhering church, and next month we are beginning a new journey becoming community group leaders. We have strong healthy Christ exalting relationships, and we are more aware than ever of the Gospel, and its implications to all we say and do. This shifting, this new gospel wakefulness, is due, in large part to Mark Driscoll. A man I admire, who now finds himself in a situation that also requires us to do some sifting.

Now I don’t really know who reads my blog stuff, therefore, some of you may not even know or care who Mark Driscoll is, but I know for a fact that some do, and even weirder still, some people have asked for my thoughts on a recent “controversy” surrounding this pastor.

In short Driscoll is a reformed (look it up yourself) pastor of a Seattle based church plant, now megachurch, called Mars Hill. He’s been there leading this thing somewhere in the ballpark of 15 years…I think. Outside of his controversies, he is essentially an expository (again, look it up) preacher, who’s preaching is centered around the central message of the gospel, and the central figure of the bible, Jesus. In my opinion, he is a pretty good bible teacher, not the best, but better than most compared to much of what passes as biblical teaching now a days. (More on this latter)

Driscoll is no stranger to frequent trips of his foot to his mouth, but for many of his fans, followers, and even his friends, recently there have been a number of questionable decisions made either by Driscoll, or the executive elders at Mars Hill, or both, that cross the line of disqualification. Any one of these individual infractions could be dismissed by themselves, but compiled together, some believe, and probably rightly so, that an intervention of sorts is called for. Of the complaints and charges against Driscoll, a few are nitpicking over primary and secondary church issues, some have been publicly addressed and apologized for, and increasingly so, many are very serious. Many who have followed Driscoll see this as a very public decline into scandal. The most recent furry surrounding Pastor Mark is his removal from the Acts 29 church planting network, a network that he started. Simply google Mark Driscoll or Acts 29 and you can find all the details that I won’t repost here.

Currently, and for the foreseeable future, my wife and I attend an Acts 29 church. So here I am, yet again, sifting through the good and the bad, the wheat from the chaff, trying to discern this man’s influence over my life from his own shortcomings. In many ways its easier to sift through this time, due to what I’ve learned from Pastor Mark himself. So with a very long intro, which I could make longer, I am leaving a lot unsaid in order to get to my main thoughts concerning this issue.

1.) The Acts 29 network is putting their money where their theology is.

Being part of a church that is part of the Acts 29 network does not give me, or even my pastor, any special privileges to the goings on around this decision. We know what the internet knows.

Further more, its worth noting, that just because we are part of a network that he started, Mark Driscoll does not hold any direct influence, make decisions for, or has he ever preached at our church. People who don’t like Mark, again, some for valid reasons, some for secondary reasons, have asked me before, “How could I go to a church led by Mark Driscoll?” To which I reply, “Well Matt Chandler is actually the president of Acts 29 for sometime now, even he doesn’t directly govern our church, and our church is not ” his”, but God’s. ” I digress…

The executive board of Acts 29 is made up of men that call Driscoll a “brother”, and Driscoll has called those same men “brothers”. They have shared stages and collaborated numerous times. And all of these men, in both their preaching and leadership, have tried there best, to point people to Jesus, to make his name glorious above all names to all people in all places. Driscoll himself is know for saying “Its All about Jesus”.

The network, by removing Driscoll, is proving that this is in fact the case, ” Its all about Jesus”. Having the best teachers, biggest churches, or largest personalities isn’t the goal. Making Jesus known is. As a member of an Acts 29 church, I’m saddened, but also relieved, that someone with so much influence, even if its positive influence, can not stray without consequences. On top of that, from all that I can gather, the process for correction, repentance and reconciliation has been handled orderly and biblically. For the sake of the gospel, the purity of the church, and the name of Jesus, it doesn’t matter how much good a man has done, if he fails, he needs to be corrected. I’m particularly grateful for this aspect because the tradition I grew up in, the rule was never to speak bad about a pastor. Even if he was struggling, and about to fail, and needed friends to intervene, you never talk bad about a man of God. To which I say  “Give me a break!”

What I am finding beautiful about the body of Christ is that all of the men of the Acts 29 board have expressed their grief over this decision, as well as their love for this man that they call ” brother”. Even former friends of Driscoll, some of which, he had very public fallings out with, and former members of his church that feel hurt by the Mars Hill leadership, have expressed love for Mark and hope that he will take the recommendation of the Acts 29 board seriously. Those closest to the fray hope for reconciliation and restoration.

I think the actions of the Acts 29 board speaks highly of their character and integrity. My Pastor, in a update to us as his congregation, expressed that he’s never been more confident in the integrity of the leadership, and I agree. Its bold, brave, biblical, and those men, even if you disagree, are acting in accordance to their conscience. This is exactly what the bible instructs us to do. Go with scripture, and if unsure, trust that the Holy Spirit is leading you in your gut.

For me, when I read the qualifications for eldership in scripture, I must admit that I fail at the character part. The main idea is to be “above reproach”, and when I think of myself, I conclude that I do not fit the bill. Seriously though, ” above reproach”, who, apart from Jesus, is above reproach? Which leads me to my next point…

2.) Doctrine and conduct.

When it comes to the biblical qualifications for an elder you can boil down any disqualification to these two areas. When someone fails it is either character, as we’ve already started to discuss, or theology, and sometimes both. Fortunately, Driscoll is not being criticized for any poor doctrine/theology/teaching. I know people may disagree with his specific views on certain issues, but in as much as he teaches it, his view on God and the Bible are largely orthodox. This makes it easy for me, and for you, to sift through this man’s influence over our lives through his teaching. For the most part, its good, you don’t have to throw the baby (teachings) out with the bathwater (the teacher). Sometimes this is exactly the case, but not here. Driscoll’s theology (and I will avoid any arguments on this point, because this particular point is not THE POINT of this particular blog post) is sound. I think, at least from everything I read, that most other pastors in the same theological camp as Driscoll agree, the problem is not his teaching.

However, the way that teaching plays out in the leading of the church is questionable, but I would argue that has more to do with the character aspect of the qualifications. For example, it is true that believers have “authority in Christ”. There’s nothing wrong with that teaching, but tell that to a christian who struggles with being bossy or hardheaded, and you can easily see how that idea would get distorted, or even abused. It quickly turns into ” I’m a Christian, and I have authority in Christ, so listen to me or shut up!” Which I can assure you, that is not what is meant.

Therefore, in the case of Driscoll, the issue is one of conduct and character. Early in Driscoll’s growing influence, his off color remarks, and his crassness was dismissed due to the fact that his theology was sound, and he was, and is, being used in a particularly difficult region of the country where most churches typically decline, and do not thrive. What we are seeing, as Tim Challies puts it, is that “character is king”. (I highly recommend his, and Adrian Warnock’s respective articles on this most recent issue, and their blogs in general.) Good theology is undone by poor character.

If I were to draw some conclusions from what we are learning now, it would be that Driscoll often acknowledges errors and sin, and often apologizes for them, but does not, at least not sufficiently in the eyes of the Acts 29 board and those who he has offended, seek to reconcile with those he has hurt. It almost feels as if he doesn’t go far enough, but only what he feels is far enough. The people he has hurt hear his public apology, but are still waiting for his personal phone call to hear him say specifically, that he is sorry.

This is a really big deal. However even in issues of character, Driscoll is not long gone. I think this is a large reason why those ousted by him, still have a deep love and hope for reconciliation with him. 

3.) Missing the big falls, and tripping over the small steps.

Other than the fact that his teaching is largely good for instruction, one other thing that I think is worthy of celebration is that Mark Driscoll has been faithful to his wife and family. This is no small oversight. In many of the big areas, he has managed to succeed, but the devil is apparently in the details. Typically when we hear of some pastor failing it is in the area of sex, and low and behold, the couple is unable to reconcile, and heads towards divorce, but the pastor takes a break and comes back to ministry. Or we find out that they have embezzled millions and are guilty of tax fraud. Thankfully this is NOT THE CASE with the Driscolls. It may not be a big deal to you, but I believe it really is.

I know people have been hurt by Driscoll’s sin and error, and I am not trying to make light of that, nor am I trying to paint one sin as greater than the other. I’m just stating the fact. Driscoll has not turned out to be a complete hypocrite, or a wolf in sheep’s clothing, he’s turned out to be the exact type of guy, that if you paid attention to anything he has admitted publicly, you would expect him to be.

Given his type of personality, the types of sin he freely admits he struggles with, this current trail of accusations and charges makes sense. The fact that Driscoll would be a proud jerk, that makes stupid decisions off of the top of his hot head, alienates close relationships, and acts like an ass is really no surprise to me. Again, I don’t say this to excuse it, or make light of it, I know it has devastated many relationships, and I agree, that if these charges are true, then he has gone beyond the point of slipping up, or losing his temper from time to time, and is currently disqualified. One thing that I think is clear from this is that Driscoll and the executive elder team lack any real oversite or accountability, although that doesn’t mean that people haven’t tried.

I agree with the Acts29 leadership, he needs to step down and get some help. Driscoll has often said that if he could do it all over again he would of waited to plant Mars Hill, found some good biblical men of God to sit under, and learn from Them so that he could be a more mature Christian before he became a pastor. Well now is his chance.

I hope I’m not being insensitive to those who have been negatively affected by Driscoll’s sins. I’m just saying, that as far as I can tell, he is not using his influence to buy private jets, and increase his own kingdom, although I do understand he has a pretty nice house. Nor is he a charlatan, faking his beliefs and sincerity to take advantage of people like some televangelist or faith healers. What I am saying is that Driscoll needs grace, like all of us, but a grace that isn’t dismissive. In the bible, church discipline is always carried out with the hope of seeing that person restored, not to put them in their place.

4.) Primed for reconciliation.

Again, it is absolutely amazing. Driscoll is surrounded by people that hope to restore him. I hope Driscoll sees the position that he is in. I hope that you see that you should be praying for him, and all involved.

It is not an attack, it is an act of love. Surely if it was someone else in this place, Driscoll himself would have some concerns, and probably even some harsh words for that man. It can seem like his time has come, that this is the end of Mark Driscoll, but a chance for reconciliation is where it all starts. God, through Jesus, reconciles us to himself, and new life begins. We then, in turn, get to extend that same hope and peace to the world. God is making his appeal to the world through us. He is saying, “Look, I gave peace and salvation to this loser, he is fully reconciled to me, and this is what I want to do for you.” (The loser I’m referring to is myself, not Driscoll.)
I soooooo hope Driscoll follows the recommendation and submits to the Acts 29 board.

Not for the sake of his ministry or his name, but for the sake of Jesus name. See, no one will care at all about Mark Driscoll when we get to heaven. Jesus will not look at him and say “Good thing I had you to help me out, it was really sketchy for a while, but thank God/me for you!” It is simply not going to happen.

On the off chance that Mark “The Dris” Driscoll sees this blog, I’m going to close by taking a cue from his own book Death by Love.

Dear Mark,

It is no secret that God has used you in an unique and powerful way. With the current storm of accusations and issues surrounding you and your ministry, you will be tempted to either retreat and hide by ignoring, or lash out by confronting. Knowing you, you’re probably prone to the later, and I am actually encouraged that a few days have passed and you have yet to respond. I hope this is a sign that you are already taking things seriously, and begging the Holy Spirit to direct you through all of this. Fortunately for us, Christ offers another option beyond just hiding, and more powerful than fighting, he gives us reconciliation.

I won’t claim to know the bible better than you, or claim any authority on par with yours. Who am I to try and teach you something about anything? Maybe though, I can be a helpful reminder. I trust that you know how important reconciliation is to the Gospel message you preach, and to Christ, the Savior, that you love. I would urge you to simply stop fighting, rationalizing, or trying to do better from now on, like an addict leaving a rehabilitation facility. Reconciliation is not rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is where you stop reevaluate, and start to make better choices from now on. Reconciliation doesn’t just move on from the past, it deals with it.

I have always been grateful that you openly admit sins and faults, and I believe that there is evidence that you really have left many of them in the past. However, in the larger picture of redemption, leaving things in the past is not good enough.

As you know we will be held accountable for all of our actions, thoughts and deeds. This is why God’s offer of reconciliation is unique. Reconciliation goes back to the point of every offense and makes things new again. Some of these offenses may same trivial to you, or maybe you felt like you have sufficiently served you penance for them, but I have learned from you, that the offender does not get to determine his own penance. Like with Christ, who we have offended with our sin, we don’t get to determine how severe our offenses are, the offended person does. It is up to those you have hurt to validate your sincerity. See Mark, the question is not whether or not certain behaviors or attitudes are in your past, but whether or not you are grieved enough by them, that you truly seek to change, and are willing to go back to your past, to rebuild those burnt down bridges wherever possible?

Let me remind you that the distance between you and God was once so insurmountable that reconciliation was utterly impossible, apart from a gracious act on His part through His son. Please don’t be so prideful as to believe that the bridges you have burnt are so beyond repair that the God, who closed the gap between your sinfulness and his holiness, is not powerful enough to help you rebuild these bridges.

I don’t believe God is done with you. Even after all you by His grace have accomplished, I actually believe that he is just getting started. Just as God once uniquely placed you to preach his word in a unique and powerful way, he has now placed you to demonstrate his reconciliation in a similarly unique and powerful way. Surely you know that all eyes are on you, and your next steps will be under close scrutiny. So be wise. Choose the path of reconciliation.

See Mark, once, like you, I almost ruined something near and dear to me through my selfish and sinful pride. It wasn’t my ministry, but my marriage. As much as I knew or understood all the right things, and as pure as my intentions were, there was still too much of my own righteousness involved. So much so that my attempts to lead my wife made her fill small and unloved, all the while I was convinced that I was doing the most loving thing for her. No one could tell me that I wasn’t right. I was so blinded by my own arrogance that I failed to see all the damage I caused. She left me for another man, and for the better part of a year, I was mercifully destroyed and made low by God. Mark, the more God tore me down, the more my wife could see Jesus for who he truly is, instead of her overbearing husband who did a miserable job of reflecting Christ to her.

Eventually I stopped caring about myself, my marriage, or even reconciliation between the two of us. My prayers became very simple. My focus was only on her reconciliation with Christ. Who, as you know, is a much better husband, friend, and pastor than any of us. I would pray for her “God get your daughter, and Christ, get your bride. I don’t care what happens to me, or our marriage.”

Through all of this God showed us that reconciliation with him was possible, and if he can redeem that large of a gap, then he is more than capable to reconcile a messed up broken down husband and wife. Mark, the longer you delay reaching out and reconciling with specific people, the gospel you preach with you life is false, and contrary to the gospel you preach with your lips. Show the world that reconciliation with God is possible, be wary of council that only agrees with your side, and let Christ’s heart for peace and redemption rule over your admittedly thick skull.

Listen to your brothers in the Acts 29 leadership, listen to the men that resigned from your external accountability board, listen, listen, listen to the sheep and ex-staff that you failed to shepherd well.

Be reconciled with those you have destroyed and abused in the wake of your folly and pride, and by this, prove to the world that reconciliation with their savior is truly possible.

Grace, peace, and reconciliation to you.

Five quick reasons I’m not a Universalist

After a recent conversation with a friend on the topic I decide to blog out some quick thoughts on Universalism. Honestly I would love Universalism to be true, but given critical thought it doesn’t hold water, here’s why…

1. Universalism diminishes the Cross.

I suppose a Universalist may claim that it actually magnifies the cross, suggesting that the more people that are saved, the better. However, the cross isn’t valuable based on its reach, but on its cost. It cost Jesus his life, and this makes it a treasure without equal. The cross is free, but not freely applied to all. If it we’re freely applied to all its value, or more specifically, it’s cost, is nothing more than a nice display or a kind act. In this view, the cross is more akin to a party favor, sure it may be a very nice favor, and maybe your name is engraved on it, but the fact that everyone has one makes it worthless.

2. Universalism does not free us from our love of self and thus our sin.

Going back to the free, and valuable gift of salvation. Salvation does not only save us from the penalty of hell, but from ourselves. By giving us new hearts and desires, salvation removes us from the center of all of our motives, and places Jesus in the center as savior. If Universalism is true, then there is no need for the work of salvation to take place in the hearts of people. We can go on being completely full of ourselves, and unaware of God’s glory and holiness, and somehow, in the end, all will be saved regardless. The only way that Universalism can be true is if sin is not a damming, and damaging, as God, in the bible, makes it out to be. Sin is a big deal. On that note…

3. Universalism diminishes sin.

There is something in US that sees sin as merely making a mistake. So when we contemplate the idea that God would send someone to hell for a lie, we are rightly upset. The punishment, in our view, does not match the severity of the offense. The problem is a misunderstanding. The severity is not simply in the offense, but who it is against, that determines the scope of the offense. So I may lie to my children, and they don’t hold much sway or authority over me, they may be upset, and maybe I need to make amends, but not much else. However if we move up in relational authority to my wife, I lie to her, and she may see fit to divorce me. I lie to my employer and I may be fired. The offense is measured against who the offense was against, not the act itself. So maybe I work in the government and I lie, and by lying betray my country, well I may be hung for treason. So I lie against God,  and I’ve committed more than just mere treason, but severe cosmic treason against the one who has all authority and power. Jesus did not die to cover our mistakes, but to restore us from our place as traitors and enemies, to sons and daughters. Sin is serious, Universalism makes sin small, and by making sin small, the cross small, and by the cross, the saviour small.

So let’s go back to my wife. I confess to you that I lied to my wife, and you think “No big deal, even the best people of us lie to our spouses a little.” Then I begin to describe my wife’s character. I explain that she has never lied to anyone before, not even me, in fact she has never done me wrong she has only ever served me and sought good for me. When I fail she is kind and forgiving, and never holds my past failures against me. I never have to ask for anything because it’s like she knows what I need and already has it prepared for me, but she allows me to ask anyway because she knows how much I benefit from talking with her.

Well, all of the sudden my lie does seem a little worse. Then if the bible is true, and God is like my wife in this analogy, I didn’t just lie, I cheated, and cheated, and broke promise, and failed to keep my oaths, and cheated repeatedly.

4. Universalism diminishes biblical teaching, specifically the teachings of Jesus himself.

To make Universalism work you have to isolate parts of scripture and extract them, from the whole in order to make them seem to say what Universalism says. You are going to have to prostitute the bible to make it appear to promote universalism. And not some vague teachings, but the actual teachings of Jesus himself, who taught and spoke more of hell than anyone else.

5. Universalism undermines God’s role as judge and destroys justice.

The bible is clear, that in some form, God will judge, and his judgements are perfect. Without a judge we are without hope, it through God’s righteous judgements that we know what needs to be redeemed, and that he plans to do something about it. If unviversalism is true then all of God’s judgement are not the establishment of truth, by merely angry ranting that we aren’t doing things His way. Universalism is a weak view of God’s perfect character. Why make decrees and precepts if ultimately your plan is to overlook them? And if God is a judge who overlooks his own law, he then is, by definition an unjust judge.

These are not the only reasons, but they are the first five that ran through my mind, there are many more. I want to end with two points from a pastor friend of mine.

1) If God himself is actually a universalist, then we have no idea who God actually is. We can know God because he has revealed himself to us in Scripture. With all the sin, judgment, and hell talk in the OT and NT, Scripture is pretty clear that God ISN’T a universalist. Universalists at best have to pit God’s words against one another, and at worst end up disregarding the Bible as in large part / as a whole. Without any reliable self-disclosure from God himself about who he is or what he’s like, all we’re left with is our own shoddy, individual guesswork.

2.) If we believe that life and God matter, then we won’t be universalists. Universalism means that all people are currently / eventually acceptable before God and his presence. This turns what we say, do, think, and feel into something cheap because it treats God’s holiness, glory, word, etc. as something cheap. “It doesn’t really matter what I’ve said or who I am or how you live your life; all that’s required of you to enjoy my presence is to die.”

Even if he would believe (like Rob Bell does, I think) that sin is punished after death but that the punishment isn’t eternal, it still leaves the sinner unchanged. Our hearts would still be unregenerate, bent towards self instead of God. Thus, sin really isn’t dealt with, God seems relatively ineffective, and heaven / eternity sounds way less appealing.

Nehemiah : A Better City : Chapter 5:1-13

If today’s blog is different, its because it is. These are my notes from today’s gathering.

Nehemiah : A Better City

A sermon series from http://www.myvillagechurch.com

There are poor and there are powerless, to contrast, there are rich and powerful. There are those who press and oppress, and then there is justice. In general there is a sense of justice, of righting wrongs, and helping those who can’t help themselves, in all of us. Especially if we think we are the ones who aren’t receiving what we think we deserve. We all have our ways to seek justice, and we make much of our causes, and our leaders, and our attempts to obtain it, but none of us really get there.

Three points on justice

1. Justice is not always black and white. Its not clear who is in the wrong, and sometimes we find ourselves swayed, and end up doing evil thinking we are doing good.
2. Batman is not real. There is not a superhero, some human who is incorruptible fighting for justice. No Robin Hood robbing the rich to feed the poor.
3. However, if there is a God, he certainly cares about justice.

So…

God opens our ears to LISTEN for injustice, to WRESTLE with its effects, and to ENGAGE it as an opportunity for joining Gods renewal. (We will see Nehemiah do just this in today’s focal text.)

LISTEN (hear them out)

“There arose a great outcry”…even the wives are upset, and the cry isn’t against an outside force, but against their own kinsmen. They list their complaints and Nehemiah LISTENS to every one. They can barely make it. The taxes are harsh and their resources, even their crops are being borrowed against. Their children are forced into slavery to help feed the family and pay off the debt. What should we be listening for? The cry that things are not as they should be. That is the sound of injustice, things that are not as they should be.

WRESTLE (evaluate)

“I was very angry when I heard…I took counsel with myself”. You are allowed, even encouraged to be angry at injustice, if you are not, something may be off in your heart. However, that anger has to be tempered by the holy spirit through prayer and truth. If your only counselor is yourself that’s not good, but at some point we need to be able to sift through our emotions and thoughts, up against the thoughts and love of God, that we may apply that same love to others. Take your anger and ask What would God have me do with this anger in this situation?

ENGAGE (How am I positioned to affect change in this situation?)

Nehemiah has considerably more influence and means than you, but its not about the amount of influence you have, but how you effectively use what influence you do have. Nehemiah confronts the oppressive leadership and leaves them speechless. He then calls them to restore what has been broken. He gathers a community that will reflect the true character of their God. Sometime the community may be your church, sometime that community will be you and your spouse, sometimes you may be alone. No matter the number, we are to make our community reflect the kingdom of God. There are no slaves in Gods kingdom. No debts because he has paid him. No burden of harsh taxes cause God does not need our wealth to sustain his rule.

Nehemiah, is very practical, but serves an even greater purpose than just its application. Nehemiah serves as a shadow to point us to Jesus. Jesus, who heard us and LISTENED to our cry. He WRESTLED and fought against our oppressors, resitting even our ultimate enemy the serpent, succeeding where we have failed. Through his perfect life everything that was wrong has been made right, and sealed as a blood oath on the cross, our debts have been paid, and the undue burden of our sin removed never to be held against us again. Now Jesus ENGAGES all who are left wandering. Uniquely positioned on a throne over all the universe, he guides his redeemed people, the church, to seek their lost brothers and sister, and to gather them back to the city of God.

Sermon Lab Matthew 8:18-22

So here’s the deal. I’ve been on this personal journey for a bit. Essentially, as the small church plant my wife and I attend grows, so does the need and opportunity for leaders. At The Village we take leadership seriously. For a long time I’ve felt a leaning in this direction, specifically in the area of preaching and teaching. In just under two months, (actually now that I think about it, I probably wont post these until after the event) we will be hosting a preaching lab. Just under twenty men will gather, five will be selected to present 12 min mini sermons, that will then be critiqued by a panel of four pastors, Two within the Village, two outside the Village. Its incredibly exciting, and I am one of the five “lab preachers.” Assigned to me is Matthew 8:18-22

Because I love you, my notes are going to be posted here. If they seem brief or incomplete its due to the 12 min time limit. What’s difficult is boiling down the sermon to only its necessary points. No extra examples, very little practical application, just the idea, and the challenge, and the gospel, all while trying to still be engaging.

Mat 8:18 Now when Jesus saw a crowd around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side.
Mat 8:19 And a scribe came up and said to him, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.”
Mat 8:20 And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”
Mat 8:21 Another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.”
Mat 8:22 And Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.”

THE CONTEXT

Jesus is on his way to Jerusalem, he’s not there just yet, and at this point he hasn’t really ruffled too many feathers. His fame and popularity are growing as he passes through these smaller towns serving, teaching, and performing various miracles. During his trip we see this meeting with two would-be followers, who apparently miss something that is critical to what it means to follow Jesus, and we are going to see Jesus push back on them a bit, and as Jesus pushes back on them, he also pushes back on us.

What I want to do first today, is explain what the text plainly says. That is, what, on a surface level is it saying? Then I want explore with you what the text means as it applies to us today. To look for the meaning underneath the surface if you will, to see what the text might reveal about our hearts today.

TWO DUDES

The first dude is pretty excited about the notion of following Jesus, he says “I will follow you wherever you will go.” Jesus pushes back a little and tells the man that he has “no idea what hes asking for.”(paraphrase, I’m going to paraphrase a lot for the sake of time) “The foxes and the birds do their thing and get to go home, I do my thing and I don’t get that sort of luxury”. Plainly Jesus is saying that following Jesus is not all rainbows and sunshine, its not a “have your cake and eat it to” type of scenario, it is at times, in fact difficult.

Dude number two, at the notion of being a follower of Jesus, essentially tells Jesus that now is not a good time for him. And guess what, I know its a funeral he’s talking about, but without getting into all the speculation and nuance as to why this isn’t a big deal. Can we just skip ahead and quickly agree that no matter what you got going on, if Jesus calls you to follow him, that whatever Jesus ask is probably more important? Jesus is expressing to the second man, that he apparently, by passing up the offer, even if only temporarily, that he doesn’t know what he’s missing out on.

That is you plain meaning. This is pretty much what the text is saying on a surface level. Following Jesus is difficult, but at the same time worth it. However, we still need to get to the heart of the text and find out what Jesus is trying to reveal to us today.

DIGGING DEEPER

These two men make different assumptions about following Jesus. In Jesus’s view, they apparently miss what following Him is all about. Something crucial is missing in their understanding, and some faulty desires are lurking behind their hearts. That being said, the bible says a lot about following Jesus, and you should take some time on your own, and read those verses, but for our purposes today, we only need to look no further that just a few more chapters in Matthew.

Twice in the gospel of Matthew, in ch 10:38, and ch 16:24, Jesus will lay two foundational elements for what it means to be a follower. He says this, paraphrased “if you’re going to follow me you need to first deny yourself, and then, take up your cross” to paraphrase the paraphrase, “you need to not be about your business, but be about my business, your desires should bow to my desires.” Jesus makes this point twice on two separate occasions, which means we should listen closely, and in his encounter with these two men we see it play itself out in two different ways.

SELF DENIAL VS SELF FULFILLMENT

Jesus informs us that a central ethic or posture of being a follower of Christ, to being a part of his kingdom, is self-denial. This immediately confronts the mainline thinking of our culture which is self-fulfillment. Everything about us, the air we breath is all about making yourself happy; finding your own path to self-fulfillment. It normally sounds like this. “Do whatever makes you happy!” Which sounds great, but some very clever people quickly found out that some people make themselves happy by hurting other people. So we amended the phrase, now it reads “Do whatever makes you happy, as long as it doesn’t hurt someone else.”

Unfortunately it still doesn’t work. You can’t remove all restraint, and then try to put the restraints back on when it all starts to go off the rails. It is like letting a wild bull loose in a crowd of people, then trying to subdue the same bull without anyone getting hurt. It simply can’t be both ways.

SAME SIN, TWO SCENARIOS

So, if following Christ includes both self denial and trading your desires for Jesus’ desires/cross, then the opposite is also true. When we are not following Jesus we are fulfilling ourselves and pursuing our own desires. What is revealed about these two men is that their desire is not to follow Jesus, but to look out for their favorite master, themselves. Their sin is the same, its classic self-idolatry, they value themselves and their desires first and foremost, and it plays itself out in two different ways. Lets look at these two guys with this new perspective brought into the conversation.

Guy one sees Jesus as a means to his self-fulfillment, Jesus is a step in the right direction to meet his goals and desires. Guy two, sees Jesus as an obstacle to his self-fulfillment, getting in the way of his desires, and so instead of delaying his own gratification, he delays following Christ instead.

Guy one thinks that following Jesus will gain him certain advantages. As a scribe, if he hooks up with a teacher as exciting as Jesus then this will be fuel for his career. For him Jesus is a means to getting what he wants, this is why Jesus tells him that this life is not all its cracked up to be. He’s not simply warning, or trying to scare the man away, he’s testing him a bit, in fact he testing both men a bit. What if it doesn’t work out the way you think? What if you don’t get everything you want? What if you do get everything you want but it still doesn’t satisfy? Am I enough for you? Am I you’re treasure? If so, then the potential difficulties won’t be an issue for you, nothing will be more important to you than being with me.

This particular way that self-idolatry sells itself to us is rampant even in our churches. In order to make our churches seem relevant we sell Jesus along side what we think people want. Do you want help with your finances, your marriage, your addictions, your lust, your family, your business, your anger, your happiness? Whatever you need just trust in Jesus and he will give it to you! Have “You’re Best Life Now”, “Be the Best You…” etc. Its completely antithetical to the gospel. And it breeds this idea of self-fulfillment in our hearts.

Now lets think about this particular type is self love. We want something so bad that we are willing to use Jesus to get it. Whatever it is, we love it more than Jesus, we trust it for fulfillment over Jesus, and then we go to Jesus, and expect him to help us get his replacement. It is insane, and it’s not going to happen.

Guy two reminds me of the dude who has been engaged for seven years and still hasn’t set a date. He keeps making excuses to keep delaying the commitment he knows he should make. Similarly this guy keeps pushing commitment to Christ down the road. “Once I do this thing then I’ll follow.” Notice that we normally try to mask our excuse, and act like we are being responsible. “I just need to learn some more, I need to be a little more mature before I give my life completely to Christ.” Whatever that thing is, he falsely believes that it is a more worthwhile pursuit, that it will ultimately satisfy him, more than Jesus.

My wife and I have five children, which leads to some pretty interesting conversations. Every now and then a newly wed couple will say something to us that usually goes like this. “We’re going to wait until its a good time for us, you know, until we are ready to have kids.” We always try to truthfully respond and tell them “If you’re waiting for the right time, or until you’re ready to have kids, then you’re never going to have kids, because there’s never a “good time” to have kids, and you are never going to be “ready” for them.” This is the attitude this man has with Jesus. By seeing Jesus as an obstacle, and choosing to seek what he thinks will satisfy him more, he simply delays the great joy he could have being with Jesus.

BRINGING IT HOME

There’s much to be discussed, and explored, and explained here, but given my time limit I must be brief. How do I know that self denial is key to being a part of this life, to being a part of this thing called Christianity? Because its exactly what our king did.

Philippians 2:3-11 ESV

Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

We are not better than our King that we deserve to seek our own desires when he sought after nothing for himself.

EXAMINE YOUR HEART

I want to ask the question that I think will challenge us, and dive the point home.
What ways are you only using Jesus to get what you want?
What ways are you avoiding Jesus so that he doesn’t get in the way of what you want?
What are those things you want, and how do you believe they will satisfy you more than Jesus will?

Jesus sums up the entirety of the law by stating two things. Love God, and love your neighbor. Not yourself. The first step to crucifying your flesh, to putting down your desires, to taking up his cross and receiving his desires is denying yourself. Bowing down to King Jesus. So today, wherever you may be, may we all kneel today to King Jesus and begin destroy the pride and love of ourselves.

Grace & Peace

So there you go, that was my lab sermon. I got lots of good feedback and would appreciate yours as well!