Some people are music snobs --and they won't sing anything low-brow.
Some people are music cretins --and they won't sing anything high-brow.
Some people are music curators --and they won't sing anything new.
Some people are music dilettantes --they will not sing anything old.
We ought to be none of these things. We ought to sing whatever we are given to sing (as long as it's Biblical) with full voice and heart. Does God deserve anything less than full-throated praise?
And, we ought to be a bit of all these things: we ought to sing high brow and low, old and new.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Just As I Am...
I am pondering writing a book, and I covet the prayers of any who might read this. I have thought for some time that we in Reformed churches do not understand sin and how to handle it very well at all, and it might deserve a book.
Theologically, we understand sin, and its judicial guilt. What we seem to lack is a sense of sin as a hostage taker --who holds victims in bondage. Thus, when a sinner is caught in any of a small list of sins, we come down on him with both feet, and enact punitive church discipline. We depose from office or suspend from the sacraments.
Both of those things are sometimes necessary. We with-hold the sacraments for the same reason we might excommunicate --as a means of grace in reverse--to show an impenitent sinner what life is like outside the covering of Christ's blood. As Paul said, for the destruction of the body, and the salvation of the soul.
We ought never, therefore, suspend a penitent sinner, or a struggling addict, from the Lord's Supper. He needs that nourishment. We do not come to the Lord's Table to testify that we are without sin, Dordt's Liturgy says, but rather have daily to struggle with the lust of our eyes and the infirmities of our flesh.
But, even in the case of a sinner who initially appears protective of his sin, or, as we might call it, "hard," we ought to work long with him, to see if his heart is indeed hardened. Idolatry is a blinding thing --and it takes supernatural effort for the blind to be brought to sight. Remember the man in Corinth in an incestuous relationship with his step-mother --even he was brought to repentance and restored, with rejoicing.
A church officer becomes entangled in some sin. The first thought we have is the purity of the church: he has lost his fitness for office. I had a friend in another denomination who had a sin issue come to light. It almost cost him his ministry and his marriage. I say almost because the particular denomination he was in determined to rescue him, and restore him. Sounds like Paul in Galatians to me, "If a brother is overtaken in a fault, you who are spiritual should restore him gently, taking great care, lest you too be tempted." There, but for the grace of God, go I, indeed.
In our own denominational context, those who are wounded by Satan in the battle don't fare as well. And I maintain this is because we have too low a view of sin, not because we have too high a view of it, not to mention too low a view of the work of the Spirit, and the healing offered in the cross. We view sin primarily as judicial guilt --the necessary punishment for which is condemnation. But, and especially for the believer, sin is even more a matter of hostile power. The believer who sins, even boldly and repeatedly, is not condemned, but disciplined as a beloved son. Believers who sin cavalierly are denying the Lord who bought them. They are in danger of placing themselves under a yoke of bondage from which Christ has freed them.
Sadly, what begins with a high hand, often becomes a prison from which one longs to escape. If we view sin merely as guilt, then we say, "You made your bed. Now lie in it awhile," or worse, "There is no hope for you." This is doubly disastrous. Disastrous because we give our brother no hope, and disastrous because we have a very light view of our own sin.
The tragedy of this is it keeps sinners from seeking help in the light of day. Sin festers in the darkness. But shame and consequences keep sinners from seeking the very help the church supposedly exists to offer. The level of sin bondage in our churches is mind-numbing. I would encourage a cursory read of Mark Regnerus's fine Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers if you don't believe the bondage out there on just that one sin issue. Pornography and attendant evils remain unaddressed because of the great shame that is heaped upon those who are thus enticed --including, now, a large percentage of evangelical Christian men and boys (and, in alarmingly growing numbers, girls and women).
When sin becomes bondage, we call it addiction, and it has grown deep thorny roots in the heart, roots that do not disappear overnight. Simply telling the addict that he is sinning is Law --it does not contain within it the power of deliverance. Helping him sort out his addiction in the light of Christ, and with the help of the Spirit is gospel, and this is the work to which we are called. I would recommend Neil Plantinga's Not the Way It's Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin , particularly the chapter "The Tragedy of Addiction"
And, we can lament and condemn and denounce, but if we do that, we are being more righteous than Christ, who came not for the righteous, but sinners, not the well, but the sick. The sick need healing, the sinner needs forgiveness and restoration. He is already "bruised and broken by the Fall."
The sad thing is that our forebears understood this well. They have a full-blown hamartiology that we have abandoned. One thinks of Precious Remedies Against Satan's Devices, or John Owen's On the Mortification of Indwelling Sin.
Augustine, the fountain-head of Reformed Theology after the Apostle Paul, wrote of his own life and death struggle with lust:
The Westminster Confession, 5.5, acknowledges the fearsome power of indwelling sin:
But, we ourselves tend to have adopted the shallower view of sin promoted by Holiness and Keswick teachers --defeat of sin is a relatively easy thing, and if one hasn't accomplished it, it is a defect of faith. (Read J.I. Packer's Keep In Step with The Spirit for his own encounters with this destructive teaching as a young Christian man.
The added tragedy is that we have developed a list of sins that are less serious than others. I have written a lot here about sexual sin, because that is the sin that is first on every evangelical's radar. Sexual sin, and its attendants (such as unbiblical divorce) are at the top of our sin pyramid. In fact, I have never seen anyone disciplined for anything other than sexual sin or divorce. Sexual sin is serious --nobody who has become entangled in it would deny that. Because sex is intended to build relationships, its misuse destroys much. Because it is intended to open the heart, the misdirection of sexual desire callouses the heart.
The issue is not that sexual sin isn't serious. The issue is that other sins are equally (and sometimes more) serious. Pride, censoriousness, an unforgiving spirit, intemperance, gluttony, and lack of charity towards others are destructive interpersonal sins. But, for some reason, all of these are tolerated among the Christian populace, and church officers, too, to our own destruction. They aren't serious: not as serious as substance abuse, a gambling problem, an affair, or sex addiction. Those sins are icky, and we don't like to think about them. But, a lot of successful people (even in ministry) are proud, so it's okay.
But, given that sex sins and these others are serious and lethal. What then? Cancer is serious. Do we take a gun and shoot the cancer patient? No, we spend months and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to save the person while killing his disease. Are we that devoted in love to those with sin diseases in the heart? Or, does it demand too much of us?
Why do we not acknowledge that God is sovereign over serious and spectacular sins, and can make even these redound to his own glory? Can't the hard fought battle with sin put us in a place of usefulness to help others who are where we once were? Is the church missing out because we shoot our wounded, rather than rehabilitating them?
O God, cleanse us from the guilt and power of sin.
Theologically, we understand sin, and its judicial guilt. What we seem to lack is a sense of sin as a hostage taker --who holds victims in bondage. Thus, when a sinner is caught in any of a small list of sins, we come down on him with both feet, and enact punitive church discipline. We depose from office or suspend from the sacraments.
Both of those things are sometimes necessary. We with-hold the sacraments for the same reason we might excommunicate --as a means of grace in reverse--to show an impenitent sinner what life is like outside the covering of Christ's blood. As Paul said, for the destruction of the body, and the salvation of the soul.
We ought never, therefore, suspend a penitent sinner, or a struggling addict, from the Lord's Supper. He needs that nourishment. We do not come to the Lord's Table to testify that we are without sin, Dordt's Liturgy says, but rather have daily to struggle with the lust of our eyes and the infirmities of our flesh.
But, even in the case of a sinner who initially appears protective of his sin, or, as we might call it, "hard," we ought to work long with him, to see if his heart is indeed hardened. Idolatry is a blinding thing --and it takes supernatural effort for the blind to be brought to sight. Remember the man in Corinth in an incestuous relationship with his step-mother --even he was brought to repentance and restored, with rejoicing.
A church officer becomes entangled in some sin. The first thought we have is the purity of the church: he has lost his fitness for office. I had a friend in another denomination who had a sin issue come to light. It almost cost him his ministry and his marriage. I say almost because the particular denomination he was in determined to rescue him, and restore him. Sounds like Paul in Galatians to me, "If a brother is overtaken in a fault, you who are spiritual should restore him gently, taking great care, lest you too be tempted." There, but for the grace of God, go I, indeed.
In our own denominational context, those who are wounded by Satan in the battle don't fare as well. And I maintain this is because we have too low a view of sin, not because we have too high a view of it, not to mention too low a view of the work of the Spirit, and the healing offered in the cross. We view sin primarily as judicial guilt --the necessary punishment for which is condemnation. But, and especially for the believer, sin is even more a matter of hostile power. The believer who sins, even boldly and repeatedly, is not condemned, but disciplined as a beloved son. Believers who sin cavalierly are denying the Lord who bought them. They are in danger of placing themselves under a yoke of bondage from which Christ has freed them.
Sadly, what begins with a high hand, often becomes a prison from which one longs to escape. If we view sin merely as guilt, then we say, "You made your bed. Now lie in it awhile," or worse, "There is no hope for you." This is doubly disastrous. Disastrous because we give our brother no hope, and disastrous because we have a very light view of our own sin.
The tragedy of this is it keeps sinners from seeking help in the light of day. Sin festers in the darkness. But shame and consequences keep sinners from seeking the very help the church supposedly exists to offer. The level of sin bondage in our churches is mind-numbing. I would encourage a cursory read of Mark Regnerus's fine Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers if you don't believe the bondage out there on just that one sin issue. Pornography and attendant evils remain unaddressed because of the great shame that is heaped upon those who are thus enticed --including, now, a large percentage of evangelical Christian men and boys (and, in alarmingly growing numbers, girls and women).
When sin becomes bondage, we call it addiction, and it has grown deep thorny roots in the heart, roots that do not disappear overnight. Simply telling the addict that he is sinning is Law --it does not contain within it the power of deliverance. Helping him sort out his addiction in the light of Christ, and with the help of the Spirit is gospel, and this is the work to which we are called. I would recommend Neil Plantinga's Not the Way It's Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin , particularly the chapter "The Tragedy of Addiction"
And, we can lament and condemn and denounce, but if we do that, we are being more righteous than Christ, who came not for the righteous, but sinners, not the well, but the sick. The sick need healing, the sinner needs forgiveness and restoration. He is already "bruised and broken by the Fall."
The sad thing is that our forebears understood this well. They have a full-blown hamartiology that we have abandoned. One thinks of Precious Remedies Against Satan's Devices, or John Owen's On the Mortification of Indwelling Sin.
Augustine, the fountain-head of Reformed Theology after the Apostle Paul, wrote of his own life and death struggle with lust:
I was bound not by an iron imposed by anyone else but by the iron of my own choice. The enemy had a grip on my will and so made a chain for me to hold me a prisoner. The consequence of a distorted will is passion. By servitude to passion, habit is formed, and habit to which there is no resistance becomes necessity. By these links...connected one to another...a harsh bondage held me under restraint.
The Westminster Confession, 5.5, acknowledges the fearsome power of indwelling sin:
5.5 The most wise, righteous, and gracious God doth oftentimes leave, for a season, His own children to manifold temptations, and the corruption of their own hearts, to chastise them for their former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of corruption and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be humbled;(1) and, to raise them to a more close and constant dependence for their support upon Himself, and to make them more watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for sundry other just and holy ends.
But, we ourselves tend to have adopted the shallower view of sin promoted by Holiness and Keswick teachers --defeat of sin is a relatively easy thing, and if one hasn't accomplished it, it is a defect of faith. (Read J.I. Packer's Keep In Step with The Spirit for his own encounters with this destructive teaching as a young Christian man.
The added tragedy is that we have developed a list of sins that are less serious than others. I have written a lot here about sexual sin, because that is the sin that is first on every evangelical's radar. Sexual sin, and its attendants (such as unbiblical divorce) are at the top of our sin pyramid. In fact, I have never seen anyone disciplined for anything other than sexual sin or divorce. Sexual sin is serious --nobody who has become entangled in it would deny that. Because sex is intended to build relationships, its misuse destroys much. Because it is intended to open the heart, the misdirection of sexual desire callouses the heart.
The issue is not that sexual sin isn't serious. The issue is that other sins are equally (and sometimes more) serious. Pride, censoriousness, an unforgiving spirit, intemperance, gluttony, and lack of charity towards others are destructive interpersonal sins. But, for some reason, all of these are tolerated among the Christian populace, and church officers, too, to our own destruction. They aren't serious: not as serious as substance abuse, a gambling problem, an affair, or sex addiction. Those sins are icky, and we don't like to think about them. But, a lot of successful people (even in ministry) are proud, so it's okay.
But, given that sex sins and these others are serious and lethal. What then? Cancer is serious. Do we take a gun and shoot the cancer patient? No, we spend months and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to save the person while killing his disease. Are we that devoted in love to those with sin diseases in the heart? Or, does it demand too much of us?
Why do we not acknowledge that God is sovereign over serious and spectacular sins, and can make even these redound to his own glory? Can't the hard fought battle with sin put us in a place of usefulness to help others who are where we once were? Is the church missing out because we shoot our wounded, rather than rehabilitating them?
O God, cleanse us from the guilt and power of sin.
Monday, April 20, 2009
A new (to me) thought on election.
It always strikes me as sad that the doctrine of election or predestination has become an issue of contention --primarily, a philosophical point of debate.
The Scriptures do not use election this way. They use it to affirm the Godness of God –his sovereignty. It is not meant to exclude anyone from coming to Christ, or to lead to speculation about who the chosen might be. There are three primary uses, the third of which came to me with clarity this last week. None of these uses, I suppose, is any more or less important than the others. The first use is that it is a doctrine of comfort for the hurting soul, struggling with sin, conviction and assurance. The second use is that it is a doctrine of challenge –allowing us to live boldly and fearlessly for the kingdom of God, knowing that nothing can truly harm us –no-one can separate us from God’s sovereign love. The third use is the one that dawned on me anew this week –the doctrine of election is encouragement for the disenfranchised and downtrodden of the world. “God chose the foolish things of the world to shame those that are wise, and the weak things of world to shame those that are strong…that no-one may glory in his sight.” (1 Cor 1 paraphrase). The early believers, confronted with the glorious reality of Christ, may have puzzled over their low estate in the world. We may still do this. Confronted with the wickedness of the powers that be in the halls of government, high finance, Hollywood, and the like, the ordinary believer may feel powerless and shunted aside. But, in God’s economy, not so. The believer has been chosen by the sovereign of the universe to accomplish his will –a treasure entrusted in a clay jar—to keep us humble, and to make sure the world, in the end, knows that all glory goes to Christ.
The Scriptures do not use election this way. They use it to affirm the Godness of God –his sovereignty. It is not meant to exclude anyone from coming to Christ, or to lead to speculation about who the chosen might be. There are three primary uses, the third of which came to me with clarity this last week. None of these uses, I suppose, is any more or less important than the others. The first use is that it is a doctrine of comfort for the hurting soul, struggling with sin, conviction and assurance. The second use is that it is a doctrine of challenge –allowing us to live boldly and fearlessly for the kingdom of God, knowing that nothing can truly harm us –no-one can separate us from God’s sovereign love. The third use is the one that dawned on me anew this week –the doctrine of election is encouragement for the disenfranchised and downtrodden of the world. “God chose the foolish things of the world to shame those that are wise, and the weak things of world to shame those that are strong…that no-one may glory in his sight.” (1 Cor 1 paraphrase). The early believers, confronted with the glorious reality of Christ, may have puzzled over their low estate in the world. We may still do this. Confronted with the wickedness of the powers that be in the halls of government, high finance, Hollywood, and the like, the ordinary believer may feel powerless and shunted aside. But, in God’s economy, not so. The believer has been chosen by the sovereign of the universe to accomplish his will –a treasure entrusted in a clay jar—to keep us humble, and to make sure the world, in the end, knows that all glory goes to Christ.
The Church a Business? Perish the Thought!
I know the church is not a business, but…. How often have I heard that phrase, and in nearly every church I have served. This is not an argument that the church should not operate on sound fiscal principles, and that many churches do not keep adequate watch over their spending priorities.
That said, the church is not a business in any sense of the word. To think about the church that way is to think about it backward. A business provides a product or service with the goal of making a profit, and therefore gears itself to that end: what will create more customers, a larger market. The business serves, but it expects benefit in return. When the church sees itself as a business, its goal becomes quantitative growth for itself. Success, then, is measured in numbers, nickels and noses. Subtly in some places, and blatantly in others, worship and messages then are judged by the crowds they draw.
The church is never to be measured in this way. It is not to be measured by the people it attracts, but by the message it preaches and the subsequent good it does. These are God’s criteria, and they fill every page of Scripture. The church’s goal, then, ought to be Biblical fidelity and acts of mercy. The love of Christ compels us to this work. And, it is here that the evangelical church has lost its way. When the evangelical church abandoned the city, the city began to rot. Sometimes, evangelical churches abandon the city even when they remain within its confines.
Hurting people are the harvest field. The gospel will bind up their wounds, and be heard by them as good news. If the church concentrates on Biblical truth combined with merciful action, then God will bless it with vitality, joy, contentment, and perhaps even growth.
That said, the church is not a business in any sense of the word. To think about the church that way is to think about it backward. A business provides a product or service with the goal of making a profit, and therefore gears itself to that end: what will create more customers, a larger market. The business serves, but it expects benefit in return. When the church sees itself as a business, its goal becomes quantitative growth for itself. Success, then, is measured in numbers, nickels and noses. Subtly in some places, and blatantly in others, worship and messages then are judged by the crowds they draw.
The church is never to be measured in this way. It is not to be measured by the people it attracts, but by the message it preaches and the subsequent good it does. These are God’s criteria, and they fill every page of Scripture. The church’s goal, then, ought to be Biblical fidelity and acts of mercy. The love of Christ compels us to this work. And, it is here that the evangelical church has lost its way. When the evangelical church abandoned the city, the city began to rot. Sometimes, evangelical churches abandon the city even when they remain within its confines.
Hurting people are the harvest field. The gospel will bind up their wounds, and be heard by them as good news. If the church concentrates on Biblical truth combined with merciful action, then God will bless it with vitality, joy, contentment, and perhaps even growth.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
C'mon Conservatives: Do We Have a Free Market Answer for Medical Care?
The conservative movement is going nowhere, fast. And, sad to say, it has already lost the health care debate. How did it lose? By never showing up --the empty podium is telling.
There is no question that American health care is horribly broken. It is not just broken for those people who cannot afford to access it --in fact, it is less broken for them (through Medicaid, SCHIP, etc) than it is for basically productive people.
And, it is broken because it is an entire economy that has been exempted from the rules of the marketplace. One can point the finger of blame at "greedy" hospitals, "greedy" doctors, or "greedy" insurance companies, but much of the blame falls at the feet of, you guessed it, Uncle Sam.
In fact, the whole system is a post-War relic. It is the relic of Uncle Sam fixing wages in the second world war that motivated companies, based on market principles, to offer "benefits" --untaxed income. Among those benefits was health insurance --then a tiny fraction of the overall cost of employment. So, the whole system is based on an anachronism --wage and price controls.
One does not have to look far to see how perverse this is. Your coverage is dependent upon who you work for. If you work for GM you have better coverage than if you work for a GM dealer. You can be a very successful independent businessman and have worse coverage than the Wal-Mart cashier.
This perversity is built into the system. Name one other industry, other than the health insurance industry, that is built around denying its product to the very people who most need it? It is not the well who need the doctor, but the sick!
Sorry, Sam, this one's personal. Our daughter has a pre-existing condition. She acquired this about the same time our denomination saw fit to cancel its health policy. Most of our pastors are young and healthy, you see. And, if you are sick, or your child is, then sorry folks, we're out of luck. We've got our cheap individual plans. The big churches have their own groups. You're stuck.
Which was okay in Virginia, because they have guaranteed issue policies. But not MS, oh no. We are in the insurance dark ages here. But, I digress.
As it stands now, the whole system is horribly prejudiced. Prejudiced against whom? The self-employed and the small business --those too small to form "risk pools."
The answer to this is NOT socialized medicine. Socialized medicine perpetuates the problem. It has no natural cost control mechanisms. It tends to set the costs of products artificially low --which inevitably must make other costs inevitably high, lead to a decline in services, or the decimation of capital (aka crumbling hospital buildings).
The only answer to bring down costs is the market. Why does not Hospital A say, "We offer the same great service as Hospital B, but cost 30% less?" THat's what Wal-Mart does. TJ Maxx does not have the amenities of Macy's, but the products on the rack are the same. If doctors, hospitals, drug companies and insurers had to compete, it would drive the inefficiency from the system.
Now, there are other issues to be sure. Malpractice insurance is one. The artificially lowered prices of the government insurance plans are another even larger issue.
BUt, unless and until conservative address this issue, without the me-too-but less that is all too common, we will never gain a nationwide hearing. It is a crisis headed towards catastrophe --one that could be averted, if conservatives would apply their ideals to the problem.
There is no question that American health care is horribly broken. It is not just broken for those people who cannot afford to access it --in fact, it is less broken for them (through Medicaid, SCHIP, etc) than it is for basically productive people.
And, it is broken because it is an entire economy that has been exempted from the rules of the marketplace. One can point the finger of blame at "greedy" hospitals, "greedy" doctors, or "greedy" insurance companies, but much of the blame falls at the feet of, you guessed it, Uncle Sam.
In fact, the whole system is a post-War relic. It is the relic of Uncle Sam fixing wages in the second world war that motivated companies, based on market principles, to offer "benefits" --untaxed income. Among those benefits was health insurance --then a tiny fraction of the overall cost of employment. So, the whole system is based on an anachronism --wage and price controls.
One does not have to look far to see how perverse this is. Your coverage is dependent upon who you work for. If you work for GM you have better coverage than if you work for a GM dealer. You can be a very successful independent businessman and have worse coverage than the Wal-Mart cashier.
This perversity is built into the system. Name one other industry, other than the health insurance industry, that is built around denying its product to the very people who most need it? It is not the well who need the doctor, but the sick!
Sorry, Sam, this one's personal. Our daughter has a pre-existing condition. She acquired this about the same time our denomination saw fit to cancel its health policy. Most of our pastors are young and healthy, you see. And, if you are sick, or your child is, then sorry folks, we're out of luck. We've got our cheap individual plans. The big churches have their own groups. You're stuck.
Which was okay in Virginia, because they have guaranteed issue policies. But not MS, oh no. We are in the insurance dark ages here. But, I digress.
As it stands now, the whole system is horribly prejudiced. Prejudiced against whom? The self-employed and the small business --those too small to form "risk pools."
The answer to this is NOT socialized medicine. Socialized medicine perpetuates the problem. It has no natural cost control mechanisms. It tends to set the costs of products artificially low --which inevitably must make other costs inevitably high, lead to a decline in services, or the decimation of capital (aka crumbling hospital buildings).
The only answer to bring down costs is the market. Why does not Hospital A say, "We offer the same great service as Hospital B, but cost 30% less?" THat's what Wal-Mart does. TJ Maxx does not have the amenities of Macy's, but the products on the rack are the same. If doctors, hospitals, drug companies and insurers had to compete, it would drive the inefficiency from the system.
Now, there are other issues to be sure. Malpractice insurance is one. The artificially lowered prices of the government insurance plans are another even larger issue.
BUt, unless and until conservative address this issue, without the me-too-but less that is all too common, we will never gain a nationwide hearing. It is a crisis headed towards catastrophe --one that could be averted, if conservatives would apply their ideals to the problem.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Moral Positions and Rescue
Okay, meeting Jesus in Matthew 9:9-17.
As an evangelical and Calvinist Christian I struggle with two things that are difficult to reconcile, but which coexist perfectly in Jesus. Those two things are this: recognizing sin and evil as such, and reaching out to rescue people who are entrapped in those things.
I have said before that the way to deal with the broken sinner is with restoration, not condemnation. We are to be about rescue.
Jesus confronts people with different problems in different ways. In neither case does he discount sin. The two basic categories of people that Jesus addresses are the proud and the broken. The indifferent never appear on his radar screen --perhaps a topic for another post.
Jesus never sets out to break the broken. He does not break bruised reeds or quench smoking flax. Those who are broken find restoration. They do not find sanction for their sin, but deliverance from it (witness the Samaritan woman at the well). They know who they are and they agree with Jesus' assessment of them. They don't have to have it pounded into their heads. They know their guilt, and are hungry for forgiveness.
But, the proud are a different story. Jesus has hard things to say to proud people. His purpose is always loving --to show them they have no reason for pride, and to break them, and then restore them. To these people Jesus says hard things.
The struggle in preaching is this: some people before you are proud, and some are broken. What is more complicating is that some of the proud think they are broken (elder brothers who see themselves as the prodigal --thanks Tim Keller and Richard Sibbes for pointing that out). My own flesh craves the message of forgiveness even as I am sinning with a hard heart and a high hand.
And, the other complicating factor is upholding truth and righteousness. What if, upholding the BIblical teaching on human sexuality, both a denial of homosexuality and promiscuity. Some people out there are pursuing those lifestyles. Some are broken by them; some are hardened in them; all are destroying themselves and missing God's blessing.
The same could be said for every correct moral position: sanctity of life, business ethics, family relationships, gender roles, etc.
The answer of some is simply not to deal with those things, and just preach the gospel. But, this is not what Jesus or the apostles did. WHen Paul said he labored to know nothing but Christ and him crucified, it obviously wasn't to the exclusion of teaching on spiritual gifts, head coverings, sexual immorality or the Lord's Supper.
So, how do we do this? How do we uphold righteousness and yet preach grace? How do we reach sinners with the free message of grace, oppose the proud, and uphold the truth? Those are the three poles that all preaching must work within and balance.
May God make it so.
As an evangelical and Calvinist Christian I struggle with two things that are difficult to reconcile, but which coexist perfectly in Jesus. Those two things are this: recognizing sin and evil as such, and reaching out to rescue people who are entrapped in those things.
I have said before that the way to deal with the broken sinner is with restoration, not condemnation. We are to be about rescue.
Jesus confronts people with different problems in different ways. In neither case does he discount sin. The two basic categories of people that Jesus addresses are the proud and the broken. The indifferent never appear on his radar screen --perhaps a topic for another post.
Jesus never sets out to break the broken. He does not break bruised reeds or quench smoking flax. Those who are broken find restoration. They do not find sanction for their sin, but deliverance from it (witness the Samaritan woman at the well). They know who they are and they agree with Jesus' assessment of them. They don't have to have it pounded into their heads. They know their guilt, and are hungry for forgiveness.
But, the proud are a different story. Jesus has hard things to say to proud people. His purpose is always loving --to show them they have no reason for pride, and to break them, and then restore them. To these people Jesus says hard things.
The struggle in preaching is this: some people before you are proud, and some are broken. What is more complicating is that some of the proud think they are broken (elder brothers who see themselves as the prodigal --thanks Tim Keller and Richard Sibbes for pointing that out). My own flesh craves the message of forgiveness even as I am sinning with a hard heart and a high hand.
And, the other complicating factor is upholding truth and righteousness. What if, upholding the BIblical teaching on human sexuality, both a denial of homosexuality and promiscuity. Some people out there are pursuing those lifestyles. Some are broken by them; some are hardened in them; all are destroying themselves and missing God's blessing.
The same could be said for every correct moral position: sanctity of life, business ethics, family relationships, gender roles, etc.
The answer of some is simply not to deal with those things, and just preach the gospel. But, this is not what Jesus or the apostles did. WHen Paul said he labored to know nothing but Christ and him crucified, it obviously wasn't to the exclusion of teaching on spiritual gifts, head coverings, sexual immorality or the Lord's Supper.
So, how do we do this? How do we uphold righteousness and yet preach grace? How do we reach sinners with the free message of grace, oppose the proud, and uphold the truth? Those are the three poles that all preaching must work within and balance.
May God make it so.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)