Theology Matters: Eulogy for a dead man

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.--Matthew 7:15-20

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.--Galatians 5:16-24

I have mentioned it a couple other times here, but I can recall a line in one of C.S. Lewis' books to the effect of people having two equally wrong ways to deal with sin: we either take it too harshly and become legalistic jerks, or we take it far too lightly and begin thinking we can do whatever we wish.  In both cases we cease to recognize both the effect and the gravity of Christ crucified: Jesus died on the cross because our sins are deadly serious, and because He has died and risen again we are able to walk in freedom and grace--away from our sin, into God-glorifying lives of sanctification.

Unless you've lived under a rock for the past decade or so, you have probably seen the antics and nonsense from the so-called "Westboro Baptist Church."  I say "so-called" because they are not a church, and they are certainly not Baptist.  They have done everything from give incredibly foolish and nonsense-filled interviews on TV to protesting funerals, to proclaim that the death being mourned has been brought about by a vengeful God because of America's sins, in particular its tolerance of homosexuality.  There is precisely zero understanding of the Gospel, no desire whatsoever to submit to the full counsel of Scripture, and a complete lack of regeneration evident in their words and deeds.  In short, this is what happens when Category A Self-Righteous Hypocrite goes on steroids: you have someone who can see what's wrong but believes, foolishly, that because they aren't engaged in such and such sin that they are clean.  Believing the Gospel does not produce this wicked fruit.

But likewise, the answer is not "You can do anything you want to do, because God made you and therefore anything you want is okay!"  And those are the two sides we find engaged in a battle of "who can be more wrong," amplified by the recent death of Westboro's founder, Fred Phelps.  The fruit of his life is on display for all to see, and one can argue he has been one of the biggest allies of the pro-homosexuality movement: his behavior and words have provoked such a dramatic response that it's hard for anyone with even an ounce of compassion for another human to find a way to make an argument against the normalization of homosexuality.  And so the diseased, thistley, dried-up fruit of his tree is seen before the whole world, many of whom turn and...eat the diseased, thistley, dried-up fruit of unashamed sinfulness.

Phelps was a man dead in his heart reading from a book that could not possibly have any meaning to him.  "How can you say that?" you ask.  "I thought Christians weren't supposed to judge."  Oh, but I can--by what the man produces.  And we know what the life of a man transformed by the power of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit looks like; read it again:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

 So why write all this?  I'm sure that few would begrudge this if I said I simply was in a mood and wanted to kick the man while he was (literally) down, but that could not be farther from the truth.  On the contrary, I'm writing this as a follow-up to my last post, as a demonstration of why, exactly, theology does matter.  When we view the God of the Bible as nothing more than pure, unadulterated judgment of God and do not preach the Gospel, do not believe in God's power to save (in spite of their claimed "Calvinist" position) and do not believe in God's ultimate goal of restoring His creation but rather simply see Him showing up on the scene at some point to damn everyone except...well, them.  When we do not seek to line theology up with what the Bible actually says--the whole Bible--there is almost no end to the foolishness that can result.  Fred Phelps was perhaps one of the most obvious and blatant examples of it, but the danger always exists and we must be vigilant to sit in the Word, to sit in prayer and to celebrate with gratitude and great joy the mercy God has shown us in the person and work of Jesus--for if we don't, we tread very dangerous ground.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.--Galatians 1:6-9

Theology matters

Play on words title!  The best kind.  Theology matters, like "issues of theology," and "theology is relevant and important and you should care about it."  Let's go!

The saying, of course, is thieved with apologies from Dr. White.  I've wanted to write something about this for a while, but I feel like I finally found some more coherence to what I wanted to say after seeing an article on a friend's Facebook wall, and after Sunday's sermon.  The Holy Spirit really used the sermon to convict me and teach me about critical issues of theology, which I want to raise here.  I've talked about the doctrines of grace, and how I believe they are not the objectionable things many people believe them to be, but are instead a message of hope that all Christians should embrace joyfully and rely on in knowing that God has made promises to His people that He will fulfill.  First, though, to the article.

It's from the TED Blog, on "10 facts about infidelity" from Helen Fisher.  I have not gone out and studied her work in detail, but it's evident that she has done quite a bit of study on relationships.  It's not my intent to dissect her work on any level other than that presented in the blog post, with the perspective of a believer.  Those who love to dig into this topic will note that there are quite a few books on the subject linked from the article for further reading.  While there are points made that most anyone could agree with, it is clear that what we have here is what happens when you look at relationships with a presupposition that simultaneously tries to deny God as having any role or say over us, yet still maintain some semblance of purpose to sex and relationships.  The result is...well, we'll see below:

1. Pairbonding is a hallmark of humanity. Data from the Demographic Yearbooks of the United Nations on 97 societies between 1947 and 1992 indicate that approximately 93.1% of women and 91.8% of men marry by age 49. More recent data indicates that some 85% of Americans will eventually marry.

2. However, monogamy is only part of the human reproductive strategy. Infidelity is also widespread. Current studies of American couples indicate that 20 to 40% of heterosexual married men and 20 to 25% of heterosexual married women will also have an extramarital affair during their lifetime.

And let's back up to the introduction:

Love isn’t so much an emotion, says Helen Fisher in her TED Talk. No, love is a brain system — one of three that that’s related to mating and reproduction.  It’s those other two systems that explain why human beings are capable of infidelity even as we so highly value love.

 And the third point from the post:

3. Brain architecture may contribute to infidelity. Human beings have three primary brain systems related to love. 1) The sex drive evolved to motivate individuals to seek copulation with a range of partners; 2) romantic love evolved to motivate individuals to focus their mating energy on specific partners, thereby conserving courtship time and metabolic energy; 3) partner attachment evolved to motivate mating individuals to remain together at least long enough to rear a single child through infancy together. These three basic neural systems interact with one another and other brain systems in myriad flexible, combinatorial patterns to provide the range of motivations, emotions and behaviors necessary to orchestrate our complex human reproductive strategy. But this brain architecture makes it biologically possible to express deep feelings of attachment for one partner, while one feels intense romantic love for another individual, while one feels the sex drive for even more extra-dyadic partners.

Now, it's not my intention to dissect this or necessarily respond to this in depth; the problem, of course, is not that I am some science-ig'nant fundie--the problem is the fundamentally different worldviews that we are bringing to the table here.  I don't deny the possibility that what the article says is factual: that there are brain architectures that relate to love, faithfulness or lack thereof, and all related issues.  What I say, however, is that this is not proof of the accidental nature of our creation or the impersonal nature of our existence--rather, that it points to a very personal Creator who makes us in His image.  We will come back to this another day as it relates to the question of "does that mean God made us to be unfaithful" (the answer is no), but only because I want to get to the next point:

God has made us in His image and loves us.  Because He made us He despises the things that destroy that image and distract us from being that.  It's why the dual nature of God as being both infinite and personal is crucial to understand, and why Jesus coming as a human and living the life of poverty that He did is such an immense display of God's love, for so many reasons; indeed, there are good reasons why discussions of that subject fills untold volumes and I suspect I will be able to write here for years to come as I examine the many facets of that particular gem of truth and beauty.

But when we abandon the theology of a Creator God who made us for a purpose, whose purposes are definite and involve the ultimate good for His children, and who uses all circumstances for His glory and our ultimate benefit, we end up viewing things like sex, marriage and fidelity in such a way where it is simply the byproduct of chemicals mixing, genes creating tendencies and all of it is...well, the only real descriptive word is "purposeless."  It exists for the sake of us, it terminates on our desires of the moment, and if that philosophy becomes dominant, why is anyone surprised that a culture becomes obsessed with self and death?  But the alternative is just as vexing:

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
    and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”--1 Corinthians 1:18-31

The point is that it matters how we view God.  This is a difficult thing to discuss in America especially, because of our idea of the "separation" of church and state and the way that most people operate their lives, with everything in its neat little box and ultimately there to serve our desires rather than everything existing in the single box of "this belongs to God and serves His glory."  In all honesty I have a huge struggle with this, and I have to spend time praying about things like my attitude at work and the way I interact with others.  I know where I'm strong, but my weaknesses sometimes seem overwhelming.  But I have been blessed with people around me who encourage me, pray for me and remind me to keep praying in turn, and God has shown the fruits of submitting all my life to him.

So this is the fundamental split between where I was, and where I am, and it comes down to the name of this blog and its inspiration: the purpose of a man's life is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.  Glorifying God is not drudgery--it is joy, and it's a joy we are able to partake in because we are made by a loving God!  Because He is a loving God, He has seen fit not to leave man purely to his own devices and ultimate demise into death, but to secure a people for Himself, to pay the ransom for them, and to move perfectly to set them from bondage to the slavery of sin and adopt them as His own.  


But if we view God as nonexistent, irrelevant, or something that goes "over there, between 9 and 11am on Sunday," rather than our Creator, Sustainer, Father, and King, then why is anyone surprised when we find our lives out of wack, imbalanced, and broken?  We try to sustain ourselves with spoiled food, to drink water from broken cups. 

And this is why I am unashamed to use the word "reformed" about myself and why I was glad to hear Ross' message Sunday: God made me in His image, but even as the rebellious, self-centered image-tarnisher I was, God loved me and let me see the glory and the mercy of Christ on the cross, let me be indwelt by the Spirit and know Him as my Father, who cleans me up and keeps on pushing, loving, and encouraging.  Not because I have done or ever will do anything to deserve it, but because it is His good pleasure to do so--He knows better than anyone that I certainly do not deserve it.  And that is why seeing an article that discusses sex and infidelity in such empty concepts as "pair bonding" just struck me as bizarre: sex was created and given as a gift, marriage given as a mysterious and beautiful image of the relationship between Christ and the church, and my wife given as a gift to me by a gracious God who uses both of us to sharpen and sanctify the other.

This has been somewhat rambling, but in the end this has been an opportunity to reflect with deep gratitude to God for who He is and for His incredible mercy and grace in my life.  It's not reflected by things or finances or anything except a heart that longs for Him and a family that seeks to grow closer to Him daily.  I pray for more and more of that, that He would increase in my life, and that I would decrease.

Tuesday night viewing

No big long post tonight.  I watched this a long time ago, and I watched it again tonight, and feel as convicted to pray and sit in the Word as before.  Everyone needs to watch this as well, and I pray that its effect is to cause people to do the same.  It's called the "shocking youth message," but really this is what I hope would be brought to every group whether youth or old or somewhere in the middle: the uncensored, basic Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the incredible need we all have for it, especially those of us who call ourselves "Christian."


UPDATE: apparently Blogger likes to strip out the video, so let's try this again.

Let's try this again

Well, the last post certainly brought one of the more heated responses this blog has ever gotten.  Not on the post itself, but on Twitter it certainly brought on some discussions as well as some rather uncalled-for responses, which I will not get into here.  The author of the piece I was responding to, Micah J. Murray, did in fact reply to me on Twitter.  In the process we learned several things:

1. Micah does, in fact, believe that one can be walking in something the Bible calls sin unrepentantly and still be saved. 
2. He was unwilling to directly answer the question of who, exactly, was saying that gay people were worse sinners than other sinners; his first response was a vague comment about "conservative churches," when pressed for specifics he did not reply. 
3. Those who agreed with him continued to argue a point I specifically disagreed with, preferring to set up a "hater" straw man to actually engaging my arguments.  They operated on the assumption that I was setting gay people apart from others, rather than insisting that they be counted as part of the population that makes up the world: rebel sinners in need of God's grace.
4. Where Micah did attempt to engage my actual arguments, his position was Scripturally deficient, rooted in his opinion rather than anything biblical.  Where Scripture did enter into it, issues of definition abound. 

Now, let me say that I believe I understand the driving force behind where he is right now.  I've walked with many men and women who have felt burned by the church, felt like they came into a body of believers with struggles and pain and needing someone to listen and help them, and came away feeling rejected and lost.  And this is a compassion that I share, and that ought to be shared by every believer; like him, I want people to know Jesus not as a condemner but as a savior, one who sets people free from their slavery to sin.  I want people to rejoice at the name of Christ, to have the ability to trust him wholly and freely.

But the problem, and the place where we are going to part ways, is that I cannot see biblically how any argument can be made that one can be unrepentantly in any sin and still be saved.  Furthermore, the modern cultural redefinition of sin to "if it doesn't hurt anyone else, it's okay" is not an allowance Scripture provides for.  Not that Jesus cannot save anyone the Father gives to Him, because we know that He will do so.  But with he and his followers unwilling to even acquiesce to the idea that homosexuality is a sin, the struggle here is with presuppositions.  So let's start from the foundation, from the beginning of understanding our relationship with God and why Christ came.

The uncensored Gospel: Responding to Micah J. Murray

This is a long one, folks.  Stay with me.

I have struggled over how exactly to approach this subject; I've probably started and deleted at least three previous posts on this over the last couple weeks.  I think, perhaps, that it's a good thing that I typically don't get around to writing about current event type stuff until it's somewhat settled and done, because it means I've had time to consider and digest information, to see how things have shaken out a bit.  There was a time, after all, where rushing to be the first to respond to and report on an event was not the primary goal, but rather, thoughtful discourse was the word of the day.  It is my hope to provide that, here, on the subject of homosexuality as it is working itself out as an issue in our country today and in the public sphere.

Of course, this is not a new topic, but the latest fire set on this issue came when Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame gave an interview to GQ.  Robertson is a believer and a long-time member of the Church of Christ, and while there are some soteriological issues such as baptismal regeneration that we would disagree over, from his words and actions I have no doubt that he is a brother in Christ.  I wouldn't want him to be my lead pastor, but I'll pray with and for the man with no fear of rebuke.  If you aren't familiar with his story, you should check it out.

However, I'm not wanting to talk about reality TV, the Robertson clan, or freedom of speech issues as they relate to employment, but rather the visceral reaction that came as a result of his quoting scripture that names, among other sins, homosexuality explicitly as sinful and rejected by God.  We've had posts saying that it is "morally irresponsible" to speak to the issue of sin as it relates to homosexuality, but what I want to respond to here is a post from the HuffPo called, "Why I Can't Say 'Love the Sinner/Hate the Sin' Anymore," by Micah J. Murray.  It's been a while since I've done what's known in the blogosphere as a "fisking," and I don't feel like that's exactly what I'm doing; my desire is to discuss, in love and rooted in Scripture, why I disagree with this author and believe his argument to be based, not in truth, but in emotionalism and a desire to avoid confronting others in their sin.  But I want to break this down and examine his argument; if Christians are going to truly understand why God rejects sin and why He sent His Son to die to atone for it, if we are going to understand the magnificent gift that He has given and be able to preach the Gospel to everyone, not just the people who will hear it without anger, then his position demands refutation.

Picking tulips

It was my occasion today to engage in conversation with some fellow believers on Facebook, over the subject of limited atonement. My brothers and sisters were incensed at the idea and, like many people brought up in our tradition-bound churches, believed that it was opposed to the message of salvation as being a message of hope for all people.

I have seen a lot of different reactions from people in these sorts of conversations: in a couple instances I had people who just switched to full emotional outburst mode, not wanting to even discuss the topic and calling the idea of Calvinism "satanic." In such cases while I often press them to explain more, typically it's something ingrained deeply and it's beyond my purview to dislodge such thoughts. In other cases it's just because they have certain understandings about what the Bible says, and while we have had respectful conversations it's simply a matter of disagreement. And in some instances people have applied terms such as "four point Calvinist" to themselves, meaning that they believe in some of the less controversial doctrines that descend from the famous TULIP acronym, but limited atonement or unconditional election are sticking points for them, usually for the same reason as the second group but with less reticence over the term "Calvinist."

My desire here is to expound on why I believe in the doctrines of grace, and to explain my contention that, as Charles Spurgeon put it, "Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else." I want to say first and foremost that I'm not here to defend John Calvin as a perfect man, and if your response to this involves wrongs committed by Calvin then quite frankly I'm not interested. John Calvin was just a man, and like myself, a sinner. But he provided a thorough, deep, and accurate understanding of what the Bible teaches about God, about us, and about God's role in bringing about salvation for our sakes.

Advent: Why has He come?

You might not have noticed yet, but it's the Christmas season.  I know, I know..."Really?  I didn't notice.  I mean, aside from the EVERYTHING CHRISTMAS IS EVERYTHING FOR THE LOVE OF GOD I CAN'T TAKE IT" sorry...I think I was channeling a retail employee for a moment there.  My point is, it's Christmas, and that also means that it's time for one essay and discussion after another about "the real meaning of Christmas" or "what Christmas is all about."

Well, let's start simple:


 But more specifically: why did Christ come?  Why did God move to effect salvation of man by sending His Son to Earth to become human, to live the life he did, to die, and to rise again?  To examine all the implications of and answers to that question, would require a book and perhaps someday I'll be given the chance to write that.  But I want to speak to the presuppositions underlying the issue, as well as share some of the more thought-provoking reading I've been blessed to engage in lately, thanks to the new house which gives me my own "study" to do said reading.

One of the remarkable things about Christianity is the nature of God as He reveals Himself in His Word.  I am going to turn over a not-small portion of this post to Francis Schaeffer, because I don't feel I can explain it better without simply plagiarizing him:

The historic Christian answer concerning verifiable facts and knowing turns on who God is, on who is there.  The God who is there according to the Scriptures is the personal-infinite God.  There is no other god like this God.  It is ridiculous to say that all religions teach the same things when they disagree at the fundamental point as to what God is like.  The gods of the East are infinite by definition--the definition being "god is all that is."  This is the pan-everything-ism god.  The gods of the West have tended to be personal but limited; such were the gods of the Greeks, Romans and Germans.  But the God of the Bible, Old and New Testaments alike, is the infinite-personal God.

[...]

How then is God's creation related to Himself and to itself?  On the side of God's infinity there is a break between God and the whole of His creation.  I am as separated from God in the area of His being the Creator and infinite and I being the creature and finite, as is the atom or energy particle.  I am no closer to God on this side than the machine.

However on the side of God's personality, the break comes between man and the rest of creation.  In terms of modern thought this is a dynamic conception of which modern man and modern theology know nothing.  So Schweitzer identified himself with the hippopotamus, for he did not understand that man's relationship is upward; and therefore he looked downward to a creature which does many of the same things as himself.  But on the side of personality, if our relationship is upward, then everything concerning man's "mannishness" is in place.

 So what does this have to do with the question above?  What relevance does this have to do with the season of Advent, when we celebrate the coming of God in Jesus Christ?  It's relevant because Jesus came not as an impersonal force, not as a new faceless edict from a prophet...He came as a man.  Jesus came as a man who then built personal, deep relationships with other people.  He preached for certain, but reading the Bible we see that His biggest, most transformative work was done in the lives of the men and women He was closest to: He healed many, but His disciples He worked with beyond physical pains down to their hearts, loving them gently and leading them to become the men who would boldly proclaim His name to the world. 

God is infinite and His infinite nature is something that leads many to say things like "We can't really ever understand God" in the sense that trying is a fool's errand.  But no one has been asked to express the inexpressible: it is God's good purpose to give us Himself personally just as much as to awe us with His infinity.  "The heavens proclaim the glory of God," wrote the psalmist, and gazing into the sky and seeing the vastness of the universe, knowing as we do now how much more vast and great it is than they could have dreamed those thousands of years ago both in a macro and micro sense, we wonder exactly how much greater our God is if this universe is just a speck compared to His majesty.  But we are edified, and humbled, by the man Jesus Christ who came to Earth to live the life we can never live, die the death we deserve to die, and to look broken, rebellious sinners in the face and bring restoration, healing and love to them.  Praise God, those words came to me through His Word and His Spirit, and changed a heart once buried in sin.

And so this advent season, we look back to His first coming, and ahead, to His second.  May that day come soon, to give rest to the weary and to complete the work begun on the cross and at the grave.