Book review: Finally Free

Finally Free: Fighting for Purity with the Power of Grace
By Heath Lambert, forward by Joshua Harris

Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it.--1 Thessalonians 5:23-24

I have written before about my struggle against addiction to pornography and the ways in which God poured out a great deal of grace into my life as He matured me and led me onto His paths.  The incredible mercy God showed me through all of that, the way He broke in to destroy strongholds of sinfulness while showing me His immense love and gentleness is the reason I have no problem accepting as true the idea of God saving those He wills by His call and not by anything they have done--because surely, I did nothing to deserve that mercy.  That struggle, of course, is not completely absent from my life, but it is much smaller now; no longer is my life dominated by wicked desires that drive me between lust and despair.  However, I still have times when its ugly head is reared, and I desired to sharpen my arsenal especially as we moved; I was temporarily without a group of close brothers to turn to and I desired to put my mind on something that would help me deal with this specific issue.  When I read some reviews over at The Gospel Coalition, this book excited me a lot and from the first time I got my hands on it, its words have had a great impact on me and the way I deal with my struggles.

Finally Free is very well-done in its approach, for several reasons:

Firstly, it is not the typical guilting rant: there are so many books out there that attack the reader seeking a way out with "Do you know how horrible it is for women in porn?  You're part of the problem, you need to stop!"  To which the addict replies, "You're absolutely right and I want out.  How do I get out?"  But unfortunately that's not what those books are covering.  Pointing out the evil of sin and its effects on our hearts is critical and we need to continue, but it is not the end; indeed, if that's all we do, then we have failed to preach the Gospel or truly call anyone to repentance.

Likewise, this is not a heady treatise, nor is it purely practical in nature.  However, it absolutely is practical, in fact I would argue that its effect is most practical simply because the author spends so much time preaching the simple truths of Scripture and God's grace.  It's not just "here's how to get away from looking at porn," though that certainly is an aspect of it; rather, it is a call to recognize that when we allow pornography into our lives, we are allowing another master besides Jesus to rule over us.

No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.--Matthew 6:24

I've long contended here that Jesus' specific attack on one of man's most common idols, an idol that reveals how much (or little) man really trusts God to provide for him, can be extended to cover all of our idols.  And truly, one cannot serve both God and wicked sexual desire at the same time.   But that is the point that Lambert builds up to and makes very well: the point of this struggle is not, as I said, to simply cease looking at porn for its own sake, but rather to walk with Christ, to know Him deeply and have that relationship with Him that He has called us into.  It is the very reason grace is extended, and it is why in the epistles to the churches Paul and the other apostles who we see writing spend so much time over and over again, speaking out clearly both against legalistic rule enforcement and against licentiousness--they're simply two sides of the same coin, and equally lead away from Christ.

Thirdly, it goes out of its way to not be graphic or vulgar in its approach to this issue.  Since this is an issue that revolves a lot around a struggle with thought life, obviously a book that went into detail about what people are already struggling with could itself prove a trigger for further problems.  It has a lot of specific examples of people dealing with this struggle drawn from Lambert's ministry, but it focuses on how they deal with it rather than what they deal with.  The reader is able to see his struggles pictured and feel the gravity of the seriousness of these sins, without also being drawn into the downward spiral of thinking about the particulars.  And that particular issue is a big one: when speaking to someone struggling with pornography, the issue is not getting a sinner to be ashamed of his sin and desire freedom.  The issue is getting them move away from worldly grief that brings only death, to godly grief that brings life and inspires real transformation.  This transformation, of course, is a work of the Spirit, but a work like this is a great motivation in that work to the struggling believer.

The book is not a long read, but I took my time with it.  It's very straightforward, and anyone willing to find the time to sit down and read can easily make their way through it in a reasonable amount of time, but there are some study questions in the back and I think it could easily be used between accountability partners or in a small group.  The first few chapters Lambert spends time writing about different weapons we can employ in the fight against sexual idolatry.

One chapter in particular that had a big impact on me was the one about using gratitude.  It did give me a great weapon in my battle, but in addition it spurred me to think about gratitude, and to realize how much I really take what Christ has done for me for granted.  By realizing this I found myself able to shine a light of truth onto those desires to look at porn when they came up, by remembering: this is not simply some random physical desire, this is an element of spiritual brokenness that is revealing an area of ingratitude, where instead of thinking "I wish I could do this but it's wrong" instead I can take the positive track of "I am grateful for the mercy and grace Christ has shown to me, not just to pay for my sin but to open my eyes to it and call me into relationship with him!"  That made a huge difference to me--not to perfection, but in the striving for it.

The end of the book ties everything together with the point I mentioned earlier: the real purpose.  We aren't simply trying to end porn addiction for its own sake, but because it is a roadblock in our walk with Christ.  Sanctification is not about a single item but dealing with all the things in our lives that do not reflect the image of Christ, and as we walk with Him we see those things turn up--the anger, the impatience, the fear and anxiety in places where we don't trust Him like we should, and so on.  Defeating pornography's hold on a generation of Christian men is crucial, but it is only step one, and that point is made clearly.

I highly recommend this book because it is both practical and Gospel-centered in its approach.  It contains a great description of specific things Christians can do in going to battle against their sins, but also consistently reminds and calls Christians to an understanding of the fact that their relationship with Christ is not something offered reluctantly by a God who had no other choice--it was given freely, lovingly, and the freedom to accept it granted out of that love by our Heavenly Father.  Know that truth, brothers, and run after it; this book is an excellent tool in that pursuit.

A Jesus for every taste

Now it happened that as he was praying alone, the disciples were with him. And he asked them, “Who do the crowds say that I am?” And they answered, “John the Baptist. But others say, Elijah, and others, that one of the prophets of old has risen.” Then he said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Peter answered, “The Christ of God.”--Luke 9:18-20

I try not to simply mock things on here, as I would prefer interactions here to be thoughtful rather than short, unpleasant slapfights.  I've also learned the hard way the truth about how dangerous a weapon a man's tongue can be, and so I take full advantage of the fact that writing allows me the maximum time to be thoughtful in word and deed.  On the flip side, I have to be honest: I really hate bumper sticker theology.  There is nothing more unhelpful to sharing the Gospel than some fool who's stuck a "How would you like your eternity: regular, or extra crispy?" on the back of his car.  Likewise, theology by meme is usually just as unhelpful; in a world that so despises anyone who tells them of absolute truth, they certainly like their world served up in great big Impact letters pasted across an image, leaving no room for discussion or thought.

Which brings me to this:

I've seen this floating around in the past, and a friend recently posted it again on Facebook.  I think her reason for posting it was legitimate, in that the desire was to see Christians cooperating and showing love to their fellow man, both true and worthy things to desire.  What Jesus is to someone saved and transformed by the Holy Spirit is King, Lord, Savior, Author of our faith, and we should be saying "Come here and drink this living water Jesus has brought!"

The thing is, most people aren't interested in the Jesus that believers know, that the Bible talks about.  They aren't interested in the king who became a servant, lived a life none of us could ever live and paid the penalty for our rebellion and wickedness.  No, the Jesus most people want is the Jesus that's just like them, and that would never condemn them.  Above we see "hippy Jesus," who just wanted everyone to love and help everyone; there's Republican Jesus, who stands apart and pronounces judgment on sinfulness while patting the righteous on the back (he looks a lot like Democrat Jesus, who stands apart and pronounces judgment on greed while patting redistributionists on the back).  There's Western Evangelical Jesus, who wears a shiny white robe with a red sash just like the paintings and turned water into grape juice, and just wants to smile and pat you on the back because you're doing a great job, buddy!  The point is, we ought to look at these sort of images and be able to say, "I don't know what Jesus he's talking about, but it's not the one who saved me."

Why does this matter?  Why can't I just let people have what they want?  Because I love Jesus, and I want others to love Him too: the true Jesus, not one of our own imagining.  This weekend we celebrated Easter, which is to say, we celebrated something very real and meaningful: we remembered Christ's death on the cross and what it means that He accomplished our salvation, and His defeat of death in His resurrection.  This is critical, and understanding who Jesus is and what He did in His life and ministry is part and parcel of truth-loving, honest worship.

Initially I wanted to spend time tearing the above image apart, responding to every bad argument, every misunderstanding and bad exegetical claim, but after spending time doing that I felt like it wasn't making the point any better than I could make it by simply saying this: if a person is studying the Word, sitting in prayer, and putting himself under authority of godly leadership that is doing the same, he is going to look at something like this (or Republican Jesus, or Democrat Jesus, or Homeless Jesus, or Is Okay With My Personal Sin Jesus, or...) and say, "That's not right."  And our society is full of this sort of thing.  Normally this is where I'd quote Romans 1, but instead since it's been rolling around a lot of the discussions I've been reading/listening to online, I'm gonna go to John 6:

On the next day the crowd that remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone. Other boats from Tiberias came near the place where they had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum, seeking Jesus.

When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 

They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”--John 6:22-44

This entire scene speaks clearly to me about the friction between how Jesus is made known in the whole of Scripture, and how people tend to actually want to view Him.  After all, we have plenty of churches in this world that preach an image of Jesus similar to the ones the people Jesus is speaking with see him: not as our Sustainer and King, but as Giver of Stuff, and the difference is significant.  As Sustainer Jesus is worshiped because He made us out of love and calls us to Himself in that same love; as King, Jesus is worshiped as the one who made us and glorifies Himself through redeeming us and bringing us in line with His will.  As Giver of Stuff, Jesus is a magical fairy that can be manipulated into giving us what we want through behavior.  Jesus sees this in these people who followed Him across the lake from the day before, when He had fed them miraculously.  When they approach Him, He knows what they want: more miracles.  They want the Giver of Stuff to Give up the Stuff already!

Jesus isn't going along with this, and calls them out on it.  They try to ask for what they should be doing in order to get more of what they want, and He does what He is seen doing many other times throughout the gospels: He calls out their hearts for disbelief and lets them know, there is no work that can be done.  Those that will know Him, will come because the Father has given them to Him.  That work is written and will be accomplished perfectly.

And that is something we can take great hope in: Jesus, our Sustainer, will do exactly as He says and bring His people to Himself perfectly!  That, friends, is huge, but if you're coming to Jesus looking for an idol to please in exchange for things, or a political ally, or someone to give a thumbs-up to sinful aspects of your life that have become identity-driving...I'm afraid you're out of luck.  There is no knowing Christ, without turning one's back on all of that as what it is: rubbish.  He will be your Sustainer and King, or He will be your judge.  I continue to do battle with sin in my life, but in carrying those to the foot of the cross and exposing them to the light, by living the life the Holy Spirit has empowered me to live and trusting Jesus as my Savior, Sustainer and King, I am able to know Him fully and joyfully.

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.--Colossians 2:13-15

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.