DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed

Awhile back I noticed on Doug Wilson’s blog that he keeps a book log of the books he’s read and makes a very brief comment on each one. I liked the concept so much that I’ve decided to copy it. The point of this log is not 1) to get you to read all these books, nor 2) to make you think I read a lot of books. Some months I read a lot, some months not as much. And even with the books I read, I don’t read them all the same way. Most I read carefully, but some I skim through more quickly. I believe strongly that growing Christians will be reading books, but there is no necessary correlation between the number of books one reads and how much that person is growing in Christlikeness.

The reasons for the log are: 1) to keep track of my reading for myself, 2) because people often ask me “what are your reading?”, 3) to highlight good books that can help us think more biblically and follow Christ more fruitfully, 4) to point to fun books, 5) to offer assessment on books that are not as helpful, and 6) to nurture the bibliophile in us all.

I’ll post the log at the end of each month.

May
1. F.A. Hayek. The Road to Serfdom. Dense reading at times, but brilliant in places. One of the most significant books of the last 65 years.

2. Mark Noll. God and Race in American Politics. Very good. Fair and balanced.

3. G.K. Chesterton. Orthodoxy. Genius, witty, classic. Everyone should read (and re-read) Chesterton (but please disregard the anti-Calvinist lines).

4. Scott McConnell. Multi-Site Churches: Guidance for the Movement's Next Generation. Good practical advice, a little light on theological reflection.

5. Jay Richards. Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism is the Solution and Not the Problem. Accessible and informed. The most engaging, readable, and thoughtful Christian defense of Capitalism out there.

6. Paul Miller. A Praying Life: Connecting with God in a Distracting World. One of the best books on prayer I’ve ever read. Read it and you’ll want to pray more.

7. P.G. Wodehouse. The Code of the Woosters. Funny as always, with a marvelously intricate plot.

8. Thomas Krannwitter. Vindicating Lincoln: Defending the Politics of our Greatest President. Thorough, learned, and persuasive. Would have been nice to have the book 50-100 pages shorter.

Of the writing of Christian books on prayer there is no end. I've read many of them and this one is right up there with my favorites (tied perhaps with anything Ben Patterson writes on prayer). Paul Miller, the son of Jack and Rose Marie Miller (of the Sonship courses and World Harvest Mission), has written a wonderfully helpful book called A Praying Life: Connecting with God in a Distracting World.

Rather than trying to explain a book on prayer (hint: it's about praying), I thought I'd give a few selections I found helpful or provocative.

• The quest for a contemplative life can actually be self-absorbed, focused on my quiet and me. If we love people and have the power to help, then we are going to be busy. Learning to pray doesn't offer us a less busy life; it offers us a less busy heart. In the midst of outer busyness we can develop an inner quiet (23).

• Because cynicism sees what is "really going on," it feels real, authentic. That gives cynicism an elite status since authenticity is one of the last remaining public virtues in our culture (78).

• David has been off by himself, separated from the current of unbelief dominating his culture, developing a rich walk with the Shepherd. David's obscurity has protected him from the cynical spirit of the age. His public faith and private practice are in harmony. His normal is experiencing God's presence in the valley of the shadow of death, where he has killed both lions and bears with his sling. Goliath just looks like a big bear. The result? Israel's unbelief feels odd, out of place (94).

• Individualism goes back to the Judeo-Christian heritage (144).

• That's why I prefer the biblical term wisdom to our more common term guidance. Guidance means I'm driving the car and asking God which way to go. Wisdom is richer, more personal. I don't just need help with my plans; I need help with my questions and even my own heart (145).

• God takes everyone he loves through a desert. It is his cure for our wandering hearts, restlessly searching for a new Eden. Here's how it works. The first thing that happens is we slowly give up the fight. Our wills are broken by the reality of our circumstances. The things that brought us life gradually die. Our idols die for lack of food (184).
  

Read the book. I found in it much wisdom, honesty, and hope. The best thing I can say about it is that after reading the book I not only want to pray more, but feel like I can.

For a chance at a free copy of Just Do Something check out the Buzzard Blog. Justin does a nice job with his blog. Stop on over sometime (www.buzzardblog.com).

When I’m not reading history or theology I am often reading economics. I find the interplay between Christian commitment and economics fascinating, and filled with misunderstandings. If you’ve ever had questions about capitalism, and in particular whether or not a generous Christian can really support capitalism, I would encourage you to read Jay Richards’ new book Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism is the Solution and Not the Problem. Whether the title makes you say “Amen” or makes you want to roll your eyes into the back of your head, I would recommend this book as the best, most easily accessible, defense of capitalism from a Christian perspective.

Here is an interview with Jay Richards I conducted by email.

1. Tell us a little bit about yourself. Where are you from? What is your current vocation? Are you married? Do you have children?

I was born and raised in Amarillo, TX. I am married to Ginny (we just celebrated our eighteenth anniversary), and we have two lovely daughters, Gillian (10) and Ellie (6).

I worked full time at Discovery Institute for 7 1/2 years (in Seattle) and at Acton Institute for three years. We attended a CRC Church in Grand Rapids. At the moment, though, we're out in the Seattle area while my wife finishes some course work for a masters degree. I'm getting to write full time as a Visiting Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. We're writing a series of booklets on economic topics for ordinary, non-wonkish, people. I'm also editing a collection of articles designed to bridge the growing divide between social and fiscal conservatives. It's scheduled to be released in late summer.


2. How did you become a Christian? What is your current church like and how are you involved?

I attended a mainline Presbyterian Church in Amarillo, and was a more or less conventional, mainline, Christian. In college, I had a crisis of faith, but was brought back from the brink through the writings of C.S. Lewis.


3. You didn't always see the benefit to a market economy. Tell us a little bit about your story as you moved from strong opposition to capitalism to seeing the Christian virtues on the free market.

In college, I fell for many of the socialist-left ideas popular at the time (and which are regrettably making a comeback). Happily, I happened to read some good economics, including a terrific book on Marxism by Thomas Sowell. I also read Ayn Rand, which destroyed the vision of collectivism. By the time I was a senior in college, the luster of socialism had worn off. But it will still several years before I thought a Christian could defend capitalism. I suppose I had accepted Rand's argument, but rejected the idea that greed was a virtue. I thought capitalism "worked," but was still morally problematic. Once I read George Gilder's Wealth and Poverty, and Michael Novak's The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, I changed my mind. This was actually when I was at Union Seminary in Virginia, and having to read Gustavo Gutierrez's Theology of Liberation for the third time. I went looking for a counterbalance, and discovered Gilder and Novak.


4. In your book, you unpack eight mistakes Christians make with economics. I don't want to make you rewrite the whole book for this interview, but could you give a one sentence description of each myth?

Here's how I summarize the eight myths in my book:

The nirvana myth (contrasting capitalism with an unrealizable ideal rather than with its live alternatives)
The piety myth (focusing on our good intentions rather than the unintended consequences of our actions)
The zero-sum game myth (believing that trade requires a winner and a loser)
The materialist myth (believing that wealth isn’t created, it’s simply transferred)
The greed myth (believing that the essence of capitalism is greed)
The usury myth (believing that charging interest on money is always exploitative)
The artsy myth (confusing aesthetic judgments with economic arguments)
The freeze frame myth (believing that things always stay the same—for example, assuming that population trends will continue indefinitely or treating a current “natural resource” as if it will always be needed)

I linked the myths to eight corresponding questions:

Can’t we build a just society?
What does God require of us as Christians?
Doesn’t capitalism foster unfair competition?
If I become rich, won’t someone else become poor?
Isn’t capitalism based on greed?
Has Christianity ever really embraced capitalism?
Doesn’t capitalism lead to an ugly consumerist culture?
Do we take more than our fair share? That is, isn’t our modern
lifestyle causing us to use up all the natural resources?

I struggled with this taxonomy for a while, but I do think the vast majority of bad thinking on economics among Christians can be placed in one of these eight categories.


5. Do you recommend that churches offer fair trade coffee?

In general, I don't think fair trade coffee makes sense economically (see pages 39-42), although I also don't think it's as problematic as many coercive strategies, such as wealth redistribution. I've recently learned that there is some diversity among fair trade organizations, especially among Christian ministries. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to speak too harshly of fair trade without nuancing, since it is normally an expression of a charitable impulse, and it appears, at least on the surface, to be a market-oriented way of dealing with third world poverty.


6. On page 35, you write "Spiritually you're better off a little mixed up about economics than indifferent to human suffering. Economically, though, only what you do is important, whatever your reason." This seems to be a very important point for the book. What are you trying to say in these two sentences?

When I wrote: "Spiritually you're better off a little mixed up about economics than indifferent to human suffering. Economically, though, only what you do is important, whatever your reason," I was trying to balance but capture Gilson's "Piety is no substitute for technique." To me, this is one of most important points I've tried to make. Motivation IS important when we're considering our spiritual state before God. It's just that our motivation for a policy has nothing to do with the real world effects of the policy. I think that Christians often weight our (and others') motivations far too heavily on economic matters. It's as if we think feeling bad about poverty is more obligatory than actually doing something that helps the poor. For instance, several times in churches I've pointed out why minimum wage laws don't really help the poor in the long run. I've never had anyone try to debunk the argument, but several times I've received the complaint that my argument shows that I'm not really concerned about the poor. It doesn't of course. But even if it were evidence that I weren't concerned about the poor, the argument's validity (or lack thereof) would remain the same.


7. I'm sure that you will get some feedback from libertarians for your critique of Ayn Rand. Some might be surprised that you would criticize Rand in a book promoting free market capitalism. What, in your opinion, does Rand get wrong?

My criticism of Rand is central to my argument. In my view, she rightly defended free markets, limited government, and the importance of entrepreneurs, but she located those arguments in a deeply flawed atheistic philosophy. Without going into all the problems with Objectivism, I criticize her defense of greed, as well as her identification of greed with capitalism. I also argue that she confuses Adam Smith's arguments about self-interest with selfishness. If Rand is right about capitalism, it seems to me, then it would be very hard for Christians to be capitalists. That said, as I mention in the book, Rand actually was important in helping me to purge my socialist sympathies.


8. You finish the book with "Ten Ways to Alleviate Poverty; or, Creating Wealth in Ten Tough Steps." Why are the rule of law (number one) and a formal property system (number three) so important to the alleviation of poverty?

Rule of law is a prerequisite for a free market even to exist. A free market is not anarchy, as some critics who talk about "unbridled capitalism" seem to imply. For a market to be free, exchanges must be voluntary, which means they must be perceived as a benefit for all participants. This is what makes a free market a positive-sum game by definition. If the strong can steal from their weaker neighbors with impunity, in contrast, they have little motivation for looking for win-win exchanges. Rule of law encourages participants in a market to seek out exchanges that are mutually beneficial, even if the participants have immoral motives. That's a good thing.

In arguing for the importance of private property and titling in raising people out of poverty, I'm following Hernando de Soto's important arguments in The Mystery of Capital. These laws and methods allow land to become assets, to become property, to be compared with and traded with other assets. This opens up all sorts of wealth-creating activities that the first world takes for granted, but which is still lacking in much of the developing world.


9. You go out of your way to argue that the universe is divinely ordered and purposeful. What difference does this make for our approach to economics?

I think that a culture's general beliefs about the nature of reality can have significant economic consequences. For instance, if one believes that the world is orderly and designed for a purpose, one is more likely to look for, and discover, aspects of that order. Moreover, these beliefs can encourage optimism, delayed gratification and a motivation to make the world a better place. Finally, it prevents one from reducing economics to materialism. The most important truths of economics emerge from the reality of the human person. That reality requires a theological/philosophical framework that can accommodate it.

Of course, to offset utopian tendencies, these beliefs are best tempered with a healthy realization of our flaws. In the Christian worldview, original sin fulfills this function.


10. What advice would you give pastors as they preach on money?

I would have two main words of advice for any pastor who wants to preach about money. First, look carefully at the what Scripture and the Christian tradition actually say about money. Second, get acquainted with some basic truths of economics. There are empirical realities in economics, just as there are in chemistry and physics. It's not all hopelessly laden with ideology. And it doesn't require advanced degrees in economics. If a pastor shows that he understands some economics, he's much more likely to be taken seriously when he speaks prophetically about money to his parishioners. I suppose I wrote the book, in part, to help pastors do just that.

Carl Trueman, professor at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, and a native of England with close ties to the Church of Scotland, offers some incisive commentary on the recent goings-on in the Church of Scotland. The Church of Scotland has appointed its first openly gay minister, Scott Rennie. Trueman, certainly no supporter of this new development, is nevertheless critical of the way evangelicals have responded to the appointment of Rennie.

Trueman says, in part:

I myself earned the ire of one or two of the C of S evangelicals recently for suggesting that the current crisis was the result of the followers of William Still deciding to operate, in effect, as independents within the church, ceding crucial administrative influence to the liberals. Unwelcome also was my hint that the gay issue is the result, in part, of a hermeneutical shift on the Bible’s teaching on women’s ordination (`not a hill to die on’ according to the Stillites) which shift has now come back to haunt the evangelicals on the issue of homosexuality. This point, if press reports are accurate, has not been lost on opponents of the evangelicals who have been quick to exploit the inconsistency.

Trueman goes on to chide a prominent evangelical church in Scotland for acting like an independent church instead of being true to Presbyterian polity to reform the church through the proper channels or simply leave the denomination if the Church of Scotland is incapable of maintaining orthodox Christian belief.

His conclusion is especially poignant for those of us in the mainline.

I was asked by one C of S person, angry about my criticism of the petition, what I would suggest as the way forward. Well, just for starters, before launching any public campaign, I would have looked at the history of those churches and institutions that have turned themselves around to see what actually works as opposed to what merely seems like a good idea at the time — say, the Missouri Synod Lutherans, the Southern Baptist Convention, Southern Seminary, and even my own small place, Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia). The changes in those places had a number of things in common: the reformers organized and prepared for every eventuality, putting into place safety nets and multiple `Plan Bs’, they identified the places where influence could be wielded, mastered procedure, fought like the blazes when they had to, stood strong and immovable in the face of violent opposition, and outmanoeuvred their opponents by continual attention to meeting agendas, points of order, procedural matters, and long-term coordinated strategy. They did not waste time and energy on irrelevant sideshows like rhetorical petitions that merely provided the material for public relations disasters. And guess what? In each case it actually worked. In fact, this way of approach sounds very like the strategy which frankly outflanked and then crushed the ill-prepared evangelical assault at last week’s C of S GA. It would seem that angry but sincere petitioners generally lose, while sincere but canny parliamentarians generally win. The C of S evangelicals need new leadership that understands Presbyterian polity, the importance of procedure and, crucially, how institutions work and can therefore be changed.

You can read the whole thing here.

Last night I had the privilege of sitting in the front row as Sinclair Ferguson preached at Next on the nature and significance of the resurrection. He alluded to Calvin's catechism for children and the reasons given there for the importance of the resurrection. These three reasons get picked up in the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 17.

Question: How does Christ’s resurrection benefit us?
Answer: First, by his resurrection he has overcome death, so that he might make us share in the righteousness he won for us by his death. Second, by his power we too are already now resurrected to a new life. Third, Christ’s resurrection is a guarantee of our glorious resurrection.

It's worth looking at each of the benefits individually.

First, by his resurrection Jesus Christ has overcome death, so that he might make us share in the righteousness he won for us by his death. 1 Corinthians 15 makes clear that if Jesus has not been raised our “faith is futile” and we “are still in our sins” (v. 17). “But why?” you might ask. “If Jesus died on the cross for our sins, bearing the curse that we deserved, shouldn’t we be free from our sins whether he rose again or not?” In other words, why is the resurrection, and not simply the cross alone, necessary for the forgiveness of sin? Because without the resurrection nothing has been conquered—not sin, not death, not the devil. Jesus’ resurrection from the dead testifies not only that Jesus is the Son of God (Rom. 1:4) but that the offering of life was an acceptable sacrifice to God. If Jesus had not been raised it would be an indication to us that the work of salvation had not yet been accomplished. Conversely, his being raised indicates the satisfaction of divine justice. The punishment is over. The merit of Christ has proven worthy. The debt has been paid. Death has been vanquished. Sin has been atoned for.

Imagine you are one of six boys in your family. One day, five of you sneak out of your rooms, ride your bikes to the grocery store, steal fireworks and lighters, come home and start blowing stuff up in your driveway. Being naughty and not very bright young boys you light the firecrackers with mom and dad just inside the house. Soon the parental units are both outside and the five of you are in big trouble. But just then, your older brother, who has been learning about sine and cosine in his room, comes to your defense and offers to be punished in your place, even though he had no part in your crime. So Mom and Dad send him to his room and make clear that though the five of you are guilty and your older brother is innocent, he will pay for your sin and merit your forgiveness by going to his room. Now as long as big brother is in his room, you feel as though you are not yet cleared for your crime. Until the door opens and your big brother emerges, you sense that the punishment is still being meted out. You don’t know if this little switcheroo is actually going to work. But once big brother is set free, you rejoice, because now you know your penalty has been paid and Mom and Dad have nothing against you. The empty room indicates the satisfaction of parental justice.

The resurrection means the death of Jesus was enough—enough to atone for sin, enough to reconcile us to God, enough to present us holy in God’s presence. Christ won; sin, death, and the devil lost—that’s the good news of the empty tomb. The resurrection means Christ proved himself righteous to the Father, so that through faith we now can share in his righteousness. That why Romans 4:25 says Jesus “was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.” The cross and the empty tomb cannot be separated. The two events are dependent upon each other. Together they demonstrate that Christ’s payment for sin has been accepted and his victory is ours.

Second, by Christ’s power we too are already now resurrected to a new life. Our hope of new life is not just a future goal; it is a present reality. Dozens of times in the New Testament we see the phrase “in Christ.” This little phrase speaks to the glorious union believers have with Christ through faith. Just as by nature we were “in Adam” when he sinned in the garden, so by faith we were “in Christ” when he suffered and died and rose again. We died in his death and we rose again in his resurrection to new life (Rom. 6:5-11). We are not the same people we once were. We who were dead in our trespasses have been made alive together with Christ (Eph. 2:5).

Never forget your union with Christ. We struggle with feelings of guilt and cannot really believe we are justified because we forget that every lash and blow we deserve has already been dealt to us through our Substitute. And the convincing proof of our acquittal has already been demonstrated in the resurrection. Likewise, we struggle with feelings of helplessness and cannot really believe in the prospect of sanctification because we forget that we died to the old self and have spiritual life every bit as real as Christ’s new spiritual body. Because of our “in Christ-ness” new life starts now.

But this new life is not as good as it’s going to get. The third benefit of Christ’s resurrection is that it guarantees our future glorious resurrection. Christ’s resurrection was the firstfruits of a resurrection harvest yet to come (1 Cor. 15:23). It’s not hard to imagine women, like those racing from the empty tomb to tell the disciples he is no longer dead, coming in from the fields with the good news that the first ear of ripe corn had just been plucked and the rest of the splendid harvest was not far behind. “If this corn is good,” we can hear them saying, “the rest of the harvest will be just like it.” Easter confirms that we have new bodies coming. No one knows exactly what the continuity and discontinuity will be like or how God will gather our molecules from the sea and the ground, but he will put us back together again, in some ways just like we are, but in all ways new and better. Therefore, “we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself” (Phil. 3:20-21).

Memorial Day, originally called Decoration Day, was instituted to honor Union soldiers who died in the Civil War. After World War I, the purpose of the day was expanded to include all men and women who died in U.S. military service. Today, Memorial Day is mainly thought of as the unofficial start of summer–a long weekend with a car race, playoff basketball, and brats and burgers on the grill.

It is always tricky to know how the church should or shouldn’t celebrate patriotic holidays. Certainly, some churches blend church and state in such a way that the kingdom of God morphs into a doctrinally-thin, spiritually nebulous civil religion. But even with this dangers, there are a number of good reasons why Christians should give thanks for Memorial Day.

1. Being a soldier is not a sub-Christian activity. In Luke 3, John the Baptist warns the people to bear fruit in keeping with repentance. The crowds respond favorably to his message and ask him, “What then shall we do?” John tells the rich man to share his tunics, the tax collectors to collect only what belongs to them, and the soldiers to stop their extortion. If ever there was a time to tell the soldiers that true repentance meant resigning from the army, surely this was the time. And yet, John does not tell them that they must give up soldier-work to bear fruit, only that they need to be honest soldiers. The Centurion is even held up by Jesus as the best example of faith he’s seen in Israel (Luke 7:9). Military service, when executed with integrity and in the Spirit of God, is a suitable vocation for the people of God.

2. The life of a soldier can demonstrate the highest Christian virtues. While it’s true that our movies sometimes go too far in glamorizing war, this is only the case because there have been many heroics acts in the history of war suitable for our admiration. Soldiers in battle are called on to show courage, daring, service, shrewdness, endurance, hard work, faith, and obedience. These virtues fall into the “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just” category that deserve our praise (Philippians 4:8).

3. Military service is one of the most common metaphors in the New Testament to describe the Christian life. We are to fight the good fight, put on the armor of God, and serve as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. When we remember the sacrifice, single-minded dedication, and discipline involved in the life of a soldier, we are calling to mind what we are supposed to be like as Christians in service to Christ.

4. Love of country can be a good thing. As Christians we have dual citizenship. Our first and ultimate allegiance must always be to Christ whose heavenly dwelling is our eternal home. But we are also citizens of an earthly country. We will stand before God not as individuals wiped clean of all earthly nationality, but as people with distinct languages, cultural affinities, and homelands. It is not wrong to love our distinct language, culture, or nationality. Whenever I’m at a ball game I still get choked up during the singing of the National Anthem. I think this is good. Love for God does not mean we love nothing else on earth, but rather that we learn to love the things on earth in the right way and with the right proportions and priorities. Love of country is a good thing, and it is right to honor those who defend the principles that make our country good.

5. This may be controversial to some, but I believe the facts of history will demonstrate that on the whole, the United States military has been a force for good in the world. Obviously, as a military power, we have blundered at times, both individually and corporately. But on the whole, the men and women of our armed services have fought and are fighting for causes that promote freedom, defend the rights of human beings, and reject tyranny. War is still hell and a tragic result of the fall. Praise God for his promise to one day end all human conflict. But in a world where people are evil by nature and leaders are not always reasonable and countries do not always have good intentions, war is sometimes the way to peace–at least the best peace we can hope for between peoples and nations this side of heaven.

So thank God for a day to remember God’s common grace to America and his special grace in enlisting us, poor weak soldiers that we are, in service to Christ our Captain and conquering King.

This is part 4 of 4 from my sermon on Leviticus 18. For the introduction to the series where I talk about homosexuality and the Reformed Church in America go here. Part one talked about other kinds of sexual sin. Part two talked about homosexuality. Part three explained why we ought to follow God's rules.

*****

How should we engage others with these rules in our day?
I know you’ve had enough lists for one day, but let me conclude by quickly giving you a few suggestions for how to engage others with biblical sexual ethics.

First, we need courage. We need courage to say that unchecked, unrepentant sexual immorality cannot be tolerated in the church. We need courage in our churches and denominations to affirm clearly, not just on paper, but in our preaching and actions, that unchecked, unrepentant sexual immorality is to be lovingly rebuked, not celebrated. The peace-loving, conflict-avoiding, middle of the roaders need to courage to stand on God’s word and not compromise for fear of being thought mean, narrow, majoring on the minors, a distraction, or arrogantly self-assured. Young people especially need courage to stick out like sore thumb in their schools and teams and winsomely defend the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman for a lifetime.

Second, we need humility. We need to check our own hearts to make sure our courage does not become hostility, and our love for the word of God does not become hate for those who disobey it. We need to ask God to show us our blind spots, whether it has to do with divorce, or greed, or self-righteousness. We need to repent of gay jokes. We need to repent of our own sexual sins.

Third, we need love. We need less rage and more tears. We less talk about taking back America and more talk about the grace God extends to all sinners. We need to put down the “turn of burn” signs and put away the apocalyptic rhetoric and be willing to touch–emotionally, socially, and physically–those who sin just like us, even if they sin in different ways than some of us. We need to love enough to listen to those who struggle with sexual sin. We need to love enough to suffer with those who suffer, and possibly in the future, to suffer for our opposition to sexual immorality.

Fourth, we need hope. We need hope that God can change the hardest heart and slowly, over time, change the deepest addictions, habits, and orientations. We need to offer hope–the hope of God’s mercy, the hope of forgiveness, the hope of eternal life, the hope of a warm, truth-filled, grace-saturated church community, that hope of 1 Corinthians 6 that “such were some of you.”

Finally, we need prayer. Pray for our denomination, the Reformed Church in America, that she would not do the easy thing and try to make all sides happy, but do the hard, loving thing and call sin sin so that grace can be grace and God can show himself to be the sort of God who forgives our iniquities, heals our diseases, redeems our life from the pit, crowns us with steadfast love and mercy, and satisfies us with good. Pray for those who struggle with sexual temptation–whether it be pornography, lust, or same gender attraction. Pray that our church would be a welcoming place for strugglers, sinners, and sufferers. Pray for open doors to minister to those who often hate the church–sometimes for bad reasons and sometimes for understandable reasons. Pray for those in the gay community–one of the least reached people groups on earth–that they would be soft to the gospel and we would be ready to love and share the gospel with them. Pray that God would rid us of unrighteous anger, cowardice, compromise, and fear. Pray that the precious, holy, merciful name of Jesus would be hallowed, and that the light of Christ would shine in the dark places in our cities, and in the dark places in our churches, and in the dark places of our own hearts.

This is part 3 of 4 from my sermon on Leviticus 18. For the introduction to the series where I talk about homosexuality and the Reformed Church in America go here. Part one talked about other kinds of sexual sin. Part two talked about homosexuality.

*****

Why does God ask us to follow these rules?
There are all sorts of reasons why God gives us commands and we ought to obey. Let me just highlight three reasons from this chapter.

First, the Lord is holy. Six times in this chapter 18 God says “I am the Lord” or “I am the Lord your God.” The point is “You belong to me. I delivered you. I chose you. I promised to bless you. I am your God. You are my people. So you ought to live by my rules. You ought to be holy because I am holy.”

How you live as a Christian matters a lot to God because you are meant to be a reflection of the God who saved you. You are not your own. The purpose of your life is not your fulfillment, nor your self-expression, nor your sexuality. The point of your life is make much of God by bearing witness to Jesus Christ and by being as much like him as you can.

God’s glory is at stake with your sexuality. The hallowing of God’s name is at stake in our churches. Please do not tell me God does not care about the purity of his church or the holiness of his bride. His Son died to wash us clean. He chose us in him that we might be blameless and holy. When you give up the fight against pornography, when you embrace another lover besides the one you promised before God to be faithful to, when you embrace homosexuality as your “God-given” identity, when you are a champion for calling darkness light, then the God you profess to believe is made to look like the gods of the nations, not the Holy One of Israel. And when the church of Jesus Christ refuses to pursue holiness, with the Spirit’s forgiving and transforming power, and gives in to the spirit of the age, the church has given up on it’s central responsibility: to demonstrate the true character of God to the praise of his holy name.

Second, you belong to a different country. You see this in verse 3: “You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you.” Verse 24: “Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean.” The Israelites were not supposed to be like every other nation. So what if the Egyptians did these things? So what if the Canaanites practiced them? They belonged to the Lord and they were to live a different way.

Oh, how we need to this word from God. So what if the academy thinks any kind of sex is fine for anyone, anywhere, anytime? What does it matter what the media say? Why do you have to think just like everyone else in your high school? We belong to a different country. We are seated in the heavenly places with Christ Jesus. We are strangers and aliens in the world. We have an opportunity to stand out, to take a stand–not with some sort of arrogant triumphalism, but in broken-hearted humility, confident that the law of the Lord is perfect, the testimony of the Lord is sure, the precepts of the Lord are right, the commandment of the Lord is pure, the fear of the Lord is clean, the rules of the Lord are true, and altogether righteous. More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey, and drippings of the honeycomb. By them we are warned, and in keeping them there is great reward (Psalm 19:7-11).

Third, do them and you will live (5). Verse 5: “You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the Lord.” God is not urging the Israelites to earn their salvation. Remember, God already delivered them from Egypt, he already promised the land, he already had put his love upon them. The life he is talking about is like the abundant life Jesus promises in John 10:10. The promise here is that the Israelites would experience the blessings of the Mosaic covenant if they walked in God’s ways.

We are not under the Mosaic covenant any longer, so our blessings look at little different, but it is still true that living God’s way is the way of abundant life. For the past 30 years study after study has shown that the best predictor for growing into relational health, personal well-being, and economic prosperity is an intact family, where a mom and a dad get married, have kids, raise those kids together, and stay married. This is not to say the everyone turns out fine from these families or that God does not love other kinds of families. But it is to say, what Leviticus 18 suggests, that God has created the world with a certain moral framework. And to live in that framework, according to those rules, will, on the whole, mean a better life for you. While living outside that framework, against those rules, will, on the whole, mean pain for you.

Satan understand this, which is why he offers the pleasure of sexual immorality as the bait, but he always hides the hook. He won’t tell you that promiscuity can lead to disease, that adultery destroys families, that divorce hurts children, that homosexuality harms the body and does not allow for the creation of life, that incest can produce deformities, that abuse scars the victim and the perpetrator, that pornography enslaves its users. Sexual deviancy undermines the stability of the family, the welfare of society, and the proper development of children. God does not give us rules to keep us from joy, but to guard us from the lasting pain that comes on the other side of fleeting pleasure.

Zach Nielsen is a well-respected blogger. He's worth checking out. He ran a give-away for Just Do Something today and suggested I link to it. Here it is. Zach did an email interview with me earlier.

Also, you may have seen that yesterday I had a brief essay on the First Things site entitled "Defining Discourse Down."

I feel a little funny linking to myself, but I thought people might be interested, and I also wanted to give kudos to these worthwhile sites.

This is part 2 of 4 from my sermon on Leviticus 18. For the introduction to the series where I talk about homosexuality and the Reformed Church in America go here. Part one talked about other kinds of sexual sin.

*****

Sixth, God prohibits homosexual activity (22). We need to spend more time on this one. Sometimes evangelical Christians get criticized for spending so much time talking about homosexuality. “Why don’t you talk about divorce or greed or gossip? Why are you always harping on this sin like it is worse than all the others.” Well, I talk about those sins when they are in the text. But homosexuality is in this text. And besides, the reason we have to talk about this sin in particular is because there are lots of professing Christians, not to mention society as a whole, who are saying that homosexuality is good. Every generation in the church has its issues to deal with. This just happens to be one of ours. There is so much confusion about this issue and so many voices affirming what is wrong and destructive, that we have to spend some time here. I can’t recall ever preaching a whole sermon on homosexuality. It is not some hobby horse for me, but when it comes up in the Bible, we have to deal with it, and if necessary defend the teaching of Scripture.

So here’s the place where I can take this sermon in a number of different directions. I could talk about ministering to homosexuals. I could talk about loving homosexuals. I could get very serious and warn about the judgment that God promises to those with unrepentant sin, like homosexuality. I could appeal to anyone here in sexual sin to repent and come to Jesus Christ for freedom and forgiveness. All of those would be biblical directions to go. But what I want to do at this point in the message is simply demonstrate to you that this verse is still God’s word on same-sex relationships.

There are several reasons we know that God still forbids homosexual behavior.

1) Leviticus 18 appeals to nature. “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman...” The implication is that homosexuality is contrary to nature. It’s just not the order of things. Men are supposed to have sex with women, not with other men. That’s how God designed it from the beginning. He made male and female bodies to fit together, to reproduce together. His original design was for a man and a woman to become one flesh (Genesis 2:24).

Both Jesus and Paul reaffirm this creation design. Jesus didn’t have to mention homosexuality by name to disapprove of it. Second temple Judaism and the Rabbinic traditions are all absolutely unequivocal in their rejection of homosexuality. Jesus does absolutely nothing to overturn this. Instead he explicitly affirms the normativity of God’s creation design for marriage (Matt. 19:4-6) and goes out of his way to emphasize his submission to the Law and the Prophets (Matt. 5:17-20). God’s design from the beginning was for one man and one woman to enjoy sexual intimacy in the context of marriage.

All sin is offensive to God and renders us liable to judgment (James 2:10), but certain sins, like homosexuality or bestiality, are particularly detestable because they are contrary to nature and pervert the order of God’s creation. It sounds harsh to make that judgment, but the conclusion was self-evident to virtually every single Christian until about 50 years ago.

2) The witness of the rest of Scripture teaches us that homosexual behavior is sinful. Sodom and Gomorrah are used throughout the Bible as examples of particularly heinous rebellion. Their sin was not just being inhospitable, as some liberal Christians like to argue. Jude makes clear that Sodom and Gomorrah sinned by indulging “in sexual immorality” and pursuing “unnatural desire” (Jude 7). The crime at Gibeah in Judges 19 was not just the violence but the desire by men to have sex with men. Romans 1, in listing many sins (all of which need to be taken seriously), makes reference to “dishonorable passions”–women exchanging natural relations for those that are contrary to nature and men likewise committing shameless acts with men (Rom. 1:26-27).

3) Two passages in particular demonstrate the abiding significance of the prohibitions against homosexuality in Leviticus 18.

First look at 1 Corinthians 6:9. The ESV says, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality...will inherit the kingdom of God.” The word translated “men who practice homosexuality” is the Greek word arsenokoitai. That same word is used in one other passage in the New Testament. 1 Timothy 1:10 says the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for (among other types of sinners), the sexually immoral and “men who practice homosexuality.” Again, that phrase translates the Greek word arsenokoitai.

That word is only used these two times in the New Testament. In fact, no one used the word at all before Paul. It seems that Paul just made it up. So the question becomes: what does this made up word mean? One article I found online says, “What does arsenokoitai mean? Nobody knows for certain. Arsenokoitai is made up of two parts: arsen means man; koitai means beds. Although the word in English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word paiderasste. That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males. We can conclude that he probably meant something different than people who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior” (religioustolerance.org). Then the article gives some possible meanings for arsenokoitai: abusive pedophiles, male prostitutes, pimps, maturbators, a boy sex slave, but not homosexuality.

This is the sort of argument you will hear all the time from those trying to defending homosexuality from the Bible. They’ll say, “Look, Paul was talking about pedophilia or sex slaves or man-boy love or something else. But he wasn’t talking about two consenting adults.” This line of reasoning sounds plausible, but it ignores the most obvious place Paul would have gone in order to create this word, the Old Testament. The most natural meaning for arsenokoitai comes from Leviticus 18 and 20. Paul made up the word by combining two words used together in Leviticus. You don’t have to know any Greek to see the connection.

Lev. 18:22 kai meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikos (“you shall not lie with a male as with a woman)

Lev. 20:13 kai hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikois (and whoever shall lie with a male as with a woman...”

Remember, the word in question in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 is arsenokoitai. Some scholars pretend like we just have to guess as to what this new word means. But it seems clear that Paul, a former Pharisee who knew the Old Testament (including the Greek translation of the Old Testament) better than any other book, combined the two words arsen and koiten from Leviticus to make a new word, arsenokoitai. So Paul was not using a narrow word that refers to only some kinds of homosexuality. He was using a purposefully broad word that referred to any sexual relations between members of the same sex. That’s what Leviticus clearly forbade. And Paul restates the principle from Leviticus in these two places in the New Testament.

In fact, if you look at the context for 1 Corinthians 6, you’ll see that in the surrounding chapters Paul is talking about incest and marriage and sexual immorality. So it would make sense that he has the Holiness Code in his mind. Likewise in 1 Timothy 1, Paul’s list of vices is simply a commentary on the Ten Commandments, so it makes sense that Paul would reference what the rest of the Law says about sexual immorality. Given the Holiness Code in Leviticus, and the unequivocal stance against homosexuality in ancient Judaism, and the clear rejections by Paul and Jude, and the implicit rejection by Jesus–given all of that, I don’t how see any honest student of the Bible can conclude anything except that the Bible considers homoerotic behavior a sin.

Listen to what Luke Timothy Johnson, a well-respected scholar from Emory University and a pro-gay advocate, says about defending homosexuality from the Bible:

The task demands intellectual honesty. I have little patience with efforts to make Scripture say something other than what it says, through appeals to linguistic or cultural subtleties. The exegetical situation is straightforward: we know what the text says. But what are we to do with what the text says? We must state our grounds for standing in tension with the clear commands of Scripture, and include in those grounds some basis in Scripture itself. To avoid this task is to put ourselves in the very position that others insist we already occupy-that of liberal despisers of the tradition and of the church’s sacred writings, people who have no care for the shared symbols that define us as Christian. If we see ourselves as liberal, then we must be liberal in the name of the gospel, and not, as so often has been the case, liberal despite the gospel.

I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. And what exactly is that authority? We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us. By so doing, we explicitly reject as well the premises of the scriptural statements condemning homosexuality-namely, that it is a vice freely chosen, a symptom of human corruption, and disobedience to God’s created order (Commonweal, June 15, 2007).

Thank God for an honest liberal who, despite his flawed appeal to the authority of experience, can see what everyone should be able to see: the straightforward commands of Scripture prohibit homosexual activity.

Seventh, God prohibits bestiality (23). This will be the next taboo to fall in our culture. It is already considered chic in some artsy circles. The trajectory we are on as a culture, relative to sexuality, is not good. It will not be long before polygamy has no stigma. Not long before incest is tolerated. Not long before bestiality is considered avant garde. Not long before pedophilia goes mainstream. Western culture is one of the grandest, most impressive civilizations to have ever existed, but our inability to put sexual impulse in its proper place may prove to be our undoing.

This is part 1 of 4 from my sermon on Leviticus 18. For the introduction to the series where I talk about homosexuality and the Reformed Church in America go here.

*****

The second half of Leviticus, from chapter 17 onwards, is sometimes called The Holiness Code because its all about how the Israelites were to live as God’s holy people. Leviticus 19:2 gives the theme for this whole section: “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.” Chapter 18 in particular is about holiness as it relates to the family and sexual activity. The Bible actually has a lot of say about sex. Sex is among the greatest gifts God has given to us. It is also the source of more pain and temptation and destruction than almost any other force on the planet.

Sex is like a car. Cars make life better. They enable you to travel long distances and live in different places. You can visit your family more easily. Cars can go real fast. They look cool (some of them anyway). Most people will eventually drive a car. But there are rules. You need to be a certain age. You need to get training and take a test. You need a license. You have to follow traffic signs and stay in your lane and obey the speed limit. The rules are not to keep you from enjoying the car. The rules exist so you and everyone else can drive safely. If you don’t know how to handle the car, or you don’t follow any of the rules of the road you will get hurt. And likely, others will get hurt as well. The rules aren’t meant to confine you, but to help you.

Sex is like that too. Sex is fun and, no lie, makes life better. But only if you know the rules and enjoy sex in the right way, with the right person, in the right context.

I have three main questions to ask from this passage. 1) What does God require of us regarding sex and the family? 2) Why does God ask us to follow these rules? 3) How should we engage others with these rules in our day?

What does God require of us regarding sex and the family?
Leviticus 18 doesn’t tell us everything we need to know, but it gives us the basic rules.

First, God prohibits incest (6-17). The principle is pretty straightforward: a man may not marry a close blood relative or any woman who becomes a close relative through marriage. Specifically, a man may not marry his mother or step-mother, his sister, sister-in-law, half-sister, or step-sister, his granddaughter or step-granddaughter, his step-daughter or daughter-in-law, or his blood aunt or his aunt by marriage. Curiously, the one relationship missing from the list is daughter. This is because the surrounding cultures already prohibited marrying one’s own daughter, and the Israelites already knew sex with a daughter was wrong from the story of Lot’s two daughter having sex with their father in Genesis 19.

Marry close relatives is wrong because you are either uncovering your father’s nakedness, or your own nakedness, or the nakedness of your family. And when people marry into the family, they become your family. And uncovering the nakedness of your family is a perversion of God’s order for the family. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul rebuked the church for tolerating the sexual relationship (marriage?) a man had with his father’s wife. So incest is still depravity (Lev. 18:17) in God’s eyes.

Second, God prohibits taking a rival wife (18). Having two sisters for wives did not work out well for Jacob. It is against God’s law.

Third, God prohibits whatever makes you unclean (19). This is the one verse that people reference when they want to throw out the rest of the chapter. “How can you say homosexuality is a sin? What about the part about not having sex during menstruation? Clearly, these are just cultural laws and we don’t have to follow them anymore.”

The first thing to say in response is “maybe we shouldn’t ignore this command.” I don’t think this command is still binding, but I think you can make a much, much better case for following every law in this passage than for following none of them. Jesus said he didn’t come to abolish the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them. So we better have a good explanation for how Jesus fulfills a particular law before we decide not follow it anymore.

In this case, the key phrase in verse 19 is “menstrual uncleanness.” Husbands should not have sex with their wives in their menstrual uncleanness. So the question is whether menstruation still makes a woman unclean. Menstruation was not a sin. Rather, the loss of blood made a woman (and any man who touched her) ritually unclean. But with the coming of Christ, the sacrificial system is gone, the need for a temple/tabernacle is gone, and the priesthood is gone. The whole system which required ritual cleanness is gone. Therefore, menstruation doesn’t make a woman unclean anymore, because the whole system has been blown up.

Cleanness still matters in the New Testament, but it becomes a moral category instead of a ritual one. Cleanness refers to those acts that are morally pure in God’s eyes. So the abiding principle here is that whatever sexual activity makes you unclean is unfit for God’s people. But blood loss no longer makes one unclean.

Fourth, God prohibits adultery (20). Don’t get hung up on the word “unclean” in verse 20 and think that adultery doesn’t matter anymore. In the Old Testament, not all uncleanness was sin, but all sin made you unclean. So adultery wasn’t wrong because it was unclean. It made you unclean because it was wrong. This is obvious from its inclusion in the Ten Commandments and from Jesus’ own teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus didn’t relax the law about adultery. He made it harder. Not only is intercourse a sin, but according to Jesus lust is also a sin.

Fifth, God prohibits killing our children (21). Molech was a pagan god and there is archeological evidence showing that people sometimes had their children pass through fire as a sacrifice to Molech. It may seem strange that this law is here when all the other laws are about sex. But remember the broader category has to do with the family. These rules about sex are rules to protect God’s design for the family. So this law is here to tell parents that their children are precious and not be used to further their own plans and desires.

I don’t often post my sermons because (1) sermons don’t usually make for good blog posts, (2) the people from my church reading my blog already heard the sermon, and (3) I don’t usually have a sermon manuscript anyway. But for several days this week (starting tomorrow) I’m going to post the sermon I preached on Sunday (May 17) from Leviticus 18. Leviticus 18, as you may know, is about holiness and sexuality. I didn’t single out this text to preach about sex. But I’ve been doing a series on Leviticus for several months now. So when the next chapter comes you preach on it.

The reason for posting the sermon over several days is because the issue of sexuality is so controversial in our day and in need of clarity. In particular, the issue is hotly debated in my denomination, the Reformed Church in America. Most of you aren’t a part of the RCA or even familiar with it, which is fine. But some of my readers are from the RCA. If so, I encourage you to follow these few blog posts carefully and even consider passing them on to others in your church, classis, or RCA networks.

A Little History
The RCA has consistently affirmed that homosexual behavior is sinful. In 1978 the General Synod approved a paper entitled “Homosexuality: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal.” The paper was not perfect, but it did make statements like “Paul’s rejection of homosexual activity is beyond question” and “we cannot affirm homosexual behavior.”

In 1990 the General Synod adopted R-11: “To adopt as the position of the Reformed Church in America that the practicing homosexual lifestyle in contrary to scripture, while at the same time encouraging love and sensitivity towards such persons as fellow human beings.”

In 1995 the General Synod approved that a faithful summary of the RCA position on homosexuality includes, among other statements, that “Homosexual behavior is not God’s intended expression of sexuality.”

In 2004 the General Synod adopted R-92: “To affirm that marriage is properly defined as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.”

And in 2005, in an unprecedented trial before the whole General Synod, three charges were heard against a Minister/Professor of Theology who had performed a “wedding” ceremony for his lesbian daughter. The charges were upheld by a 2-1 margin and Synod voted to depose Rev. Dr. Kansfield as a Professor of Theology and suspend him as a Minister of Word and Sacrament.

But the issue of homosexuality in the RCA has not gone away. Following the 2005 General Synod, the denomination entered into a three year process of dialogue. In 2006 there was confusion and some consternation about who would provide supervision and pastoral care for Rev. Dr. Kansfield. In 2007 controversy erupted again when the woman chosen to preach three times at Synod was found to be an outspoken advocate of gay marriage. This June, the General Synod will gather for its annual meeting and get a report from the dialogue coordinator and steering committee.


The Conversation to Nowhere
In one sense the dialogue report doesn’t do much, at least not on an official level. But the longer we dialogue around an issue, the more legitimacy is given to both sides of the issue. The report bears this out. The report reads, in part:

The dialogue also worked in the sense that it revealed the great complexity of RCA members’ views on homosexuality. Widely scattered views emerged as the steering committee and coordinator listened to the ways in which RCA members talked about homosexuality and about their lives in the church. These many views were treated as “voices” within the RCA that are speaking, as it were, around a table, concerning homosexuality and church life.

Additionally, the dialogue succeeded in the sense that it equipped participants to engage each other more sensitively and charitably on future issues that may threaten to be divisive. A dialogue experience yields a set of skills that the church can use, perhaps primarily at the local-church level, whenever an emotionally loaded issue must be addressed.

In the matter of homosexuality, no consensus emerged among RCA members as a result of the dialogue program. Therefore no policy recommendations to the General Synod appear in this report. The church’s ability to handle its deliberations regarding homosexuality has improved, at least among those who participated in the dialogue’s events. This ability was among the purposes which the General Synod Council (GSC) specified when it authorized the program in 2005.

Notice how dialogue has served to undermine the frequently states position of the RCA. Several times over several years, the RCA has affirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman. True, there is a sizeable minority that disagrees with this stance. But now through dialogue the majority opinion has been marginalized as just another voice at the table. The point of dialogue in mainline denominations is never to decide anything, but rather to share stories and “perspectives”. The process of dialogue predetermines its outcome. There will be no resolution, except the resolution not to resolve anything. The “can’t we all just get along” crowd always wins in this kind of dialogue.

Thus: “The dialogue coordinator and steering committee recommend that the General Synod postpone further policy deliberations regarding homosexuality and that the materials developed in this program be made available in appropriate form for future use by the church.” Several overtures to Synod this year urge a similar approach: to refrain from any legislative and policy decisions and instead to engage in further dialogue. Dialogue, the reports argues, “does not yield policy decisions—except in the instance in which a consensus emerges from the dialogue process.” And as you might imagine, “In the matter of homosexuality, no consensus emerged in the RCA as it engaged in the dialogue program.”

Here’s how it usually happens in mainline denominations: a biblical position regarding homosexuality is on the books, it gets reaffirmed several times even as opposition to it grows, the opposition party is not the majority but they are loud so everyone decides to talk things over for a few years, it is discovered (surprise!) that people don’t agree on the issue, then more dialogue, then those opposed to the official denominational position ask for tolerance or for everyone to “trust the system” of checks and balances, the “system” at the local level refuses to uphold the denominational position, more pleas for everyone to get along and not let this “secondary” issue divide us, more deviation from the official position, further dialogue, official tolerance for the unofficial position, conservatives are labeled as divisive, judgmental troublemakers, a call for denomination wide healing is made, followed by urgent pleas to move on to more important matters, and finally people move on feeling glad this “difficult chapter in our life together” is over, the official position–whether officially or unofficially–is no more.

Three’s a Crowd
What everyone needs to see is that there are three positions on homosexuality any given denomination can take: 1) Homosexual behavior is sinful. 2) Homosexual behavior is to be celebrated. 3) We can allow for both positions. Denominations never get to 2 except by going first to 3. If people in the RCA had to vote between 1 and 2, I'm convinced two-thirds would vote for 1. But what happens is that position 3 gets advertised as they sane, wise, loving, above-the-fray position perfectly positioned between two extremes. Conservatives lose their resolve, get tired of fighting, and get cow-towed into thinking “Maybe this doesn’t really matter. Maybe we should just get on with church planting. Why not keep talking about this for another three years?”

Postponing hard decisions always feels good, but it not always best. My hope and prayer is that the RCA will reject any recommendations for more dialogue and quickly (perhaps voting on something definitive at the next General Synod) give constitutional permanence and weight to the previous actions of Synod.

At the very least, I hope the RCA will stop hesitating among three opinions. If the denomination is to ever move on from this issue, a firm decision needs to be made. I say, make it soon and make it clear. Then give everyone grace to decide if the RCA still feels like home.

I've been reading (and writing) blogs enough to realize that much of blogdom is a waste of time. There are many really good things about blogging, but one of the frustrating things is that many people--bloggers and commenters--don't really make arguments. They insult or call names or emote or gainsay or play the victim or offer cryptic utterances that must seem like slam dunk responses to the ones making them. But none of these are really arguments. Which got me thinking of this sketch from Monty Python.



For good measure, here's one more clip.



And who says a degree in philosophy isn't worth anything?

Here's another excerpt from Why We Love the Church. (Ah, the quick and easy way to blog--copy and paste).

*****

If getting the story wrong, or at least less nuanced than it should be, is the biggest danger with confessing the church’s sins, the other big danger is that we are not really confessing any of our own mistakes. Back in 1940, C.S. Lewis penned a striking article for The Guardian entitled “Dangers of National Repentance.” His basic point is that it is always dangerous when we are apologizing for something we disdain in someone else. Some solidarity with your country or your own history can be a good thing, but is can also easily turn into the sin of pride where we “confess” all the stupid things our benighted forefathers weren’t smart enough to avoid. “The first and fatal charm of national repentance is, therefore, the encouragement it gives us to turn from the bitter task of repenting of our own sins to the congenial one of bewailing—but, first, of denouncing—the conduct of others.”

More recently, physician and essayist Theodore Dalrymple has labeled this phenomenon the “False Apology Syndrome.” The syndrome is dangerous because it allows us to feel good without having to be good. We get all of the moral high ground that comes with confession and none of the personal pain. “The habit of public apology for things for which one bears no personal responsibility changes the whole concept of a virtuous person, from one who exercises the discipline of virtue to one who expresses correct sentiment. The most virtuous person of all is he who expresses it loudest and to most people. The end result is likely to be self-satisfaction and ruthlessness accompanied by unctuous moralizing, rather than a determination to behave well.” We get to feel grandiose for “our” guilt without actually having to change.

It would not take guts for me to stand on my soap box in Kenya and confess America’s high divorce rate, our alarming number of out-of-wedlock births, and the countless abortions we perform. Nor would it be big of me to preach a series of sermons apologizing for the church’s faults where I lament our wicked popes, our positive thinking Jesus, and our watered-down seeker friendly megaplexes. I already think all of those are wrong and I always have. And I have no part in them. What courage or humility does it take for me to “apologize” for these wrongs when none of them are mine? Such a sermon series would be viewed as thinly disguised disdain for other people’s problems.

Now, if at one time I had championed these things, then maybe my confession would be worth something. “When a man over forty tries to repent the sins of England and to love her enemies,” writes Lewis, “he is attempting something costly; for he was brought up to certain patriotic sentiments which cannot be mortified without a struggle. But an educated man who is now in his twenties usually has no such sentiment to mortify. In art, in literature, in politics, he has been, ever since he can remember, one of an angry and restless minority; he has drunk in almost with his mother’s milk a distrust of English statesmen and a contempt for the manners, pleasures, and enthusiasm of his less-education fellow countrymen."

Younger generation today face these same dangers with regard to the church. In confessing all the sins of the church, we have everything to gain and nothing to mortify. This isn’t to suggest that the church hasn’t gotten things dreadfully wrong, but it is to suggest that slavery and the crusades are not the things thirty-something Americans are likely to get wrong today. We would do well to listen to Lewis from seven decades ago: “The communal sins which they should be told to repent are those of their own age and class—its contempt for the uneducated, its readiness to suspect evil, its self-righteous provocations of public obloquy, its breaches of the Fifth Commandment. Of these sins I have heard nothing among them. Till I do, I must think their candour towards the national enemy a rather inexpensive virtue.”

Jason Carter is one of my best friends from seminary. He is married to Lisa, also a friend from seminary. They have an adorable little boy named Kenyon. They serve as missionaries with WEC in Equatorial Guinea. Yesterday Jason sent an email with the good news that they would be taking their first furlough in the next couple months. The bad news is that they are leaving EG (for a time) because of some mysterious health problems Lisa is experiencing. Jason has a terrific sense of humor about it all, but it must feel overwhelming and frightening. The Carters love serving in EG, but their road has not been easy. They’ve been lonely, burglarized, and probably overworked. Kenyon has had malaria multiple times and now Lisa is sick.

Lisa writes:

Our hope and our plan were to go on our first furlough when in my sixth month of pregnancy. According to this plan we would go home healthy: six months pregnant and celebrating, have our baby, spend six months with him/her there and come back here with a six month old baby!! Well, I am not pregnant and we find ourselves having to come home not for festive reasons but due to a medical issue and a need to find rest and restoration. Some days I have so much fatigue and pain that I don’t know how I am going to make it another day especially in a place like Africa where life and the people around me demand so much of me and with a high energy 3 year old to raise but the Lord always gives me what I need physically and much more spiritually.

I found Jason’s reflections on 1 Peter 4 :12-13 ("Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering….But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ...") especially convicting, moving, and challenging.

In the States, when suffering occurs, many times we are surprised by it. My attitude usually is: “There are solutions; this isn’t supposed to happen. Everything will turn out okay.” In Africa, people would be surprised if suffering didn’t occur. “Nobody in the hospital?....What’s going on here?” I can remember some days when our church of almost 1800 members in Bloomington, Illinois didn’t have a single person in the hospital! That would never happen in Equatorial Guinea.

But, yet, here I am, still getting surprised by suffering – both ours and our friends’ suffering – showing me how American I really am. I get surprised that Mateo Ndong (20 years old) can come back from a youth retreat feeling fine and then proceed to spend the next 3 weeks in bed -- sitting in a hospital bed for the last week where 4 people die in 7 days from the same thing he has. And it’s purely a tropical illness – nobody knows WHY this happens! (How can this be?!!) His calf and foot are enlarged and the doctors have no answer to why this sort of thing happens – there is no explanation (it’s simply called an abscess). And the treatment seems, to my (admittedly) untrained medical mind, like something out of the medieval ages: they will slice open his leg to draw out the puss and hope that takes care of it.

So when 1 Peter says we shouldn’t be surprised at the painful trials of suffering, I must confess it’s actually hard not to be surprised at so much suffering. Peter is actually counter-intuitive for me!! Does the fact that suffering sneaks up on me, surprises me, and catches me off guard tell me how American I really am? Tell me how insulated to suffering my life has been? Oh, there are definitely Americans who have seen more than “their share” of suffering – folks with whom I wouldn’t want to change places with in the States – but it just seems that the African “share” in the balance of suffering is tipped decidedly and continually in their “favor”.

Here in EG, when somebody dies, you can smell it at the funeral. There is no make-up, nobody says “oh, look how beautiful Mrs. Obiang is” at the funeral – No. The deceased person actually looks…well, dead. There is no covering up the fact by make-up or an expensive coffin. The family usually has to dig the grave. It’s the family who probably nailed some boards together to make the coffin. At the funeral you see the finality (and sound) of dirt being piled upon the wooden box. Africans aren’t surprised by suffering. It doesn’t sneak up on them. It’s their traveling companion in the journey of life.

This should actually teach me a great deal. If it’s a lesson I am willing to learn.

But, it’s a lot easier to visit the hospital as a pastor-missionary than live with uncertainty over your own roof and in your own life. As Lisa and I ponder our return to the States and wait to be able to identity what is really going on health-wise with Lisa, it’s a difficult time. Not knowing is tough. To live in the information age without adequate information is exasperating. And yet, “do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering…but rejoice”. That is, for lack of a better term, just plain “weird”. The Bible sometimes speaks Fang to me – as in, I can barely make out what is going on and pretty soon I find myself not really trying (or wanting) to understand.

Suffering is never part of the plan. Or rather, never part of our plan. And yet: “Moses approached the thick darkness where God was” (Ex. 20:21). I don’t like the fact that, at times, God resides there – in thick darkness. Just as a passenger would rather have a storm-tested sailor leading a voyage on the rough seas, I’m trusting that God is using the difficulties and testings of Africa to deepen my own spiritual anchors. I want to lean into these experiences (easier said than done) to have a life that is more “storm-tested”, to be able to navigate from the stern of the ship with more perspective and depth. That’s the destination and my prayer….one day, I hope to get there.

File under "random"

1. I don't understand why Christians are so quick to hitch their star to the latest celebrity Christian. Ok, I do understand why, but it's still a recipe for disaster. I admit I haven't been following the Miss California--almost Miss USA--traditional marriage thing very closely. I know she said that marriage should be between a man a woman and now some racy pictures have come out--some which may be doctored and some which aren't, I think. I don't want to rag on the young lady, but rather on the Christians who were so ready to give her an honorary evangelical degree for anything and everything. She gave a good answer (after meandering a bit). Good for her. But she also does swimsuit competitions, which may or may not be demeaning to women, but are very unhelpful for men and, frankly, a bit hard to justify from Ephesians 5. Back to the main point: we shouldn't rush to put famous Christians in front of our causes before we know anything about their maturity, history, and theology. Again, I'm not criticizing Carrie Prejean for saying the right thing. Lots of kudos to her for her courage (though "persecution" is a bit much). I'm questioning those who are ready to put her in a position of evangelical spokeswoman that she, and we, may not be ready for. Let's be happy for her answer and let her get back to her life and finish college.

2. Why does the PBS Kids line up seem to change every month? The only thing holding it all together is good old Curious George. My kids are confused. What happend to Clifford? Why put Maya and Miguel on at the coveted 7:30am slot? This is when my kids are waking up and when I'm trying to read my Bible. Like any good parent, I need them to be entertained for a few more minutes. Why not just do back-to-back-to-back Curious George? And, while we're at it, what did Miss Laurie do to get booted from the in-between-times in favor of the new gal?

3. Last thing that doesn't make sense. So I'm watching the White Sox game against the Rangers last Saturday (thankfully WGN comes with the most basic cable package). In the bottom of the ninth, the Sox closer, Bobby Jenks (the "big guy" according to my wife), throws behind stud infielder Ian Kinsler. Jenks gets a warning. Ozzie gets fired up, thinking why would he try to hit Kinsler with two outs in a one run game. Later, Jenks admits he was in fact trying to send a message with the pitch--not hit anyone, just send a message. So MLB investigates and decides to find Jenks, wait for it, $750. The guy makes 5.6 million! He has $750 in his change purse. It's like a normal person with a salary of $56,000 getting fined $7.50. I hope Jenks manages to scrimp by this month after coughing up what he makes in an hour and fifteen minutes. Maybe this is the sort of fierce bit that got baseball into the steroids mess.

Several weeks ago the Christian Research Journal was kind enough to ask me to write a brief opinion piece about the rise of the New Calvinism. My article is in the current issue which comes out this week. You should be able to buy a copy of CRJ at your local Christian bookstore, if you aren't already a subscriber.

*****

Here are the two most important things you need to know about the rise of the New Calvinism: it’s not new and it’s not about Calvin. Of course, some of the conferences are new. The John Piper–packed iPods are new. The neo-reformed blog blitz is new. The ideas, however, are not. “Please God, don’t let the young, restless, and reformed movement be another historically ignorant, self-absorbed, cooler-than-thou fad."

And while I’m praying: “Please God, don’t let the New Calvinism ever, ever be about the New Calvinism.” Don’t get me wrong. I’m not afraid to be called a Calvinist. I’ve read the Institutes multiple times, most of Calvin’s commentaries, and was voted “Calvin Clone” by my peers at seminary. I thank God for Calvin. But if the New Calvinism is to continue as a work of God, which I think it has been, it must continue to be about God. Young Christians have been drawn to Calvinism not because they were looking for Calvin or an “ism,” but because they were drawn to a vision of a massive, glorious, fall-down-before-Him-as-though-dead kind of God who loves us because He wants to.

The influence of Calvinism is growing because its God is transcendent and its theology is true. In a day when “be better” moralism passes for preaching, self-help banality passes for counseling, and “Jesus is my boyfriend” music passes for worship in some churches, more and more people are finding comfort in a God who is anything but comfortable. The paradox of Calvinism is that we feel better by feeling worse about ourselves, we do more for God by seeing how He’s done everything for us, and we give love away more freely when we discover that we have been saved by free grace.

I’d like to think that we are Calvinists because of what we see in the Bible. We see a God who is holy, independent, and unlike us. We glory in God’s goodness, that He should save miserable offenders, bent toward evil in all our faculties, objects of His just wrath. We rejoice in God’s electing love, which He purposed for us before the ages began. We are grateful for God’s power by which He caused us, without our cooperation, to be born again and enabled us to believe His promises. We take comfort in God’s all-encompassing providence, whereby nothing happens according to chance, but all things—prosperity or poverty, health or sickness, giving or taking away—are sent to us by our loving heavenly Father.

As Calvinists and Christians, we praise God for His mercy, shown to us chiefly on the cross where His Son died, not just to make a way for us to come to Him, but effectually for us such that our sins, our guilt, and our punishment all died in the death of Christ. We find assurance in God’s preserving grace, believing with all our might that nothing—not even ourselves—can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. We delight in the glory of God and in God’s delight for His own glory, which brings us, on our best days, unspeakable joy, and on all other days, still gives purpose and order to an otherwise confusing and seemingly random world.

What draws people to Reformed theology is the belief that God is the center of the universe and we are not, that we are worse sinners than we imagine and God is a greater Savior than we ever thought possible, that the Lord is our righteousness and the Lord alone is our boast.

The attraction of the New Calvinism is not Calvin, but the God Calvin saw—not some new fad, but something old with new life blowing through it from the Spirit of God.

I love Gapminder. I love statistics. I love maps. I love charts, graphs, and comparisons. And ever since Friday night when I read about the website in Money, Greed, and God (more on that another day), I love Gapminder.

Founded in Stockholm in 2005 by Ola Rosling, Anna Rosling Ronnlund, and Hans Rosling, Gapminder "is a non-profit venture promoting sustainable global development and achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals by increased use and understanding of statistics and other information about social, economic and environmental development at local, national and global levels." The tagline for Gapminder is "unveiling the beauty of statistics for a fact-based world." That may not sound very exciting, but to the website and you'll see that Gapminder World is very, very cool.

What Gapminder allows you to is create maps and charts that show, in a colorful and remarkable presentation, all sorts of remarkable data.

For example, this graph (with a link just below) measures life expectancy on the vertical axis and income per person (inflation adjusted) on the horizontal axis. Each circle represents a country (place the cursor over the circles to find out which ones), with the size of the circle relative to the population of the country and the color coded to a geographic. Go here to view the graph, wait for it to load and then press play (sorry I can't embed it).

Pretty cool, eh? This graphic display shows how almost every country in the world is better off now than it was 200 years ago. True, the gap between "rich" and "poor" was not as great in 1800, but that's because the poor are living longer and have more money now, while the rich now live a lot longer and have a lot more money. Poverty is still a crushing problem for 2 billion people in the world. But 200 years ago it was a crushing problem for almost every one. The income gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" is greater because everyone has more. Some just have a lot more.

Here's another graph (see below). This one measures length of life against the fertility rate. Notice how all the dots congregate in the top left corner, indicating that in the past 50 years people's lives have lengthened and their families have shrunk. Most Western countries have a fertility rate below the replacement level of 2.1%, which does not bode well for the workforces and tax bases of the future in those countries. To view the graph, go here and press play.

The great thing about Gapminder is that you can change the data on either axis to measure dozens of different things, from income to education to population to health to environment. And you can display that data for countries, territories, and states. This is way better than Power Point.

There are also videos you can watch, like this one about the media hype over swine flu.



Well, that's probably enough information for one blog post. Go to Gapminder and Gapminder World to see the beauty of statistics yourself.

This June, at its General Synod, my denomination--the Reformed Church in America--will vote on whether to add a fourth confessional standard. Currently, and since the denomination's inception, we have held to three standards--the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort. I've not been pleased with how loosely some in my denomination hold to these Standards, but at least on paper the theology is rock solid.

For more the past several years there has been an effort to add the Belhar Confession as a fourth confessional standard. If the General Synod approves Belhar this June (and it almost certainly will), then the Confession must be approved by 2/3 of the Classes (plural of Classis, which is like a Presbytery) to be officially adopted alongside the other three Reformation documents.

The Belhar Confession dates back to 1986 and comes out of the struggles with apartheid in South Africa. It is a brief confession and in many ways quite beautiful, a doctrinal statement filled with some precious truths that the white church in South Africa had tragically lost.

And yet...and yet, I have my reservations. Below is a short article I posted over at my other, RCA related blog.

*****

I want to support the Belhar Confession. Like everyone else in the RCA, or virtually everyone, I think apartheid was evil, racism is wrong, and church unity is good. I like the idea of adopting a confession that comes from the Global South and may speak to non-whites in a way that our present confessions do not. I agree with most of the Belhar Confession, much of it simply a restatement of Scripture. I want to support Belhar—others I respect do. But in the end, I cannot.

First, there are a few lines that cannot be supported by Scripture. Here’s just one example: We believe that God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged. To be sure, the Bible is full of examples of God’s heart for the poor and the oppressed. But it goes too far to say he is in a special way a God to them. The covenant promise—I will be your God and you will be my people (language Belhar echoes here)—is for those who put their faith in God, not simply those who are poor or oppressed. In fact, Abraham, the man of faith and the model for all covenantal blessing (Gal. 3:5-9), was especially rich (Gen. 13:5-6). Is God less of God to him than to the poor man who rejects Christ? Was God a God to Job, Zacchaeus, Mary and Martha in a less special way because they were well-to-do? There are plenty of verses to support the contention that God cares for the poor and oppressed, but are there any verses to suggest that he is their covenantal God apart from faith? Or any verses to suggest that God looks on the believing poor with more favor than the believing non-poor? God does not show partiality to the poor, nor does he defer to the great (Lev. 19:15).

Second, I am concerned about what it will mean to confess the Belhar Confession as a denomination. I understand that possible abuses of the confession should not be a knock against the confession itself, but adopting the Belhar Confession only makes sense if we are actually going to confess it together. Thus, it becomes important to listen to how others are already “confessing” the Belhar.

Those advocating the adoption of Belhar do not simply want us to affirm an anti-apartheid document. They are passionate about Belhar because of its many perceived implications. The Commission on Christian Action in 2007 lauded Belhar because it spoke to so many issues before them, including the farm bill, Sudanese refugees, the Iraq War, socially screening RCA retirement funds, immigration policy, minimum wage increases, and America’s embargo of Cuba. Others in the RCA have suggested that Belhar applies to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, global economics, green house gas emissions, abortion, social welfare, and taxation policies. For many in the RCA, Belhar’s talk of justice lends support for almost any cause that can be put in the broad category of “social justice.

And for some, “social justice” includes the affirmation of the homosexual lifestyle. This concern cannot be dismissed as fear-mongering. Allen Boesak, under whose leadership Belhar was first drafted, recently made headlines when he “dramatically insisted that the church’s Belhar Confession demands the defense of the full rights of gay members. When the synod rejected this, he announced his intention to resign from all church offices and left the synod floor with his wife” (The Banner, January, 16). If the man responsible for overseeing the first draft of the Belhar Confession asserts that support for homosexual unions and homosexual ordination is demanded by the Confession, why should we think that this document will not be used in the RCA to a similar end.

I’m not opposed in principle to a new confession. But a new confession should clarify some issue that is begging for clarification. While there may be pockets of insensitivity regarding race in our denomination, I don’t see where we are facing anything remotely close to the situation that prompted Belhar in South Africa in the 1980s. We do not honor the anti-apartheid cause by equating our situation to theirs.

Instead of clarifying, Belhar confuses. We are told it will apply to social justice issues, but how? It will speak to our need for unity, but in what way? It will urge reconciliation, but with whom? At this point in the life of our denomination, Belhar looks to me like a wax nose, which is exactly what confessions ought not to be. The right confessional statement settles issues; it doesn’t raise them.

I want to support the Belhar Confession. Its main thesis—God’s people should not be separated by race or ethnicity—is courageous and correct. But the Confession goes beyond Scripture in a few important places. And further, those who are most eager to confess Belhar in our denomination are often confessing a very different document than the anti-racism confession many of us read it to be.


P.S. A few weeks ago, Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary, blogged about the unfortunate trajectory of his old friend Allan Boesak (HT: Stephen Ley). Here's part of what Mouw said:

Boesak was also instrumental in drafting the 1986 Belhar Confession, which I welcomed at the time as an important confessional statement about race relationships. He now appeals to that document in support of his advocacy for gay-lesbian ordination. In a recent insightful blog posting, “The Belhar Confession & God’s Final Revelation,” Violet Larson argues that this is a good reason to question the theological adequacy of the Belhar Confession, precisely because of the use to which it is being put these days by proponents of full inclusion on same-sex topics. I agree with her. While that document spoke forthrightly against the injustices of apartheid, it did not explicitly appeal to biblical authority. That it can now be seen by some of its drafters as capable of being extended to the full inclusion of active gays and lesbians in ministry says something about the weaknesses of Belhar—not as an important prophetic declaration in its original context, but as a statement that can stand on its own as a normative confession (emphasis mine).