Duck Dynasty, Power, & Jesus At Christmas

While i’m unconcerned with Phil Robertson and Duck Dynasty I’m very concerned with the people who let the “controversy” involving the two distract them, particularly the Christians who have let the topic distract them.

Media explosions like this often distract us from Jesus. The fact that many people are being distracted in the name of Jesus and with the intentions of being disciples is what makes the issue even more complicated and concerning. Some of us feel the need to stand up publicly for Phil Robertson, for free speech, for persecuted Christians, and for the truth of God’s view on homosexuality. 

As I watch my friends jump into the chaos of internet debates, A&E boycotts, and starting campaigns centered around the latest Christian celebrity I ask myself “Why?”

A lot of the issue comes down to power. Western Christians have been born into a place of power and privilege (like it or not). In many ways, we are rich and blind to the realities Christians in other parts of the world (and of other races or social classes) so we continue living unaware. We must eventually admit that we’re use to having influence if not majority control.

Because we tend to live in a place of power we think we must have it. Because the culture and nation we live in values power highly we tend to think we ought to as well. Jesus, however, did not value power and he discouraged his followers from desiring it as well. In fact, Jesus encouraged his followers to prepare for suffering and to endure it with patience and kindness, choosing to be wronged rather than to wrong. This, more than anything, would be a witness to the world of who God is and what he is like (John 15).

We tend to desire power and fear suffering. We fear suffering so much we seek out power (we want to be right and we want control) so we has assurance that we won't be threatened by suffering. We see a small sign of persecution and we’re up in arms protesting with bullhorns from every possible angle imaginable and it’s usually not for the sake of justice or Jesus. It may be hard to hear but Phil Robertson getting pulled off a TV show for sharing his views on homosexuality (or perhaps the way in which he shared his views) is not persecution; it’s business and it is Hollywood. 

We need to learn to let go of controlling media, controlling politics, and dictating the operations and reputation of our society. We need to be okay with simply being in the society while we are faithful Christians. Let’s have good conduct full of patience, kindness, selflessness, as we avoid entitlement. Let’s stop placing value on reality television and focus more on good ol’ fashioned reality. 

What would our brothers and sisters say if they saw us standing on soap boxes about someone losing their role on a reality television series and calling it persecution when they’ve just watched their friend get their body mangled and destroyed for simply claiming Christ’s name in a country where that faith and its practices are outlawed? That’s a real dichotomy in this world and that’s a problem we must face.

Today is Christmas eve. Tomorrow we will celebrate the arrival of God in the form of a weak and poor human child. Jesus emptied himself of power and glory so as to enter into a lowly state, that he might rescue a wayward world. As we follow him, let us imitate him and loosen our grip of power and the pursuit of control. If Jesus wanted to find victory through power he’d have appeased Simon Peter and Satan by doing so (Matthew 4:8-11, 26:51-54) but he didn’t. So why should we?

Jesus suffered and we, if faithful, shall share those sufferings (it’s an unquestioned fact in the New Testament). Suffering isn’t the lack of a TV show or even an unwon internet debate. Suffering is losing limbs and friends, it is being burned, it is hurting physically, emotionally, mentally, and dying. It’s being imprisoned. It is being treated as less than human. Christian suffering is losing the only thing left to lose after you’ve offered all of your life to others (and even then it’s not losing). 

Even if we should suffer, we shouldn’t be troubled by it. We saw it coming. It’s the result of a good and loving life that is faithful to Christ’s way (1Peter). We would do well to rejoice in sharing Jesus’ sufferings. This is far greater than being right, being in power, or having the latest celebrity still on TV to represent Christians (as if Jesus’ kingdom needed mass media). 

No matter how you feel about some tv show, the gay-marriage debate, the “Christian” nature of the nation, or Jesus, one thing is certain: we’re called to live out a selfless love and imitate the Christ who chose to suffer instead of take up power when given the chance(s). As we celebrate Christmas let us ask the question “How am I pursuing power and how do I repent?” 

Then, let us answer with our lives by following Jesus’ teachings and example. Let us choose weakness and be pleased to sit in the manager with our victorious King who gives himself completely. More could be said about the many facets of this topic but this is where we should always land. We should live like Jesus as suffering servants who find true power in giving ourselves away.

Advent & Being Incarnational

Advent is the season in which we celebrate the incarnation. The incarnation is the title given to God becoming flesh. In Jesus, we see God become weak and enter into the world in the form of a human being. Not only does God become man and come to be with us but he does it in humility but entering into the world as a baby, through the womb of the virgin Mary. There is more beauty in this than I have time or ability to write but I pray the beauty finds you (perhaps in some great books, prayers, and songs).

The term incarnation is an important one for us. Sometimes we hear pastors, theologians, and communities say we, as Christians and churches, ought to be incarnational. “We need incarnational ministries” and the like. It’s a good word and it is also a buzzword. More than anything, it is a reality of grace and blessing. 

As we focus on Jesus’ incarnation during this advent season I challenge us to also think of what this incarnation means for us as a people and to see the incarnation as transcending the nativity. What I mean is that Jesus doesn’t stop being the incarnation after the opening chapters of the gospels and God doesn’t end his strategy of incarnation with the person of Jesus. No, there aren’t more incarnations. Rather, God continues incarnation with his covenant people known as the Church.

The Church is known as the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16, 12, Romans 7:4, 12:4-8). 1 John 4:17 states, “By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world.” In other words, we are just like Jesus in this world. When Jesus ascending into heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father he left us with his peace and his ministry of reconciliation (John 14:15-31, 2 Corinthians 5). When we partake of the bread and wine in the Eucharist (communion) we are united to Christ and one another as his very body on this earth. We look like him in conduct, as individuals and as a community, and we really truly are bound together with Christ through our conduct and the eucharist. We truly carry on his work in the world, as his ambassadors and his body. He do the work of God on earth, reconciling humans to one another and to their Creator.

But how does this connect to Advent? 

I often think of the words of Luke 2:14 when the angels proclaim the news of the incarnated messiah to shepherds in the field saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!” (ESV, NASB). We have often heard the King James Version which states, “Peace on earth and good will towards men.” 

Mere days before the beginning of Advent, Black Friday proves that there is not a peace all over the earth or even a whole lot of good will towards men. The newspapers, TV stations, and blogs show us that we’re still in waiting for this to feel true. So why isn’t it true and what does this have to do with incarnation and the Church as a people?

It doesn’t feel true because 1) we live in a tension where God’s kingdom is “already/not yet.” This means that the kingdom has come but not in it’s entirety and we live in a world that has victory in Christ but an enemy that has yet to surrender or become fully destroyed (rest assured, it’s coming). We’re to live in the “already” aspect of this tension with faith and hope in the “not yet” aspect. That’s hard because the world doesn’t operate as heaven does and we’re expected to do it anyway. By the way, that’s not an impossibility with Christ, it’s just scary and hard. This is also why we don’t tend to feel as though we have peace on earth or good will towards men; we don’t live it. 

All Christ did himself he gave to us to also do. That doesn’t mean we save ourselves, it means we live as he lived and taught. It means we share his hope for the coming judgment when all people get what they deserve and all is made right. It means we are able to forgive instead of taking vengeance. It means we can choose suffering instead of power over others. In Christ, in the incarnation we are empowered to set aside fear and live in love. Christ came to earth to bring his peace (the Hebrew word is shalom and it means a holistic positive/proactive peace for all of life). Christ left earth and gave us his peace with his Spirit. 

If the peace is not present we must ask if we are being people of peace. Are we becoming weak as Christ became weak? Are we suffering instead of seeking power? Are we loving instead of fearing? I’m not just talking about the big scale of life. I’m talking about how we budget, make purchases, talk to stranger, interact with friends, handle conflict, encounter enemies, go to work, learn at school, eat our meals, and more. Are we being a people of peace?

That’s not an easy question. What does it even mean to be a people of peace? It looks like loving justice. It looks like Jesus on the cross and us accepting that same fate in every moment/decision of our lives. Will I dine with people when it’ll cause me suffering? Will I spend my money in a way that blesses others and doesn’t keep me comfortable? Will I refuse to treat my enemies in any way that isn’t truly kind and generous? 

It’s too easy for me to make this issue about nonviolence, and it’s about that at a point, but it is much more. It’s about embracing Jesus and the means of our holy God in all aspects of life. Nothing should be left untouched by the incarnational power of Christ. We must always choose to become empty and weak for the sake of others and we must always be generous, kind, and forgiving. We must be inclusive and welcoming all people into our arms, homes, and communities because we care about their peace. 

Originally I wanted to write this blog and bring it around to Christian pacifism but instead I find it better to simply say that the call to be incarnational goes beyond that and if we are truly incarnational we will have no choice but to abandon our willingness to resort to means of violence in any given situation just as we will abandon our greed, elitism, fear, and all other sinful ways that sent Jesus to weakness and the cross (though his love drove him to it equally as much as our sin). 

Let us live by hope and by joy and by peace and by love this Advent. Let us embrace the incarnation of Jesus by mirroring him in this world today together. May 1John 4:17 be true of us.

“By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world.”

Mark Driscoll's Violent Jesus

After several verbal jabs and insults over the years, world famous pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill has finally has brought forth an argument against Christian pacifism. Interestingly, he anchors his argument around the 6th command “Thou shall not murder.” The blog is titled Is God a pacifist? and you can find it on The Resurgence website.

I find three major issues with Driscoll’s blog. 1) He clings to the Moasica Law far too much for Christian ethics and 2) He poorly interprets the New Testament witness of Jesus so as to turn the Saviour into a vengeful and violent person, and 3) He isn't all that kind about the matter. But before I start let me just say that this guy (Derek Vreeland) said some really beautiful things about this and you should read his blog more than mine. 

1) Let's start by saying that Driscoll shows rightly than the wording of the sixth commandment is dealing with a specific type of killing; a murderous type. He is also right that the Mosaic Law in Exodus allows for lethal self defense and capital punishment within the Israelite community. He is also right that God allows his people to kill enemies in war at many points in the Old Testament. That’s all scripturally obvious and undeniable. So we agree that God throughout scripture is not properly labelled as a pacifist. 

However, Driscoll is arguing that the Mosaic Law is still the expectation for believers today. In answering the question “What does the sixth commandment mean for us?” he claims that killing a person is often justified and even necessary (the Exodus passages are his support). He claims that “God’s prohibition against murder in the sixth commandment is not intended to apply to lawful taking of life, such as self-defense, capital punishment, and just war.” While the sixth commandment is specific in forbidding murder, the Mosaic Law commands capital punishment and self defense, and God sends Israel to war in the Old Testament, that doesn’t mean God has the same expectations for us today. While we must look at the Old Testament along with the New Testament to get an accurate picture of God, we must also understand that God has continued to reveal himself, kingdom, and will for his people through time and thus there is progression in ethics for believers. The finest place to find expectations for believers today is in Jesus who is the fullest revelation of God because he is God.This makes the gospels useful since they record Jesus' teachings and example.

Jesus tells us that we were given the law (seen in Exodus) because of our hardness of heart (Matthew 19:8, Mark 10:5). We weren’t meant to always live that way but rather meant to be freed to live in a greater righteousness (Matthew 5:20) and that is why Jesus tightens the reigns on a lot of teachings like “love your enemies” and “thou shall not murder” (not only can we not murder someone, we can’t be angry at them). 

The Apostle Paul teaches that we are not held to the Mosaic law (especially us Gentiles) because Christ has freed us from it and called us instead to the law of love as exampled by Christ. We are not meant to function the way ancient Israel functioned in the time of Exodus but rather we are meant to function like Jesus when he walked the earth (Ephesians 5:1). This is the picture of the early church who suffered mistreatment and were said to be imitators of Christ (1 Thessalonians 1:6, 2:14, Hebrews 6:12)

Jesus, though not claiming to be what would later be called “pacifist”, lived a life of nonresistance and nonviolence. He taught people to do good to enemies, to bless and not curse, to turn the other cheek, to put away their swords, and to embrace forgiveness and mercy as they suffered and endured wrongdoing so that in doing so they might be perfect as their heavenly Father is perfect. Jesus told us that it is the peacemakers who will be called children of God. Then he allowed himself to be tortured and murdered unjustly, telling us to follow him with crosses on our back all the while. Maybe that’s not pacifism but sure it gives a lot less permission for violent and lethal action in the life of a believer than the Mosaic Law. Driscoll overlooks this migration from the Mosaic Law to the law of love.

2) Driscoll argues that the Prince of Peace is not a pacifist because he must "vanquish his enemies." The problem with this argument is that it must ignore the wisdom of scripture which shows that Jesus does overcome and defeat his enemies through his death on the cross and resurrection from the dead. The victory is secure already and it came through nonviolent means. Jesus becomes our sin, suffers our sin, and covers it by the cross and resurrection. In the same way he absorbs our violence through the cross and shows it lacking as he defeats our violent ways in the resurrection. In that line of thinking, is it any wonder that his last words to us are “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you” (John14:27)?

The notion that Jesus can not be nonviolent because he must defeat his enemies implies that Jesus must employ violence to defeat his enemies but we know this is nonsensical in light of Jesus’ own words when he teaches, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world” (John 18:36). And have we forgotten that Jesus could use all the force he wanted for his kingdom purposes but never did (Matthew 26:52-54)? Why would he when his/our enemy is not flesh and blood (Ephesians 6:2) and his/our weapons are not ones made by men (2 Corinthians 6:7)?

It seems that Driscoll is still promoting his notion that Jesus “Jesus took a beating to atone for sin; on his next trip he will hand them out to unrepentant sinners instead” (source) Driscoll has described his view of Jesus before stating in a 2007 Relevant magazine interview, “...I cannot worship a guy I can beat up.”*

He also stated that the book of Revelation chapter 19 shows that “Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down his leg, a sword in his hand and the commitment to make someone bleed.” (source) This is not exactly accurate and it shows that Driscoll takes a strictly literal interpretation of Revelation, which most notable theologians would rightly dismiss.** A few key things to know about this passage is that the blood Jesus is soaked in is his own because he shows up drenched in it (remember the cross) and the sword comes from his mouth and is most likely imagery for the Word of God which brings judgment and defeats evil with truth. The language may be violent but the Jesus it describes is not. It's the same Jesus John earlier described in his gospel. If one of those descriptions is wrapped in imagery and is confusing then it is best to refer to the more clear description.

Driscoll’s view of a violent Jesus is restated in this new blog about pacifism. He writes, “[Jesus] has a long wick, but the anger of his wrath is burning. Once the wick is burned up, he is saddling up on a white horse and coming to slaughter his enemies and usher in his kingdom. Blood will flow.” The slaughtering Jesus that Driscoll desires isn’t the Jesus described in Revelation. 

Again, Driscoll misreads the scriptures of Revelation when he comments on Revelation 14. He attributes all the slaughtering to Jesus but really the passage is imagery of harvest. It’s farming/vineyard language and it resembles Jesus’ parable about the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25) or the wheat and chaff (Matthew 3:11-12). Driscoll misses that Jesus reaps only the good harvest and some other angel reaps the grapes for the winepress of God’s wrath. Also, the sickle is a farming tool and not a weapon (even in this passage). Driscoll wants Jesus to be the guy who hurts other people and brings about a river of blood but the scriptures don’t show that at all. Scripture shows a river of blood pouring from Jesus' hands, feet, side, and brow due to suffering the violence of evil men. The man Driscoll describes wasn’t on the cross but was the one that put the man on the cross. That's scary.

3) The absolute worst part of this blog is not the poor reading of Revelation or the lack of Gospel and Epistle passages*** from a man who is calling out pacifists for being selective in their use of scripture to support their position. The worst part is Driscoll’s inability to speak on the subject of Christian pacifism without insulting his brothers and sisters in Christ who live a lifestyle of nonviolence. Not only this, he can’t avoid insulting their attempt to worship Jesus. Even if we agree with Driscoll’s face-value interpretation of scripture we should disagree with his treatment of others (because it is completely unfaithful to Jesus’ way - pacifist or not).

Driscoll describes the Jesus worshipped by pacifists as “The European, long-haired, dress-wearing, hippie [created by]..a bad artist who mistook Jesus for a community college humanities professor.” This, of course, is an uncivil and unloving attempt at describing the pacifist position. Driscoll shows no intention to accurately represent those with whom he has disagreement. He chooses to insult them and attempt to shame them in Christian circles with this statement. He’s done this in the past when he stated in his blog championing MMA, “Their picture of Jesus is basically a guy in a dress with fabulous long hair, drinking decaf and in touch with his feelings, who would never hurt anyone.” A poor argument is often proved by attacking language. 

Driscoll ends his blog stating, "Some of those whose blood will flow... will be those who did not repent of their sin but did wrongly teach that Jesus was a pacifist. Jesus is no one to mess with." The implication is the threat that Jesus is coming to slaughter the pacifists in his wrath because they taught that Jesus promoted a lifestyle of nonviolence and they discouraged killing other people. 

Nevermind the fact that Jesus never did hurt anyone according to scripture, Driscoll's demands a violent Jesus. Even if Jesus isn’t a pacifist Driscoll is still wrong in how he treats his Christian brothers and sisters (and it is probably because he does a poor job of reading the scriptures in a coherent fashion). I'm not saying God doesn't have a wrath and that those choosing sin won't suffer it. I'm not saying God is unjust and that there is no condemnation for sin. That's what makes God's grace seen in Jesus so beautiful! I'm saying we need to rethink Driscoll's presentation of Jesus because it doesn't seem to match up with the full presentation in the New Testament.

As we all seek to know Jesus rightly, may we approach the entire scriptures with open hearts and minds. May we believe what Jesus has said as the ultimate truth and let his words and example guide us into his already ushered in kingdom. Even if Jesus doesn't turn us into pacifists, may he turn us into people who love everyone with the fruit of the Spirit, regardless of how weak or strong they may appear.  

*This is ironic since Driscoll (along with every other human being in history) did beat up Jesus and then killed him. And in the midst of it Jesus forgave him (and everyone else) before giving them peace and calling them to follow his way. 

**Driscoll shows these interpretation colors in his MMA Evaluation blog as well when he states, “Jesus said both to turn the other cheek and to bring a sword to defend oneself. So let’s not simply quote one thing he said as if it were the only thing he said.” Jesus said that first part but never the second. That’s a message Driscoll believes in implied by a command of Jesus that most scholars would say is metaphorical (and even promotes the teaching of nonviolence).

***Driscoll only references the gospels to point out a quoting of the sixth commandment (perhaps to suggest that the commandment is still in effect). The problem with this is that in those passages Jesus is explicitly saying that that teaching is not the ethical expectation for his followers but rather he calls them to an abandonment of simple anger or to move beyond law into relationship and sacrifice. The only Epistle references are to Romans 13 which is used in a way that dismisses Romans 12 and shirks the place of the sixth commandment in the life of a post-resurrection believer.

Christians Condemning Sinners

My previous post about the The Gospel Coalition’s “Gag Reflex” article has brought about some disagreement (not unexpectedly). I’m not going to defend against most of the arguments here but I will speak to one of the themes I saw in the feedback I received. One of the most interesting aspects of the disagreements is that the majority of the people who disagreed with me were fighting for the need to condemn others for their sin. Some felt that we need to temper love with condemnation. Others said we need to outright condemn in order to honor God. 

As a result I thought it would be helpful to look at the gospels and see what Jesus has to say about condemning sin and sinners (which describes us all). 

John 3:17-18 states, “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” 

These words, along with several other NT passages (Galatians 2:11, 2 Thessalonians 2:12, 1 Timothy 3:6, 5:12, Titus 3:11) teach that people are presently living in condemnation and the future condemnation that comes upon them is of their own doing. Jesus, who is God in the flesh with us, does not come to us to condemn us for our sin but rather to do the exact opposite. He comes to save us from our condemnation and sin. None of these teachings give us the idea that we, as Christians, are to condemn others (especially if we are to imitate Jesus in as much as we are able). The condemned are already condemned. We can correct and we can love but we can not condemn unless we also desire to be condemned. 

In Luke 6:37-38 Jesus says, “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.” 

We have a choice to condemn others, of course, but it is not a choice that will result in blessings. The contrast of judgement and condemnation with forgiveness and generosity in this teaching is strong and serves to show that we are to approach others with forgiveness and generosity (which is Christ-like love) instead of condemnation. That is fighting for the sinner instead of fighting against the sinner. If Christ died for us while we still against him by living in sin and if we are to imitate Christ then we must fight for the sinner and not against the sinner. But knowing what that looks like can be hard. 

There is an example of this in John 8:2-11: “Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more”

As John said five chapters earlier, Jesus does not come to condemn but to save. He brings forgiveness and generosity to the sinner (and as this passage proves we are all sinners). It is then no wonder that when Jesus encounters the adulterous woman and the religious mob that he makes it absolutely clear that nobody but Jesus himself is free to condemn sinners. In doing this he points out that all people are sinners. This includes the people who are believed to be the most righteous. Then, he refuses to condemn anyone when he has all authority to do so. Instead, he forgives the adulterous woman and calls her to repent as she lives her life in freedom.

That is forgiveness and generosity. That is love. That is what we Christians must be about. If we are eager to condemn or to be against people, to prove them wrong or disgusting then we’ve missed Jesus. As we are honest and bold in speech about the evil of this world and the sin that kills humanity let us do so without condemnation but rather with forgiveness and generosity. We can’t pussy-foot around the reality of sin, that would be unloving to both God and neighbor. However, Jesus shows us there is a way to address sin without condemning others. After all, if someone is in sin they are already condemned so our condemnation doesn’t help them. However, our forgiveness, generosity, and honest speech help. 

May God’s Spirit give us discernment to know what is good and what is harmful. May we see love rightly defined through Jesus and follow him into love so that we and others may find freedom and true repentance. May we learn to stand against sin as Jesus does through love and not condemnation.

The Gospel Coalition's Gagging Reflex

I was told this morning that The Gospel Coalition is once again under some attack for a blog they posted entitled The Importance of Your Gag Reflex When Discussing Homosexuality and “Gay Marriage” by Thabiti Anyabwile. I read the article and I had several thoughts but when I finished writing my reaction I discovered a better thought.

Anyabwile wrote, that Christians in the gay-marriage debate must “Return the discussion to sexual behavior in all its yuckiest gag-inducing truth.” In an attempt to show what Anyabwile calls the “yuck factor” he describes homosexual acts. He then states, “That sense of moral outrage you’re now likely feeling–either at the descriptions above or at me for writing them–that gut-wrenching, jaw-clenching, hand-over-your-mouth, ‘I feel dirty’ moral outrage is the gag reflex. It’s what you quietly felt when you read “two men deep kissing” in the second paragraph. Your moral sensibilities have been provoked–and rightly so. That reflex triggered by an accurate description of homosexual behavior will be the beginning of the recovery of moral sense and sensibility when it comes to the so-called ‘gay marriage’ debate.”

Here is what I think:

The idea that we will make progress in reestablishing moral sensibilities through the development of reactions of disgust towards certain sexual acts is misguided and shortsighted. People who are easily grossed-out aren’t bound to be morally upstanding people. They may be sensitive (possibly even hypersensitive) to sinful acts but that doesn’t make them necessarily upstanding or send them on the path towards being morally upstanding. Weren’t the Pharisee’s disgusted when they encountered Jesus breaking the Mosaic Law or when they found a woman committing adultery? What good did it do them? And in contrast, how good was it for the Pharisee’s and the sinners to encounter the person of Jesus?

What we need is not to see certain sexual acts as “yucky” but rather to see sinful people as similar to us. We must learn to see others as God sees them and created them. Ultimately, this begins with us seeing ourselves as sinful (and whether or not our sin is “yucky” or not is relative).

This means we embrace the knowledge that all humans, gay and straight alike, chaste and promiscuous alike, are created in the very image of God. It means we acknowledge that we are ourselves sinners in need of the Father, Son, and Spirit. We focus on the log in our own eye so that we may be of assistance to those who have specks in their eye (something done delicately). My sin is a bigger issue than someone else’s sin and my fight against sin is within myself.

Our focus must always be on loving people because that is the command Jesus gave us. He told us to give up our own sinful ways and to love others. He didn’t tell us we need to see sinful acts as more disgusting, create a morally sensible population, or to win political debates. His focus isn’t on those things. So why is ours? Jesus tells us that his kingdom is subversive. It does not flourish by winning political quarrels or by the establishment of laws that suit the opinions of his people. More often his kingdom is found in the suffering of his people. Maybe we see the kingdom more when we are busy being with people instead of being busy being against people.

If we will faithfully read the words of Jesus in the gospels, I guarantee that we will not be focused on convincing others that homosexual acts are disgusting so that we can recover “moral sense and sensibilities” and as a result win a political or moral debate about gay-marriage. Rather, we will be focused on following Jesus into his upside down kingdom as humble people who fight sin in their own hearts and honor others in a way that makes them see the beauty and goodness of God and his Way so that they desire to also follow him.

I’m not saying we don’t call sin out for what it is. I’m not saying homosexual acts aren’t sinful. Scripture teaches that they are indeed sinful. But that doesn’t mean I should fight to be disgusted by other people’s sin or fight for other’s to be disgusted by other people’s sin. It means I should avoid that sin in my own life and be unafraid to call it sin when necessary as I deeply love others, no matter what sins they commit. 

If I’m disgusted or not doesn’t matter. What matters is if I am pure and loving in Christ Jesus. So perhaps the better aim and strategy is to love God and to love neighbors as ourselves. This means we talk less about homosexuals and talk more with homosexuals, and not about their sexuality but about everything in love. Less debate, more life. Eventually our focus won’t even be about homosexuals but rather about people. Let’s face it, people don’t want to be labels and projects anyway. People want to be embraced as people through love.

A Tempted God

I've had Muslim friends tell me that James 1:13 proves Jesus is not God because Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11) and Jesus' temptation contradicts James' words. If God can not be tempted then how can a being that was clearly tempted be God? It's a good question and the answer is within the story of Jesus and within this very portion of scripture itself. Beyond that, we not only discover how Jesus is God from this but we discover how good Jesus/God is and how good of news this ends up being for us.

James 1:12-15 states,

Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

At first read we may instantly think this passage says that the enemy can not bring a temptation to God. That is, God can not be approached by a single temptation; he is beyond that possibility. Such an interaction, the approach of evil towards him, is impossible. Unlike Cain, sin can not crouch at God's doorstep. This is both true and untrue. 

I've come to learn that James is saying that God can not be overcome by temptation and not that an enemy can not try to bring evil to God's feet. This is a much stronger God than the God who can not be tempted. A God who can be approached by evil but never defeated by evil gives me more confidence than a God who can't be approached by evil. That's a great power to be so removed from the approach of evil suggestions, I guess, but it's not a great strength. A God who is tempted and victorious seems stronger and more able to deliver in love than a God who is far off from evil's advances. The God that is too powerful or high up for evil to try and speak to is a God that would also probably be distant from me and my evil

However, the story of Jesus (and the entire Biblical story) tells us that this is not the way God operates. The Triune God of the scriptures has always been a God that comes to humanity and interacts with sinfulness. God does not sin but he loves those who do sin and rescues them from the clutches of evil. The world was overtaken by sin and God was not satisfied with letting evil win.

Our God jumps into evil's realm and defeats it. That speaks volumes to the greatness of God's power and love. Much more preferable than the God who is simply far off from sin I'd say. Jesus in God incarnated. That means God himself came to earth in the person of Jesus to correct what was made wrong in the world by sin. He came near. He is God With Us (this is what Emmanuel means). Jesus came to earth and was tempted by the Satan but he was not overcome, he overcame. Then he went to the cross and overcome death and the power of sin which put him on the cross (along with his unwillingness to sin himself). His strength in faithfulness allowed him to be tempted, beat down, buried, and then victorious. So in a sense, God can be tempted. Temptation from outside sources such as the Satan can approach God is Jesus Christ, but it can not defeat him. 

In another (perhaps greater) sense, God truly can not be tempted. Reading forward into the next verses, we learn that James is more referring to our own evil desires and that we are tempted by our desires (this is a part of our fallen nature). Our desires are compromised (due to influence of the enemy and the world that raises us predominantly). But God is not fallen because he never sinned like humans did. He has never broken relationship but rather has always stayed faithful. 

God is faithful and thus he can not be overcome or tempted by his own desires because his desires are wholly good. This is why Jesus can overcome the temptations of Satan. His character and desires are wholly good. They are strong, resilient, perfect. Jesus lacks nothing. In the previous verses we learn that steadfastness (the nonabandonment of commitment) proves a lacking of nothing, a perfection. Jesus has this steadfastness unlike anyone else due to his sinlessness. The Triune God is sinless and wholly good, perfect, lacking nothing.  

We must remember that Jesus, being God, is not tempted by his own desires in the wilderness. He is tempted by the enemy, an outside source, and he wins out. The enemy appeals to Jesus' desires but finds out quickly that Jesus' desires are not compromised and will not betray him. Jesus was tempted but not by his desires and thus he is still able to be God and we find that the account in Matthew does not contradict James' teaching. As a side-note, it should bring us great comfort to know that Jesus endured trials and temptations of all kinds (Hebrews 2:18, 4:15) and that as a result he can identify with us and the world we live in. He overcame where we have not and this gives us reason to trust him and accept his rescuing help.

As a result, God's desires can not turn against him and tempt him to perform evil. It is impossible for the perfectly good to be anything but good. A grape that can never dry or age will never be a raisin. So it is with God's desires. They will never be his enemy as our desires can be our enemies. Our desires can be compromised due to sin's influence but God is safe from this due to who he has chosen to be, due to who he is. In that sense, God can never be tempted. And because God is wholly good and is full of love he never tempts anyone else. He can not lead us into evil because of his goodness. Surely, though, he can lead us out of our evil.

So we pray to God that he would "not lead us into temptation but deliver us from evil" for the power and the glory and the kingdom are his. As we pray this we must take an honest look at our life and ask God to help us see what our desires are pulling us toward. Do our desires pull us into healthy and loving relationships that honor and build up others or do they lead us to feed our own greeds and leave others alone and unloved? Do we do what makes us feel good at the expense of someone else or despite the fact that we know doing this won't be beneficial in the long run?

Our desires are compromised. They can lead us astray. We want goodness, all of us, but sometimes we believe lies about goodness and trust our desires to be pure and to lead us into goodness when in reality we need to be discerning about our desires. Let us acknowledge we're influenced by evil and that we need the God who is not compromised and who overcomes evil and all it's wiles to guide us. Let us walk with the God who is safe from temptation and delivers us from evil while he, in Jesus, calls us to a stronger and more steadfast love for others as we abandon our compromised desires.

"To pursue goodness rather than merely our own interests is to transcend ourselves and thereby be more authentically who we truly are." -Miroslav Volf

Men Are More Important Than Women

I'm on a Mark Driscoll kick this week. I'm watching his sermons, I'm reading his blogs, I'm paying attention to my brother. His latest Sermon is on Ephesians 6:1-4 and is entitled "I Am Fathered." It's a part of his sermon series entitled Ephesians; Finding Your True Identity in Christ which is based off his latest book Who Do You Think You Are? (though this is not a chapter in his book like the other sermons in this series).

One of my ("open-handed" or secondary) theological disputes with Driscoll is his complementarian stance. I find it to be potentially damaging to the body of Christ (especially his personally stance). Despite the fact that he has emphatically claimed that his stance is not one that places different value on men or women, I have a difficulty buying the argument. I don't see how what they call an issue of "function" and  "role" isn't simultaneously one of "class" and "value" when discussing nonbiological characteristics. That's a big discussion that has a lot of complicated aspects to it and I won't open that can of worms too much today. Just a little.

Before I get into my disagreements let me make a few positive statements. At the start (and end) of the day, Mark Driscoll and I are brothers in Christ. I'm thankful for his boldness and his theological mind. I'm thankful that many have been blessed through being a part of Mars Hills and that Christ works through that network of congregations. While I have my own issues with Driscoll I respect him. I agree that men in our society, even in the church, have been growing more and more irresponsible in the last few decades and that the Church ought to be the society in which men treat women well by treating them as sisters in Christ. In the Church we should see men staying faithful in the covenant of marriage, refraining from sexual activity outside that covenant, and being responsible in every imaginable way to their children when God blesses them with those children. Fatherhood must be discussed. There is a terrible epidemic of fatherless homes in our land and we should not foster fatherless homes in the Church. I agree with Driscoll in all of this and am thankful he faces the issue head-on with sincere passion for justice. With that stated, I have some thoughts on the sermon.

At the beginning of this sermon Driscoll opens the teaching by stating, "The most important person in your entire life is your father." Apparently Driscoll agrees with me now. Let me explain.

We can't say men and women are of equal value and merely of different function if we say that one role/function that only men can fulfill is more important than any other function or role that only women can fill. That is, if we say fathers are more important than mothers then we immediately place more value upon fathers than mothers and thus more value on men than women. The child with a single father is immediately better off than the child with a single mother. 

The use of the word "important" creates a value statement. Important and valuable are often synonyms. If I say something is the most important thing to know then I say it is the most valuable thing to know. If I tell you a father is more important than a mother than I say a father is more valuable than a mother. One role is more valuable than the other. And since only a man can be a father and a woman a mother it follows that men can be more valuable than women. In the family, a woman can never be more valuable than a man because 1 man will always be the most important, the most valuable.

Driscoll's statement goes completely against his views on complementarianism and proves his views to be inconsistent (but who doesn't have inconsistent views). Driscoll is here saying that the two are different and not equal which is contrary to the popular complementarian view (the one he holds and preaches) that states men and women are equal in value but different in role and function.  This statements shows what is often called a strong "patriarchal" view. 

We could go in circles about how roles are given value and who places importance or value upon roles in our lives (do I put value into roles of people in my life, do they, does God, does the social sphere somehow do it itself, etc.) but let it be sufficient to say that Driscoll is claiming an absolute truth. For our purposes, let's point to God as the one who makes fathers the most important person in our lives. I think Driscoll would do this and claim the level of value attributed to the role of father is one established by God.

Driscoll states that the father is the most important person in our lives because "He has more power than anyone to influence you for good or for evil." How has this been proven? How do we see this in scripture? Sure, the Bible is written within patriarchal societies but the scriptures don't seem to consistently promote a patriarchal view (for an in-depth explanation of this see William Webb's Slaves, Women & Homosexuals) that gives this type of power to fathers above all others. The Bible never states or implies that fathers are meant to be regarded as more important than mothers or that fathers have the most influence for good and evil in our lives. 

This also begs the questions 1) If the father has the most power to influence a child towards good or evil then why does Driscoll find stay-at-home fathers (by choice) to need church discipline? 2) If this is true of fathers then why ought the mother stay at home to raise kids when they are young? Isn't this wasting the father's potential?" This is a confusion I have. But we must truly ask if fathers really have this power of influence.

Yes, the Proverbs often are framed as a father teaching his son the ways of wisdom (which is female and Christ at the same time by the way) but this influence is accredited to God, our heavenly Father. Influence is also accredited to the Satan. This is first seen in Genesis 3 where the serpent (representing the Satan) deceives and manipulates the man and woman into sinning. They had no earthly fathers. The influence of good and evil is not rested upon humans (alone). When it is, it's from a peer. From the very beginning of scripture's story we see influence for doing good and evil as coming from nonhuman sources. This is why we go to God asking for wisdom (James 1:5). 

In giving Driscoll the benefit of the doubt, we should assume he meant to communicate that the most influential human in our lives is always our father. However, even this stance wouldn't be supported by scripture. 

Do people influence one another? Absolutely! That's undeniable. The Bible indicates that we are greatly influenced by those who surround us socially (again, in Genesis it is a peer that brings human influence). That is why we are not to keep company with those who invest in evil deeds and are of sinful character (1 Corinthians 15:33). We are influenced to do good and evil by all those in our social sphere.

Matthew 27:20 shows that our religious leaders have great influence on us. Our religious leaders influence us so much that they can help lead us into life (as we see in the Apostles) or into sin and corruption (as we see in this Matthew passage). This is part of why I wrote my previous blog about Driscoll. The Proverbs prove that seductive women influence men far too often. This passage shows that the way in which a father treats his child affects the child (as is true with any two people, especially when a power dynamic is involved) but never in any of these passages are we told that one role, one person, is more influential than all the others in leading a person to good or evil. 

The problem with Driscoll's statements is that it demands that a single mother can never be as important to her child nor have more power to influence her child towards good or evil than that child's father, even when absent. However, a story in scripture shows us a time when a mother influenced her son in a terrible way. In Genesis 27 we see Rebekah influencing her son Jacob to fool his father and steal his brother's blessing, despite the fact that Jacob knew his righteous father would not have approved (obviously). In this story the mother had far more power than the father to influence a child and the father was present! Driscoll's statements completely go against scripture on this one. 

So yes, fathers need to step up because they are important and affect and influence the lives of their offspring. However, don't be fooled into thinking your father is the most important person in your life because then you admit your mother is not as important to you as your father and I don't see that going over too well (because who wants to be told "you're less valuable to me"). While the role of the father is incredibly important, fathers need to remember that they are not guaranteed to be  the most important person in the lives of their children (even if absent). Plenty of psychology and sociology textbooks will confirm this.

We must admit that the scripture does not supply us with a teaching that allows us to conclude that the earthly father is the most influential person in our lives. That's not at all a guarantee. Are we affected by the presence and/or absence of our fathers? Yes. But this is also true of mothers and friends. Ultimately, humans are easily influenced creatures and they will be influenced by anything and anyone that speaks to them. 

The question is if we will listen to God above all others and allow him to influence us the most and if we will choose healthy and wise social circles that bring us and others closer to God. To me, it seems that if we are going to place importance on people and give them value then we should always view others as greater than ourselves. The most important person in my life is my neighbor in this moment. Seek God and love neighbor. Rest in that, whoever and whatever your father is.

Don't Study the Bible!?

I recently wrote a blog about the famous pastor Mark Driscoll's latest sermon. Today I watched the entire sermon (watch it here) partially because of a blog I read that critiqued a quote by Driscoll from that sermon. I watched the entire sermon to see for myself whether or not they were appropriately handling the quote (since I try to give Driscoll the benefit of the doubt). I encourage you to watch and determine for yourself whether or not their blog (or mine) has been fair to Driscoll (and Christ and his body).

As Driscoll enters into Ephesians 5:22-33 he tells people they won't like what he has to say. He starts with the first two words. "Wives, submit..." He lightens the mood by laughing about how this has already caused tension for the audience (I appreciated that). "Submit" can be a word that causes tension, he knows this, maybe better than most these days. He stops his reading after emphasizing the word "submit" and states,

"'What does that mean in the Greek, Pastor Mark?' You can always tell a rebellious evangelical. They do word studies. They try to go to the Greek and figure out if it perhaps means something else. I'll just read. Ok..."

And with that he continues reading the passage.

BUT HOLD UP. There is a problem.

Whatever Driscoll meant is probably lost in his wording because his wording is communicating that word studies and learning about the Biblical languages is a sign of a rebellious evangelical. I don't know why he chose the term "evangelical" over "Christian" but I'll touch on that in a moment

I am sure he doesn't mean what his words communicate at face value. I think we owe it to him to investigate what his intended meaning was because it can be dangerous to just take people's words at face value when the words can be controversial.

What he might mean is that a casual reading of a translated Bible in the English will be sufficient for our understanding of a passage's meaning. In other words, an author's intent can be found through a reading void of investigatory study. 

Maybe Driscoll is (also) trying to say that people in other theological camps who disagree with his complementarian position try to find loopholes through selective word studies so they can disagree with his position and escape the "soft patriarchy" position he finds to be the Christian truth. Thus, "rebellious evangelicals." Maybe he is trying to argue that those who disagree with his position are abusing scripture to support their claims. Sadly, that approach reeks of an unwillingness to have reasonable discussion over a theological disagreement. I'm hoping this isn't what was in his heart/mind when he spoke these words but, at the same time, it wouldn't be surprising if he's making an off handed comment that jabs at people for disagreeing with him by trying to make them look bad. He's done it before without apology. Maybe this isn't the case though! Let's hope not. 

Maybe he meant those sorts of things but Driscoll doesn't say any of that. He doesn't qualify his statement at all. He leaves us with a statement that, at face value, villainizes word studies and a deeper look at author's intent. At the very least, at face value, he villainizes those who disagree with him. Either way, he used poor wording and for the sake of those under his teaching (and the rest of the body of Christ) he should clarify his statement in a public address or his next sermon. An apology would even be helpful since a lack of clarity can be incredibly damaging. I think of the new believers at Mars Hill and those who listen to his podcasts that will be confused or poorly influenced by this statement.

It's fine if Driscoll thinks his position is the right one. I expect that. I feel the same way about my opposing position. However, the way we talk about each other must be respectful Jabs don't help. Bold truth is fine but cheap shots are not loving. Implying that the brothers and sisters who disagree with us are abusing scripture simply because they reach a different conclusion isn't helping. We have to try to understand each other. Hopefully Driscoll isn't taking cheap shots. Hopefully he meant something harmless and just used the totally wrong words. 

 I hope he makes this more clear because right now he's saying the sort of thing that cult leaders say. I'm not wanting him to be viewed that way. I don't want my brother to be so terribly misinterpreted. 

To be clear, I'm not saying he is trying to start a cult or is trying to hoard power over people. I'm not saying Mars Hill isn't a part of the body of Christ as a faithful church. I'm merely saying Driscoll, at face value, just sent a message that sounds like the message cult leaders send (that is, don't investigate to see if my teaching is right or wrong, just listen to what I say). And remember, I'm hoping to God that he didn't mean what he said. That'd be incredibly sad and would cause me to seriously worry about the people under Driscoll's leadership. 

I just obtained my Masters of Arts in Biblical Studies. I had to take 2 years of Koine Greek classes to get that degree. I don't like Greek. In fact, I despised those classes because they got on my nerves. But I understand the value of word studies, etymology, cultural studies, and all the research that helps to better understand the biblical author's intent. This is especially true for passages that are controversial. That's what makes this statement so troubling.

Only minutes earlier Driscoll emphasized that this might be one of the most controversial passage in all of scripture for some listeners. This is a big deal, a hot button issue. This is difficult and causes tension. He admits this before he begins. He even says some people refuse to discuss the issue because it's so touchy. He makes it clear that our culture has trouble with the word "submit" and then, almost immediately, dismisses the pursuit of understanding what that word means for the author and his audience. Driscoll opts out for his own interpretation (which can't be void of word study with how much he speaks on this issue on a public level). That's beyond foolish. It's dangerous. 

However, again, I'm hoping and betting he's not truly against word study. I think he'd agree that it is good and wise to do word studies and to do everything you can to better understand the words of scripture. If all we can do is read the Bible at face value then that's fine but most of us can do far more than this and we should do far more. We should do everything we can (together) to better understand the truth of scripture as Holy Spirit leads us in our learning (and remember, God gave us study tools as well as the Spirit). I firmly believe Driscoll and I agree on this.

I won't villainize Driscoll. I'd rather assume he said something he shouldn't have said off the cuff and it was a poor choice of words to communicate what he actually meant. I pray that he clarifies and apologizes. I encourage you to study scripture and to respectfully interact with those with whom you disagree. Seek unity! Seek to understand how you might be wrong. I may be wrong about Driscoll's statement. I try to be fair but perhaps I'm not being fair enough. I don't know but I'm trying to help us all however I can, if I can, if it's needed.

And if you want, tweet @PastorMark and encourage him to clarify this confusing and dangerous statement for the sake of his ministry. Be blessed my siblings!

Birth Control for Christians Part II

Recently I picked up a book entitled Birth Control for Christians by Jenell Paris. I was going to do a blog series through the material because I was under the impression that the book would be giving a theological perspective on the various types of available birth control methods.

I was wrong.

Paris' book is highly informative about the various available forms of birth control but she doesn't give very much theological thought to any of them. A few of the methods are given a paragraph or page of light reflection on some general theological positions regarding them but that's about it. For example: It's debated whether or not certain methods can be classified as abortive. That's really all that's provided theologically.

The beginning of the book is far more informative on the theological matters of birth control. Paris provides a few historical positions of the Catholic church, which is great, but doesn't travel too far beyond the short history lesson. I was hoping to see theological argument for and against all the various methods with a short explanation of the method as a precursor to the positions. Needless to say I didn't get that. Instead, an explanation of the intricacies of each method were explained, pros and cons were listed, prices were listed, side affects both in the positive and negative were listed, and how one can obtain the method was mentioned. As stated before, there were, at times, concise mentions of theological thoughts on the method but this was a rarity. 

Though, I must mention, there is a good little bit on the pull-out method and misreadings of "the sin of Onan" which I found to be entertaining (too bad I've already studied that and written a blog on it). 

As a result of my being wrong, I won't be delving into a blog series about this book. I apologize. Sorry. However, if you're looking for a book that just says "Here's all the birth control methods and all you need to know about them outside of theological stances" then this is a fantastic choice! It's quite informative. Perhaps this is a good book to read prior to reading literature on theological positions regarding the various methods. 

So with all that, good luck on your baby making... or avoiding. Maybe Pray about it or something. I hear that helps a good amount. Also, adopting is a good idea. Just saying. If you know of books that might be more in line with what I'm looking for please let me know! Thanks and may God direct your steps as you make plans in your heart.