Why Vote If You Are Disillusioned?
October 27, 2004 — Fresh Words Edition
By John Piper
This article is a summons to vote on Tuesday, November 2, though you may be disillusioned by both presidential candidates. It is good to be dis-illusioned if the illusion is that Bush or Kerry are all they claim to be. The oversimplified positions, the cock-sure demeanor, the overweening self-assurance that these candidates display in their speeches is not what I look for in a great statesman.
There is another vision for how to lead a country. There is a kind of greatness that is possible among fallen men who know the weight of the world and how fragile humanity is. There is a seriousness that mingles humility and strength. There is a greatness that combines complexity and decisiveness. There is a moral bearing that embraces the limitations of fallibility without abdicating the responsibility of life-and-death decisions. There is a public submission to the Creator and Governor of the universe that produces a pervasive and public spirit that no mere man has the last word.
There is a statesmanship that expresses deep and humble hope that one may, under God, be of great use to one’s country. And this earnest hope, and readiness to lay down one’s life to pursue it, would inspire more confidence than the groundless assertions that the future will be as one says it will be. The promise of fallible sacrifice in the pursuit of a (merely) possible dream is more noble than the self-confident assertions of fallible fortune tellers. There is a diffidence in the face of the magnitude of leadership that signifies wisdom not weakness. In other words, there is another way for statesmen to think and to speak than we are hearing in these days.
If you would like to hear a taste of what I mean, listen to this excerpt from Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address from Saturday, March 4, 1865. The horrific war had dragged on longer than anyone dreamed or feared. Compare the demeanor of Lincoln with the self-assured demeanor of either of our presidential candidates.
Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”
Now, if you are dissatisfied today the way I am, why vote? The answer is that if you don’t, you are guilty of the very oversimplification you condemn. There is no escape from responsibility by pointing out the imperfections of leaders. That is the only kind of leaders there will ever be. Our calling in this world is not to wait for the arrival of the perfect, but to pick our way through the thicket of flaws. We would be arrogant to put ourselves above this fray and say, “A curse on both your houses.”
The Lord Jesus does not give us this luxury of disengagement. He says, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). Caesar—even pagan Caesar—has his claim on our lives. Why? Because God Almighty, whom we serve above all men, made human governments his way of running the world. “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Romans 13:1). In a democratic republic like ours that means at least: VOTE.
God has commanded us (as aliens and exiles on the earth): “Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jeremiah 29:7). We are citizens of two kingdoms: the kingdom of God, our ultimate allegiance, and the kingdom of this world. The ambiguities are many. The complexities are great. The possibility of political miscalculation is real. But Christ came into the world to save sinners. Therefore we do not panic at the possibility of error. It is worse to run than to risk. Only a fool replaces the complexity of voting with simplicity of gloating.
Pastor John
For help in being as responsible in your voting as you can, see:
Minnesota Family Institute's Voter's Guide
MyPollingSite
Featured Resource
32 New Romans Resources on CD
We invite you to come and worship through the book of Romans with us!
“There is no greater exposition of the gospel of God than the book of Romans. . . I have a deep confidence that the best way to be lastingly relevant is to stand on rock-solid, durable old truths, rather than jumping from one pragmatic bandwagon to another. Romans is as solid and durable and reliable and unshakable and thorough as the truth can get." —John Piper
Please visit our online store today to discover 32 new CD resources (more than 100 sermons) from the teaching ministry of John Piper.
Friday, October 29, 2004
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Bush Clarifies Gay Union Stance
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
STORIES
•
Gay Marriage Not Top Issue for Mass. Voters
•
Kerry Clarifies 'Lesbian' Remark
•
La. Judge Throws Out Gay Marriage Ban
•
Gay Marriage: A Campaign Wedge Issue
•
Gay GOP Group Holds Back on Bush Endorsement
writeScroll(openTab2,'2');
WASHINGTON — Some conservative groups expressed dismay Tuesday over President Bush's (search) tolerance of state-sanctioned civil unions between gay people — laws that would grant same-sex partners most or all the rights available to married couples.
"I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so," Bush said in an interview aired Tuesday on ABC. Bush acknowledged that his position put him at odds with the Republican platform, which opposes civil unions.
"I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights," said Bush, who has pressed for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (search). "States ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (search) backs civil unions for gay couples, too. He opposes gay marriage but also opposes the idea of a constitutional ban.
Some conservative organizations sharply disagreed with Bush and pressed him to seek a constitutional amendment that would ban both gay marriage and civil unions.
"Civil unions are a government endorsement of homosexuality," said Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute (search), an affiliate of Concerned Women For America. "But I don't think President Bush has thought about it in that way. He seems to be striving for neutrality while defending marriage itself."
google_ad_client = 'foxnews_440x100';google_ad_width = 440;google_ad_height = 100;google_ad_format = '440x100_pas_abgn';google_safe = 'high';
Knight said "counterfeits" of marriage, such as civil unions, "hurt the real thing."
The head of another group, the Campaign for California Families (search), said it, too, wants a sweeping constitutional amendment that bars civil unions and same-sex marriage.
"Here's the truth, civil unions are homosexual marriage by another name," said Randy Thomasson, the group's executive director. "Civil unions rob marriage of its uniqueness and award homosexuals all the rights of marriage available under state law."
"Bush needs to understand what's going on and resist counterfeit marriages with all his might no matter what they're called," Thomasson said.
But Matt Daniel, the leader of a coalition that successfully pressed for legislation that would create the constitutional ban on gay marriage, said Bush had staked out just the right position.
A federal ban on gay marriage, not on civil unions, "is the way for America to resolve this in the fairest way, the best way," said Daniel, president of the Alliance for Marriage (search). "We do indeed support the president's position."
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
STORIES
•
Gay Marriage Not Top Issue for Mass. Voters
•
Kerry Clarifies 'Lesbian' Remark
•
La. Judge Throws Out Gay Marriage Ban
•
Gay Marriage: A Campaign Wedge Issue
•
Gay GOP Group Holds Back on Bush Endorsement
writeScroll(openTab2,'2');
WASHINGTON — Some conservative groups expressed dismay Tuesday over President Bush's (search) tolerance of state-sanctioned civil unions between gay people — laws that would grant same-sex partners most or all the rights available to married couples.
"I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so," Bush said in an interview aired Tuesday on ABC. Bush acknowledged that his position put him at odds with the Republican platform, which opposes civil unions.
"I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights," said Bush, who has pressed for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (search). "States ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (search) backs civil unions for gay couples, too. He opposes gay marriage but also opposes the idea of a constitutional ban.
Some conservative organizations sharply disagreed with Bush and pressed him to seek a constitutional amendment that would ban both gay marriage and civil unions.
"Civil unions are a government endorsement of homosexuality," said Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute (search), an affiliate of Concerned Women For America. "But I don't think President Bush has thought about it in that way. He seems to be striving for neutrality while defending marriage itself."
google_ad_client = 'foxnews_440x100';google_ad_width = 440;google_ad_height = 100;google_ad_format = '440x100_pas_abgn';google_safe = 'high';
Knight said "counterfeits" of marriage, such as civil unions, "hurt the real thing."
The head of another group, the Campaign for California Families (search), said it, too, wants a sweeping constitutional amendment that bars civil unions and same-sex marriage.
"Here's the truth, civil unions are homosexual marriage by another name," said Randy Thomasson, the group's executive director. "Civil unions rob marriage of its uniqueness and award homosexuals all the rights of marriage available under state law."
"Bush needs to understand what's going on and resist counterfeit marriages with all his might no matter what they're called," Thomasson said.
But Matt Daniel, the leader of a coalition that successfully pressed for legislation that would create the constitutional ban on gay marriage, said Bush had staked out just the right position.
A federal ban on gay marriage, not on civil unions, "is the way for America to resolve this in the fairest way, the best way," said Daniel, president of the Alliance for Marriage (search). "We do indeed support the president's position."
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Ten years ago today, on October 25, 1994, in the gravel pit parking lot of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, after a long and hard struggle with what it meant to be a Christian, I bowed my head and asked Christ as my Savior. Here is the story as I told it in my testimony that I wrote last year:
“A few days later [on October 25, 1994], I hopped in my car and drove up Candler’s Mountain Road to smoke a cigarette. I had smoked off and on since I was fourteen. My mom had sent me a tape of an evangelist that had spoke at our church a few weeks ago. His name was Bailey Smith. As I listened to him speak, I finished my cigarette and I began to drive back onto the campus. As I parked my car, holy conviction fell upon me and I began to cry. The evangelist began to talk about hell and for a split second I forgot everything that I had been taught concerning salvation. For the first time in my life, I realized that I did not have what my friends had. They were living their lives for something other than the letter of the law. They were living their lives for something other than pride and they backed up what they lived. I realized that I was a sinner bound for hell and there was absolutely nothing that I could do to save myself and I listened as Bailey Smith told me the plan of salvation. I cried even harder and I prayed the sinner’s prayer. I cannot describe the after effects. Yes, I felt free, but it was so much more than that. I instantly ran into the dorms and called Rachel [my ex-girlfriend] and told her to meet me outside of her dorm. When I met her, I told her what had happened and she rejoiced with me. I went to the campus pastor’s office, but it had already closed for the day, but I was there the first thing the next morning. The night that I got saved, I told Ben, the SLD [Spiritual Life Director], and Clint [a buddy of mine]. Ben was so excited he began to run up and down the halls screaming, “Praise the Lord!” and knocking on doors. The next day, at the campus pastor’s office, I was given a book called “The Survival Kit for New Christians” and I began to read about all the basics of Christianity, things that I had heard many times before, but now relearned and applied. I look back now and it seemed so hard, but it was so necessary.”
I wanted to send out this email as a simple testimony to what God has done in my life. As I look back on the past ten years of my life, I can see the hand of God patiently guiding me through one situation after another. He has always been faithful, even when I have not. It is truly by grace alone that I am saved through faith alone; nothing I have ever done could lead me to where I am still standing in awe of His amazing grace.
“I went searchin' for some peace of mind
Out on the open road under a stormy sky
I find something that no money can buy
I find a paradise I found it in your eyes
My eyes were open when I took your hand
Without a word you made me understand
You made a hero of this simple man
You saved my lonely soul and
All this and Heaven too
Would mean nothing if it's without you
Oh, won't you tell me what did I do to Deserve all this and Heaven
I was lost wandering in the dark
You showed me the way with your Burning heart
I was drowning in a sea of doubt
Sinking in my own fear
when you Pulled me out
My eyes were open when I took your hand
You picked up the pieces of this Broken man
You led me on to the Promised Land
You saved my lonely soul and
All this and Heaven too
Would mean nothing if it's without you
Oh, won't you tell me what did I do to Deserve all.....
This and your love, You're the one That I live for
Out of the dark, into the light of your True heart
My eyes were open when I took your hand
Without a word you made me understand
You led me on to the Promised Land
You saved my lonely soul…”
Michael Sweet
“All This and Heaven Too”
Michael Sweet
Written by Michael Sweet & Gregg Fulkerson
Soli Deo Gloria!
Even these words fall short…
Forever in His love,
Dave McDowell
“A few days later [on October 25, 1994], I hopped in my car and drove up Candler’s Mountain Road to smoke a cigarette. I had smoked off and on since I was fourteen. My mom had sent me a tape of an evangelist that had spoke at our church a few weeks ago. His name was Bailey Smith. As I listened to him speak, I finished my cigarette and I began to drive back onto the campus. As I parked my car, holy conviction fell upon me and I began to cry. The evangelist began to talk about hell and for a split second I forgot everything that I had been taught concerning salvation. For the first time in my life, I realized that I did not have what my friends had. They were living their lives for something other than the letter of the law. They were living their lives for something other than pride and they backed up what they lived. I realized that I was a sinner bound for hell and there was absolutely nothing that I could do to save myself and I listened as Bailey Smith told me the plan of salvation. I cried even harder and I prayed the sinner’s prayer. I cannot describe the after effects. Yes, I felt free, but it was so much more than that. I instantly ran into the dorms and called Rachel [my ex-girlfriend] and told her to meet me outside of her dorm. When I met her, I told her what had happened and she rejoiced with me. I went to the campus pastor’s office, but it had already closed for the day, but I was there the first thing the next morning. The night that I got saved, I told Ben, the SLD [Spiritual Life Director], and Clint [a buddy of mine]. Ben was so excited he began to run up and down the halls screaming, “Praise the Lord!” and knocking on doors. The next day, at the campus pastor’s office, I was given a book called “The Survival Kit for New Christians” and I began to read about all the basics of Christianity, things that I had heard many times before, but now relearned and applied. I look back now and it seemed so hard, but it was so necessary.”
I wanted to send out this email as a simple testimony to what God has done in my life. As I look back on the past ten years of my life, I can see the hand of God patiently guiding me through one situation after another. He has always been faithful, even when I have not. It is truly by grace alone that I am saved through faith alone; nothing I have ever done could lead me to where I am still standing in awe of His amazing grace.
“I went searchin' for some peace of mind
Out on the open road under a stormy sky
I find something that no money can buy
I find a paradise I found it in your eyes
My eyes were open when I took your hand
Without a word you made me understand
You made a hero of this simple man
You saved my lonely soul and
All this and Heaven too
Would mean nothing if it's without you
Oh, won't you tell me what did I do to Deserve all this and Heaven
I was lost wandering in the dark
You showed me the way with your Burning heart
I was drowning in a sea of doubt
Sinking in my own fear
when you Pulled me out
My eyes were open when I took your hand
You picked up the pieces of this Broken man
You led me on to the Promised Land
You saved my lonely soul and
All this and Heaven too
Would mean nothing if it's without you
Oh, won't you tell me what did I do to Deserve all.....
This and your love, You're the one That I live for
Out of the dark, into the light of your True heart
My eyes were open when I took your hand
Without a word you made me understand
You led me on to the Promised Land
You saved my lonely soul…”
Michael Sweet
“All This and Heaven Too”
Michael Sweet
Written by Michael Sweet & Gregg Fulkerson
Soli Deo Gloria!
Even these words fall short…
Forever in His love,
Dave McDowell
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Using Our Gifts in Proportion to Our Faith, Part One
October 10, 2004 — Sermons Edition
By John Piper
Romans 12:1-8
I appeal to you therefore, brothers,by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world,but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. 3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. 4 For as in one body we have many members,and the members do not all have the same function, 5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. 6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; 7 if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; 8 the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads,with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.
What does the gift of prophecy refer to? How does it relate to Scripture? Is this gift to be exercised today? And how do we use it “in proportion to our faith”? Those are the questions I would like to try to answer today. We are focusing on Romans 12:6: “Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith.”
To answer most of these questions we will have to go outside Romans. Paul does not discuss the meaning of the gift of prophecy here. That is probably significant. It probably means that he assumed that teaching about spiritual gifts is part of what Christians received early in their walk with Christ. So if you have not received it, these next messages may be especially relevant.
Godly Scholars Disagree on This Issue
Good, solid, Bible-believing Christians disagree on the meaning of the New Testament gifts of prophecy. Even those who hold firmly to a very high view of Scripture as inspired and inerrant (as we do), and a fully reformed vision of God (as we do) disagree. For example, Wayne Grudem wrote a book called The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today which defends one view. Richard Gaffin wrote a book called Perspectives on Pentecost: New Testament Teaching on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit which defends a different view. So let me try to describe these views and the arguments for them and then give you my view and how we may be able to live biblically in spite of this disagreement.
One preliminary observation: be sure you don’t think of prophecy only as predictions. That is one thing a biblical prophet did, but not the only one. Prophecy is forth-telling as well as foretelling. An Old Testament prophet spoke for God, whether describing the moral condition of the people calling for repentance, or the warning of judgments to come.
Richard Gaffin
Now consider the competing interpretations of New Testament prophecy. Richard Gaffin argues that New Testament prophecy has complete divine authority and should be thought of on a par with what the apostles wrote (p. 72) as inspired and inerrant. And therefore he believes prophecy has ceased. This gift here in Romans 12:6 is not valid for today. If it were, then their prophetic words today should be written down and the New Testament would be getting larger and larger with every fresh revelation.
Wayne Grudem
On the other hand, Wayne Grudem argues that New Testament prophecy is not inspired in the same way Scripture is, and is not inerrant. Rather, it is a human report of something that God has brought spontaneously to mind. It is different from teaching in that teaching is based on a written text of Scripture, while prophecy is based on the immediate impression that God is directing our thoughts to information that we would not otherwise have known or spoken.
So, for example, it would be an exercise of the gift of prophecy if someone in a small group or prayer meeting was led by God to say, “I feel that our sister church in Shanghai is spiritually struggling and undergoing attack,” and the next day an email comes confirming that was the case, and that the prayers of the people were answered. Or it was probably the gift of prophecy when Charles Spurgeon, while preaching in London, pointed to a young man and said, “Young man, the gloves in your pocket are not paid for.” Or when he said on another occasion, “There is a man sitting there who is a shoemaker; he keeps his shop open on Sundays; it was open last Sabbath morning. He took ninepence, and there was fourpence profit on it; his soul is sold to Satan for fourpence!”1 Both these words proved true and brought repentance.
Or under this definition of the gift of prophecy it was probably the gift of prophecy last Sunday when I pointed to downtown Minneapolis and said (apart from what was in my notes), “A Bible study on the 36th floor of the IDS Tower with well-to-do business men is not mercy ministry, but it is crucial and valuable and necessary.” A woman came up to me after that service with joy in her face saying that she was visiting this morning and just that week had had a meeting with well-to-do businessmen on the 36th floor of the IDS tower about a ministry possibility and she came hoping for encouragement in the venture. She took it as an encouragement from the Lord.
Now I have already tipped my hand that I think Grudem is right about the meaning of New Testament prophecy. But I want to say here at the outset that even if he is wrong that this kind of thing is what New Testament prophecy was, the experience may still be valid, and we just should not call it the gift of prophecy. That is what Vern Poythress argues in a very helpful article in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society.2
The New Testament Evidence
So let’s look at the New Testament evidence. I am only going to point. If you want to see the full arguments then get the books by Grudem and Gaffin, or go to the DG web site and look at my series “Compassion, Power, and the Kingdom of God.” Another very helpful book is Graham Houston, Prophecy: A Gift for Today? (This is a simpler and more accessible defense of Grudem’s basic position.)
First, here are some arguments for treating the gift of prophecy as valid for today—based on something that God brings to mind, but not necessarily understood or reported infallibly.
In Acts 2:17 Peter explains the event of Pentecost by quoting the prophet Joel
And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.
So here is a statement of what the last days (our days!) will be like. It appears that prophecy will be not so much an office as a widespread experience of men and women.
In 1 Corinthians 14:1-4 Paul says to the whole church:
Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. 2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. 3 On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation [that is what the gift of prophecy is supposed to do]. 4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.
This certainly sounds like prophecy is not the prerogative a fixed group of authoritative founders of the church, but of the body in general. And the ministry of prophecy is simply described as: it upbuilds, encourages, and consoles.
1 Corinthians 14:29-32 says:
Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.
Here two crucial things are said: one is that a prophecy is based on a “revelation”. Verse 30: “If a revelation is made to another . . . let the first be silent.” This is why I say that the gift of prophecy is based on something God brings to mind. It is not exactly the same as teaching, which is based on the exposition of a text. It is based on God bringing something more immediately to mind.
But then verse 29 says, “Let the other weigh (diakrinetosan) what is said.” This is very interesting! It does not focus attention on whether the person speaking is a “true prophet” or not. It is not saying what Jesus said, “You will recognize them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:15-16). It focuses on “what is said.” And the idea is: view it with some mild skepticism. I say that because the word (weigh: diakrinetosan) regularly has that connotation. In other words, check it out, assess it. Which means that the gift of prophecy the way Paul encouraged its wide use did not have final, decisive authority. The Scriptures did. Paul’s own inspired words were decisive, not any claim to divine revelation through the gift of prophecy. “If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized” (1 Corinthians 14:37).
We find the same thing in 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21, “Do not despise prophecies, 21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.” In other words it sounds as if some of what comes by way of prophecies is good—hold fast to that—and some is not—let that go. In other words the gift of prophecy is not in the same category with Scripture. It is under Scripture and tested by Scripture, and is spiritual wisdom informed by Scripture.
In 1 Corinthians 13 Paul warns against misusing spiritual gifts in a loveless way. In verse 8-10 he says, “Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.” In the context the coming of “the perfect” is almost certainly the second coming of Christ because verse 12 says, “Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.” That will happen at the second coming of Christ. The implication then is that the partial and imperfect gifts of prophecy and tongues and knowledge will last until Christ returns.
One more observation on this view: 1 Corinthians 14:1 says to the church, “Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.” So all of us are told to earnestly desire especially to prophesy. This would not make sense, it seems to me, if the gift only applied to a limited group of men who spoke with Scripture-level authority. But it would make really good sense if prophecy were a gift that any believer could use to offer Spirit-timed insights that God brings to mind for each other’s good.
So for these reasons I am persuaded that the gift of prophecy is valid for today and is not equal with Scripture in authority but is valuable as a Spirit-guided expression of something we otherwise would not know or say, which is powerful for that particular moment and brings conviction or exhortation or consolation for the awakening or upbuilding of faith. It should not spook us as something uncontrollable, but should be treated as any claim to insight. It is fallible. It may prove true and it may not because the human channel is sinful and fallible and finite. (See Poythress, pp. 85-88 for help on this.)
Two Significant Objections
Now those who oppose this view point to at least two significant problems. And they are significant. I don’t make light of them. One comes from 1 Corinthians 12:28. There Paul lists some spiritual gifts and puts prophecy in front of teaching, after apostleship. “God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.” Why does prophecy come after apostle and before teaching, if it does not have greater authority than teaching? Good question. Answer: I don’t know. I think I could suggest some plausible guesses, but this is not the place for that. I just don’t think the mere order of these words can overthrow all the other observations we have made.
The second objection comes from Ephesians 2:20. There Paul says that the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” This doesn’t refer to Old Testament prophets, because Paul uses the same phrase a few verses later like this: “[The mystery of Christ] was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (3:5). So he seems to be saying that the authoritative foundation of the church, is the apostles and prophets. That would seem to put the New Testament gift of prophecy into the category of authoritative, foundational speech, not the category of helpful, valuable, but fallible speech.
My answer to this would be to suggest, with Graham Houston and Wayne Grudem, that the term “apostles and prophets” may refer to one group not two, namely apostles who are also prophets. Like we say, Noël is wife and mother. Not two Noël’s, but two ways of describing the one Noël. Or another example is the way Ephesians 4:11 uses the term “pastors and teachers”—not two groups but one. One group is both pastors and teachers. The upshot, then, from Ephesians 2:20 would be that the apostles who are prophets are the teaching founders of the church, with Christ himself as the cornerstone.
Those would be my answers to the objections. But I can see the problems, and feel the force of them. Some of you probably disagree with me on this. And I am sure that many of you are new to this and do not know what you think yet. We don’t need to agree on whether to call this experience “prophecy.”
Common Aims
Let’s see if we can have these common aims together even if some call it the gift of prophecy and others don’t. Let’s go back to Romans 12:6 and take up the command to use the gift of prophecy “in proportion to our faith.”
1. The Exaltation of Christ
Using the gift in proportion to our faith will mean that we use it to exalt Christ. That’s what faith does. Practically that means that as I bow my head before entering this pulpit I ask for the gift of prophecy. That is, I say (and you can say this about your small group as you are driving there), “Lord, bring to my mind thoughts and words, beyond my preparation, which will have the greatest effect for the glory of Christ. Bring to my mind applications and insights and words, besides those I have prepared, that will penetrate through hard hearts and convict, and others that will encourage and console and guide. Yes, I believe you have given me edifying insight already in my preparation. I am only now asking that to the gift of teaching you would add a gift of prophecy.” I pray that way and you can too.
2. Humility and Boldness
Using the gift in proportion to our faith means that we will use it both humbly and boldly. That is, we will not speak the prophetic word with any claim to divine authority, but with a humble claim to divine insight which we offer to be tested. But faith is not cowardly. It’s humility is not silent. It speaks. It speaks the tough or tender word. It does not say, “The Lord told me to tell you . . .”, but “I sense (or I think) that the Lord wants us (or you) to . . .” This leaves room for the testing the Bible calls for.
3. Love as the Measure of What We Say
Finally, using the gift in proportion to our faith means that we will make love the measure of what we say, because “faith works through love” (Galatians 5:6). Once a woman prophesied over me that my pregnant wife would give me a daughter not a fourth son, and that my wife would die in childbirth. That was not a helpful prophecy. It was pointless. And, as you know, it proved false. Love did not govern the use of that gift. That is not the way saving faith uses gifts.
Closing
So in closing let’s listen to that great word of Paul at the center of his discussion of spiritual gifts:
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:1-2)
“Use the gift of prophecy in proportion to your faith” means, “Use it to love and build each other up in faith to the glory of Christ.”
1 Vern Poythress, “Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit Within Cesssationist Theology,” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39/1 (March, 1996): 85.
2 Ibid.
Featured Resource
When I Don't Desire God
How to Fight for Joy
For over twenty-five years John Piper has been trumpeting the truth that “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him.” He calls it Christian Hedonism. The problem is that many people, after being persuaded, find out that this truth is both liberating and devastating. It’s liberating because it endorses our inborn desire for joy. And it’s devastating because it reveals that we don’t desire God the way we should.
When you discover the biblical truth that God commands our happiness in him, the absolutely urgent question becomes: What can I do if I don’t have it? With the heart of a pastor and with radical passion for the glory of Christ, John Piper wants to help you answer that question.
(268 Pages, Softcover)
October 10, 2004 — Sermons Edition
By John Piper
Romans 12:1-8
I appeal to you therefore, brothers,by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world,but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. 3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. 4 For as in one body we have many members,and the members do not all have the same function, 5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. 6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; 7 if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; 8 the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads,with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.
What does the gift of prophecy refer to? How does it relate to Scripture? Is this gift to be exercised today? And how do we use it “in proportion to our faith”? Those are the questions I would like to try to answer today. We are focusing on Romans 12:6: “Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith.”
To answer most of these questions we will have to go outside Romans. Paul does not discuss the meaning of the gift of prophecy here. That is probably significant. It probably means that he assumed that teaching about spiritual gifts is part of what Christians received early in their walk with Christ. So if you have not received it, these next messages may be especially relevant.
Godly Scholars Disagree on This Issue
Good, solid, Bible-believing Christians disagree on the meaning of the New Testament gifts of prophecy. Even those who hold firmly to a very high view of Scripture as inspired and inerrant (as we do), and a fully reformed vision of God (as we do) disagree. For example, Wayne Grudem wrote a book called The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today which defends one view. Richard Gaffin wrote a book called Perspectives on Pentecost: New Testament Teaching on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit which defends a different view. So let me try to describe these views and the arguments for them and then give you my view and how we may be able to live biblically in spite of this disagreement.
One preliminary observation: be sure you don’t think of prophecy only as predictions. That is one thing a biblical prophet did, but not the only one. Prophecy is forth-telling as well as foretelling. An Old Testament prophet spoke for God, whether describing the moral condition of the people calling for repentance, or the warning of judgments to come.
Richard Gaffin
Now consider the competing interpretations of New Testament prophecy. Richard Gaffin argues that New Testament prophecy has complete divine authority and should be thought of on a par with what the apostles wrote (p. 72) as inspired and inerrant. And therefore he believes prophecy has ceased. This gift here in Romans 12:6 is not valid for today. If it were, then their prophetic words today should be written down and the New Testament would be getting larger and larger with every fresh revelation.
Wayne Grudem
On the other hand, Wayne Grudem argues that New Testament prophecy is not inspired in the same way Scripture is, and is not inerrant. Rather, it is a human report of something that God has brought spontaneously to mind. It is different from teaching in that teaching is based on a written text of Scripture, while prophecy is based on the immediate impression that God is directing our thoughts to information that we would not otherwise have known or spoken.
So, for example, it would be an exercise of the gift of prophecy if someone in a small group or prayer meeting was led by God to say, “I feel that our sister church in Shanghai is spiritually struggling and undergoing attack,” and the next day an email comes confirming that was the case, and that the prayers of the people were answered. Or it was probably the gift of prophecy when Charles Spurgeon, while preaching in London, pointed to a young man and said, “Young man, the gloves in your pocket are not paid for.” Or when he said on another occasion, “There is a man sitting there who is a shoemaker; he keeps his shop open on Sundays; it was open last Sabbath morning. He took ninepence, and there was fourpence profit on it; his soul is sold to Satan for fourpence!”1 Both these words proved true and brought repentance.
Or under this definition of the gift of prophecy it was probably the gift of prophecy last Sunday when I pointed to downtown Minneapolis and said (apart from what was in my notes), “A Bible study on the 36th floor of the IDS Tower with well-to-do business men is not mercy ministry, but it is crucial and valuable and necessary.” A woman came up to me after that service with joy in her face saying that she was visiting this morning and just that week had had a meeting with well-to-do businessmen on the 36th floor of the IDS tower about a ministry possibility and she came hoping for encouragement in the venture. She took it as an encouragement from the Lord.
Now I have already tipped my hand that I think Grudem is right about the meaning of New Testament prophecy. But I want to say here at the outset that even if he is wrong that this kind of thing is what New Testament prophecy was, the experience may still be valid, and we just should not call it the gift of prophecy. That is what Vern Poythress argues in a very helpful article in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society.2
The New Testament Evidence
So let’s look at the New Testament evidence. I am only going to point. If you want to see the full arguments then get the books by Grudem and Gaffin, or go to the DG web site and look at my series “Compassion, Power, and the Kingdom of God.” Another very helpful book is Graham Houston, Prophecy: A Gift for Today? (This is a simpler and more accessible defense of Grudem’s basic position.)
First, here are some arguments for treating the gift of prophecy as valid for today—based on something that God brings to mind, but not necessarily understood or reported infallibly.
In Acts 2:17 Peter explains the event of Pentecost by quoting the prophet Joel
And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.
So here is a statement of what the last days (our days!) will be like. It appears that prophecy will be not so much an office as a widespread experience of men and women.
In 1 Corinthians 14:1-4 Paul says to the whole church:
Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. 2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. 3 On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation [that is what the gift of prophecy is supposed to do]. 4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.
This certainly sounds like prophecy is not the prerogative a fixed group of authoritative founders of the church, but of the body in general. And the ministry of prophecy is simply described as: it upbuilds, encourages, and consoles.
1 Corinthians 14:29-32 says:
Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.
Here two crucial things are said: one is that a prophecy is based on a “revelation”. Verse 30: “If a revelation is made to another . . . let the first be silent.” This is why I say that the gift of prophecy is based on something God brings to mind. It is not exactly the same as teaching, which is based on the exposition of a text. It is based on God bringing something more immediately to mind.
But then verse 29 says, “Let the other weigh (diakrinetosan) what is said.” This is very interesting! It does not focus attention on whether the person speaking is a “true prophet” or not. It is not saying what Jesus said, “You will recognize them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:15-16). It focuses on “what is said.” And the idea is: view it with some mild skepticism. I say that because the word (weigh: diakrinetosan) regularly has that connotation. In other words, check it out, assess it. Which means that the gift of prophecy the way Paul encouraged its wide use did not have final, decisive authority. The Scriptures did. Paul’s own inspired words were decisive, not any claim to divine revelation through the gift of prophecy. “If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized” (1 Corinthians 14:37).
We find the same thing in 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21, “Do not despise prophecies, 21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.” In other words it sounds as if some of what comes by way of prophecies is good—hold fast to that—and some is not—let that go. In other words the gift of prophecy is not in the same category with Scripture. It is under Scripture and tested by Scripture, and is spiritual wisdom informed by Scripture.
In 1 Corinthians 13 Paul warns against misusing spiritual gifts in a loveless way. In verse 8-10 he says, “Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.” In the context the coming of “the perfect” is almost certainly the second coming of Christ because verse 12 says, “Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.” That will happen at the second coming of Christ. The implication then is that the partial and imperfect gifts of prophecy and tongues and knowledge will last until Christ returns.
One more observation on this view: 1 Corinthians 14:1 says to the church, “Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.” So all of us are told to earnestly desire especially to prophesy. This would not make sense, it seems to me, if the gift only applied to a limited group of men who spoke with Scripture-level authority. But it would make really good sense if prophecy were a gift that any believer could use to offer Spirit-timed insights that God brings to mind for each other’s good.
So for these reasons I am persuaded that the gift of prophecy is valid for today and is not equal with Scripture in authority but is valuable as a Spirit-guided expression of something we otherwise would not know or say, which is powerful for that particular moment and brings conviction or exhortation or consolation for the awakening or upbuilding of faith. It should not spook us as something uncontrollable, but should be treated as any claim to insight. It is fallible. It may prove true and it may not because the human channel is sinful and fallible and finite. (See Poythress, pp. 85-88 for help on this.)
Two Significant Objections
Now those who oppose this view point to at least two significant problems. And they are significant. I don’t make light of them. One comes from 1 Corinthians 12:28. There Paul lists some spiritual gifts and puts prophecy in front of teaching, after apostleship. “God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.” Why does prophecy come after apostle and before teaching, if it does not have greater authority than teaching? Good question. Answer: I don’t know. I think I could suggest some plausible guesses, but this is not the place for that. I just don’t think the mere order of these words can overthrow all the other observations we have made.
The second objection comes from Ephesians 2:20. There Paul says that the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” This doesn’t refer to Old Testament prophets, because Paul uses the same phrase a few verses later like this: “[The mystery of Christ] was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (3:5). So he seems to be saying that the authoritative foundation of the church, is the apostles and prophets. That would seem to put the New Testament gift of prophecy into the category of authoritative, foundational speech, not the category of helpful, valuable, but fallible speech.
My answer to this would be to suggest, with Graham Houston and Wayne Grudem, that the term “apostles and prophets” may refer to one group not two, namely apostles who are also prophets. Like we say, Noël is wife and mother. Not two Noël’s, but two ways of describing the one Noël. Or another example is the way Ephesians 4:11 uses the term “pastors and teachers”—not two groups but one. One group is both pastors and teachers. The upshot, then, from Ephesians 2:20 would be that the apostles who are prophets are the teaching founders of the church, with Christ himself as the cornerstone.
Those would be my answers to the objections. But I can see the problems, and feel the force of them. Some of you probably disagree with me on this. And I am sure that many of you are new to this and do not know what you think yet. We don’t need to agree on whether to call this experience “prophecy.”
Common Aims
Let’s see if we can have these common aims together even if some call it the gift of prophecy and others don’t. Let’s go back to Romans 12:6 and take up the command to use the gift of prophecy “in proportion to our faith.”
1. The Exaltation of Christ
Using the gift in proportion to our faith will mean that we use it to exalt Christ. That’s what faith does. Practically that means that as I bow my head before entering this pulpit I ask for the gift of prophecy. That is, I say (and you can say this about your small group as you are driving there), “Lord, bring to my mind thoughts and words, beyond my preparation, which will have the greatest effect for the glory of Christ. Bring to my mind applications and insights and words, besides those I have prepared, that will penetrate through hard hearts and convict, and others that will encourage and console and guide. Yes, I believe you have given me edifying insight already in my preparation. I am only now asking that to the gift of teaching you would add a gift of prophecy.” I pray that way and you can too.
2. Humility and Boldness
Using the gift in proportion to our faith means that we will use it both humbly and boldly. That is, we will not speak the prophetic word with any claim to divine authority, but with a humble claim to divine insight which we offer to be tested. But faith is not cowardly. It’s humility is not silent. It speaks. It speaks the tough or tender word. It does not say, “The Lord told me to tell you . . .”, but “I sense (or I think) that the Lord wants us (or you) to . . .” This leaves room for the testing the Bible calls for.
3. Love as the Measure of What We Say
Finally, using the gift in proportion to our faith means that we will make love the measure of what we say, because “faith works through love” (Galatians 5:6). Once a woman prophesied over me that my pregnant wife would give me a daughter not a fourth son, and that my wife would die in childbirth. That was not a helpful prophecy. It was pointless. And, as you know, it proved false. Love did not govern the use of that gift. That is not the way saving faith uses gifts.
Closing
So in closing let’s listen to that great word of Paul at the center of his discussion of spiritual gifts:
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:1-2)
“Use the gift of prophecy in proportion to your faith” means, “Use it to love and build each other up in faith to the glory of Christ.”
1 Vern Poythress, “Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit Within Cesssationist Theology,” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39/1 (March, 1996): 85.
2 Ibid.
Featured Resource
When I Don't Desire God
How to Fight for Joy
For over twenty-five years John Piper has been trumpeting the truth that “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him.” He calls it Christian Hedonism. The problem is that many people, after being persuaded, find out that this truth is both liberating and devastating. It’s liberating because it endorses our inborn desire for joy. And it’s devastating because it reveals that we don’t desire God the way we should.
When you discover the biblical truth that God commands our happiness in him, the absolutely urgent question becomes: What can I do if I don’t have it? With the heart of a pastor and with radical passion for the glory of Christ, John Piper wants to help you answer that question.
(268 Pages, Softcover)
Friday, October 08, 2004
Rodney Dangerfield dead at 82
Rodney Dangerfield one-liners
Wednesday, October 6, 2004 Posted: 8:35 AM EDT (1235 GMT)
(AP) -- A sampling of comedian Rodney Dangerfield's one-liners:
Oct. 5, 2004, Joke of the Day on Dangerfield's Web site:
* "I tell ya I get no respect from anyone. I bought a cemetery plot. The guy said, 'There goes the neighborhood!' "
* * * * *
* "When I was born, I was so ugly that the doctor slapped my mother."
* "When I started in show business, I played one club that was so far out, my act was reviewed in Field and Stream."
* "Every time I get in an elevator, the operator says the same thing to me: 'Basement?' "
* "When my parents got divorced, there was a custody fight over me. ... and no one showed up."
* "I never got girls when I was a kid. One girl told me, 'Come on over, there's nobody home.' I went over. There was nobody home."
* "When I was 3 years old, my parents got a dog. I was jealous of the dog, so they got rid of me."
* "When we got married, the first thing my wife did was put everything under both names -- hers and her mother's."
* "With my wife, I don't get no respect. The other night there was a knock on the front door. My wife told me to hide in the closet."
* "With my wife, I get no respect. I fell asleep with a cigarette in my hand. She lit it."
Rodney Dangerfield one-liners
Wednesday, October 6, 2004 Posted: 8:35 AM EDT (1235 GMT)
(AP) -- A sampling of comedian Rodney Dangerfield's one-liners:
Oct. 5, 2004, Joke of the Day on Dangerfield's Web site:
* "I tell ya I get no respect from anyone. I bought a cemetery plot. The guy said, 'There goes the neighborhood!' "
* * * * *
* "When I was born, I was so ugly that the doctor slapped my mother."
* "When I started in show business, I played one club that was so far out, my act was reviewed in Field and Stream."
* "Every time I get in an elevator, the operator says the same thing to me: 'Basement?' "
* "When my parents got divorced, there was a custody fight over me. ... and no one showed up."
* "I never got girls when I was a kid. One girl told me, 'Come on over, there's nobody home.' I went over. There was nobody home."
* "When I was 3 years old, my parents got a dog. I was jealous of the dog, so they got rid of me."
* "When we got married, the first thing my wife did was put everything under both names -- hers and her mother's."
* "With my wife, I don't get no respect. The other night there was a knock on the front door. My wife told me to hide in the closet."
* "With my wife, I get no respect. I fell asleep with a cigarette in my hand. She lit it."
Thursday, October 07, 2004
A unnamed short story...at least not yet.
As I stood in my office and looked over the city, I had no idea what was about to walk through the door or that my life would be forever changed. When I heard the door- frame split open from the battering ram, I jumped so high that my coffee flew from my mug and on to the windowpane. The next thing I knew, I was on my face with a knee in my back.
The country had indeed gone mad. After the terrorists had taken out a large portion of the Pentagon the day before the national election with a large truck bomb, the same portion that had been rebuilt after September 11th, the Presidential election was declared void. South Carolina, a long-time hotbed of conservative patriotism and already upset about the failure of the federal marriage amendment, decided that they had had enough and succeeded from the United States. That started a chain reaction of states leaving the U.S. in an effort to retain their own state sovereignty. The President, a lame duck one because of the election, was helpless to solve the problem. Rioting began in Washington D.C. and the Capitol building burned.
That morning, I stood in my Virginia office and watched CNN show the horrible pictures. I called my wife and made sure she was safe. She was on her way back to our Alexandria home after being turned away by the Virginia National Guard who had been called out last night when the rioting started and after Virginia had announced it’s decision to abandon the the United States through succession. That’s when it happened. There was an explosion across the street. It shook the five-story office building I kept my office in. I rushed to the window to a shocking sight. Soldiers rushed into the building. I overheard CNN saying something about citizens in Virginia being kidnapped when the door to my office came crashing in.
I was rushed away with a hood over my head. I overheard men talking of “dirty lawyers” and “mouthpieces.” The radio in the vehicle was on and it was squawking about a break-in at the Department of Justice where some important paperwork had been stolen including the names and addresses of some of the attorneys that worked for the government. I knew that I was on that list.
When I graduated from the University of North Carolina with a degree in English, I had considered entering seminary. I had returned to my faith as a Christian during my freshman year in college and had been devout since that time. I had became a Christian as a child, but had some issues in high school that caused me to rethink some things and go another route, but I shortly returned. As I considered Seminary, I decided that my skills would be of better use in the legal field. I entered law school an idealistic person who soon discovered why many lawyers are alcoholics. When I graduated from law school and passed the bar, it seemed I had all but abandoned my religious ideals in favor of some form of existentialism. I became a tough government lawyer who was far more beaurocratic than democratic and had grown so tired of the system that I had learned how to abuse it and did it with pleasure. You would have thought that my disdain for the govermental justice system would have made me happy that the Capitol burned and my world and the culture around me were falling apart. It did not. I was scared and now, as I was in the back of a van headed somewhere that I believed could not be pleasant, I was questioning decision upon decision that I had made in the past ten years.
I was taken to a warehouse that appeared to be vacant. I was shoved in a room and hit a few times. Finally, I was sat in a hard chair and a voice said to me, “Have you been doing work regarding the Patriots?” I knew from my job that the Patriots were a group of right-wing Southern men who were instrumental in securing the South Carolina succession vote. They started shortly after September 11th and began very conservatively, but quickly grew violent. The ringleader was a local Carolina mayor named Peter Henderson who at one time in the 90’s had threatened to have his town succeed from the state. He was a quick separatist, but a dynamic speaker. He was like Hitler’s Bizarro. It was suspected that they had ties to overseas terrorist organizations and may have been responsible for the Pentagon bombing.
In a quick moment, I registered that if the country were to pull through this and if I had cooperated with the Patriots, I could be tried for treason. But I also realized, just in that split moment, that I seemed to have lost faith in the system anyway. Did it really matter if I betrayed a country that I was growing to hate?
Hate.
Did I really hate my country? If I did, when did I become so comfortable with that word? I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church and I was taught the basics of Christianity: to love God, to love your neighbor, and to love your country. After high school, I had thought seriously about joining the Army and thought about it again seriously before I entered law school. After September 11th, it was out of the question. I had lost my idealism of how wonderful it would be to fight for my country. I didn’t want to argue cases for the government, let alone fight, and maybe die, for my country.
However, the patriotism was clinging to me as I fought for an answer to my dilemma, the answer that would determine whether or not I would answer them in regards as to the nature of my work. “Yes, I have done work regarding the Patriots,” I finally said.
“What do you know about Peter Henderson?” a second voice asked me.
“I know he’s the leader of the Patriots and I know about his political background,” I replied.
“Why was Peter Henderson placed on the list?” the first voice asked me.
By “the list” he was referring to a watch list that the Department of Homeland Security unofficially had. The people on this list were watched very closely and, thanks to the Patriot Act of 2001, could be bugged and listened to.
“He was placed on the list because of the speech at Bob Jones.” Bob Jones University had invited Henderson to speak when they learned of his fervent patriotism. However, the university was very embarrassed when Henderson suggested in his speech that the best way to change the direction of the country was revolution. After they were nice to his face and got him off campus as quickly as possible, they did their spin thing and tried to distance themselves from him. In the end, the university became extremely embarrassed because of the situation and retreated further into their fundamentalist solitude in order to stay away from the bad press.
After Henderson was placed on the list, the Patriots were on there too. Henderson could not travel without being under heavy surveillance. Not long after this, there was an assassination attempt on the South Carolina Governor’s life. The attempt was a failure and one of Henderson’s henchmen was seen nearby. Colombia police had arrested him and released him when they could not get enough evidence to arrest him. However, the sensed, and rightly so, that Henderson and the Patriots were behind the assassination attempt and they employed the help of the U.S. Government to help in the investigation. Henderson’s name came across my desk when I was asked to prepare a report on him and the Patriots. From my understanding of the case, the Colombia police almost had enough information to re-arrest Henderson’s henchmen and even Henderson himself and possibly other high-ranking members of the Patriots when the Pentagon bombing occurred.
“What else do you know?” one of the men asked. I prayed a quick prayer of help before I answered. “God,” I said in my prayer, “If you will help me out of this, I will start to pray again.”
“I will give you all the information you want, but I want one thing first,”
“What?” a man said gruffly.
“Please take off my hood so I can talk to you face to face.” There was a long pause and then I felt my hood being ripped off. At first, the light blinded me, but when my eyes adjusted I saw that I was in a room with simply a chair and a table. There were two men in the room with me. Both appeared to be blue-collar working guys.
“Are you guys with the Patriots?” I asked.
“Answer our question first,” they said. I related to them all that I knew. I seemed to have peace with revealing it. As I said it, I knew that no matter what happened, my career as a government lawyer was over. Even if I was never caught, I would never step foot inside a U.S. Government facility as an employee.
“Yes, we are with the Patriots, but we did not bomb the Pentagon.”
“Were you behind the gubernatorial assassination attempt?” I asked. One of the men looked at the other as if to ask if she should say it or not. “Go ahead and tell him, Dan. He’s already committed treason.”
Dan answered, “Yes, and it was the dumbest thing we’ve ever done. Henderson talked us into it. He said that the governor would never support succession and we needed to eliminate him.”
“Look guys, I’m on your side, really,” I said. “I hate the system, but assassination is not the answer. You’re just going to draw undue attention to yourselves.”
“What do you suggest then, lawyer boy?” the unidentified man said to me with sarcasm.
“Honestly, I don’t know, but you can’t murder someone. Maybe ya’ll were on the right path. If you don’t agree, succeed. But you can’t just go around killing people because they’re in your way.” The unidentified man hit me…hard. I fell back out of my chair. “Rex, man, what are you doing?” I heard Dan say.
“Stupid lawyer deserved it,” Rex said.
“Man, he just told us all we wanted to know, and you went and hit him. Now, he probably won’t tell us no more.”
“I will tell you all you want to know,” I said, “As long as you pick me up, put me back on the chair, and promise not to hit me again.”
Dan picked me back up and sat me upright. “Sorry, man,” he said.
“Don’t worry about it,” I responded.
“What do you know about the bombing?” Rex asked.
“Only that the government thinks the Patriots did it,” I said.
“Have they even looked at the possibility of anyone else?” Rex asked.
“I’m not sure they has time. Chaos broke out right after the bombing. And then the succession. They’ve been pretty busy trying to keep the country together.”
“I think we’re done with you, man,” Rex sneered. I did not know what that meant, but I really hoped that it did not mean the end of my life.
“Stay here,” Rex said. “If you try to leave, we will kill you.” Rex and Dan walked out the door.
I sat there and for the first time thought about my wife. What would she think when I didn’t come home? Is she ok? What time is it? I heard a vehicle start and speed away. Was it Rex and Dan leaving? Am I the only one here? I listened intently for what felt like an hour until I was sure there was no one else there. I began to rub the duct tape that my hands had been bound by on a sharp part of the chair that I had found. After just a few minutes, my hands were free. I unbound my feet and walked as silently as I could to the door. “Ok God,” I prayed, “Get me out of here and home to my wife and I will go to church again, I swear it.” I opened the door just a crack and peaked out. It was a warehouse, maybe more like a garage. When I finally made sure there was no one else there, I opened the door and walked out. Remembering my watch I glanced at it. 3:23pm. My cell phone was gone so I could not call her.
I ran down the street until I saw a church. Remembering my promise, I walked in the church. It was empty. I walked to the front of the church and the altar. It was then that the full weight of what had happened to me sank in. I could have died. I fell to my knees and began to pray yet again. “Oh God, I’ve wasted it!” I sobbed. Trying to collect myself, I looked up…and into the face of the very old picture of Christ that had been placed behind the pulpit of the church. “Jesus,” I said. “I remember you.”
I closed my eyes and drifted back to the tiny Baptist church that my family had attended when I was a child. I remembered my wrinkled, old, Sunday School teacher holding a well-used and worn Bible showing me how to receive Jesus as my Savior. “Do you believe?” she asked. “I believe,” I said.
“I believe,” I said again, out loud as I knelt at the altar. I collapsed into myself again, “Please save me, Jesus. I believe in you.”
As I collected myself, I got back on my feet. I was different. It was much different than my realization in the warehouse that I would never be a government lawyer again. I ran up the aisle and back out of the church. I hailed a cab and told him to get me home. I was going to get my wife and we were getting out of Virginia.
I arrived home to very relieved wife. She had heard about the kidnappings and she agreed after I relayed my warehouse story that we had to get out of town. We grabbed the sedan we drove, threw a few days worth of clothes in a bag and tried to leave the city. Apparently, we were not the only ones that had this idea. The expressways were packed. They were blocked going north because the city had been shut down. Everyone seemed to want to go south or west. I counted on south and I got off the expressway because they simply weren’t moving.
According to the one radio station that we could get, the Capitol building continued to burn and the rioting and looting continued in the city. North Carolina had decided to succeed while I was being held in the warehouse. As I drove along the secondary two-lane road, I reached over and grabbed my wife’s hand. “Honey, there’s something else I need to tell you about that happened to me between the warehouse and home…”
As I stood in my office and looked over the city, I had no idea what was about to walk through the door or that my life would be forever changed. When I heard the door- frame split open from the battering ram, I jumped so high that my coffee flew from my mug and on to the windowpane. The next thing I knew, I was on my face with a knee in my back.
The country had indeed gone mad. After the terrorists had taken out a large portion of the Pentagon the day before the national election with a large truck bomb, the same portion that had been rebuilt after September 11th, the Presidential election was declared void. South Carolina, a long-time hotbed of conservative patriotism and already upset about the failure of the federal marriage amendment, decided that they had had enough and succeeded from the United States. That started a chain reaction of states leaving the U.S. in an effort to retain their own state sovereignty. The President, a lame duck one because of the election, was helpless to solve the problem. Rioting began in Washington D.C. and the Capitol building burned.
That morning, I stood in my Virginia office and watched CNN show the horrible pictures. I called my wife and made sure she was safe. She was on her way back to our Alexandria home after being turned away by the Virginia National Guard who had been called out last night when the rioting started and after Virginia had announced it’s decision to abandon the the United States through succession. That’s when it happened. There was an explosion across the street. It shook the five-story office building I kept my office in. I rushed to the window to a shocking sight. Soldiers rushed into the building. I overheard CNN saying something about citizens in Virginia being kidnapped when the door to my office came crashing in.
I was rushed away with a hood over my head. I overheard men talking of “dirty lawyers” and “mouthpieces.” The radio in the vehicle was on and it was squawking about a break-in at the Department of Justice where some important paperwork had been stolen including the names and addresses of some of the attorneys that worked for the government. I knew that I was on that list.
When I graduated from the University of North Carolina with a degree in English, I had considered entering seminary. I had returned to my faith as a Christian during my freshman year in college and had been devout since that time. I had became a Christian as a child, but had some issues in high school that caused me to rethink some things and go another route, but I shortly returned. As I considered Seminary, I decided that my skills would be of better use in the legal field. I entered law school an idealistic person who soon discovered why many lawyers are alcoholics. When I graduated from law school and passed the bar, it seemed I had all but abandoned my religious ideals in favor of some form of existentialism. I became a tough government lawyer who was far more beaurocratic than democratic and had grown so tired of the system that I had learned how to abuse it and did it with pleasure. You would have thought that my disdain for the govermental justice system would have made me happy that the Capitol burned and my world and the culture around me were falling apart. It did not. I was scared and now, as I was in the back of a van headed somewhere that I believed could not be pleasant, I was questioning decision upon decision that I had made in the past ten years.
I was taken to a warehouse that appeared to be vacant. I was shoved in a room and hit a few times. Finally, I was sat in a hard chair and a voice said to me, “Have you been doing work regarding the Patriots?” I knew from my job that the Patriots were a group of right-wing Southern men who were instrumental in securing the South Carolina succession vote. They started shortly after September 11th and began very conservatively, but quickly grew violent. The ringleader was a local Carolina mayor named Peter Henderson who at one time in the 90’s had threatened to have his town succeed from the state. He was a quick separatist, but a dynamic speaker. He was like Hitler’s Bizarro. It was suspected that they had ties to overseas terrorist organizations and may have been responsible for the Pentagon bombing.
In a quick moment, I registered that if the country were to pull through this and if I had cooperated with the Patriots, I could be tried for treason. But I also realized, just in that split moment, that I seemed to have lost faith in the system anyway. Did it really matter if I betrayed a country that I was growing to hate?
Hate.
Did I really hate my country? If I did, when did I become so comfortable with that word? I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church and I was taught the basics of Christianity: to love God, to love your neighbor, and to love your country. After high school, I had thought seriously about joining the Army and thought about it again seriously before I entered law school. After September 11th, it was out of the question. I had lost my idealism of how wonderful it would be to fight for my country. I didn’t want to argue cases for the government, let alone fight, and maybe die, for my country.
However, the patriotism was clinging to me as I fought for an answer to my dilemma, the answer that would determine whether or not I would answer them in regards as to the nature of my work. “Yes, I have done work regarding the Patriots,” I finally said.
“What do you know about Peter Henderson?” a second voice asked me.
“I know he’s the leader of the Patriots and I know about his political background,” I replied.
“Why was Peter Henderson placed on the list?” the first voice asked me.
By “the list” he was referring to a watch list that the Department of Homeland Security unofficially had. The people on this list were watched very closely and, thanks to the Patriot Act of 2001, could be bugged and listened to.
“He was placed on the list because of the speech at Bob Jones.” Bob Jones University had invited Henderson to speak when they learned of his fervent patriotism. However, the university was very embarrassed when Henderson suggested in his speech that the best way to change the direction of the country was revolution. After they were nice to his face and got him off campus as quickly as possible, they did their spin thing and tried to distance themselves from him. In the end, the university became extremely embarrassed because of the situation and retreated further into their fundamentalist solitude in order to stay away from the bad press.
After Henderson was placed on the list, the Patriots were on there too. Henderson could not travel without being under heavy surveillance. Not long after this, there was an assassination attempt on the South Carolina Governor’s life. The attempt was a failure and one of Henderson’s henchmen was seen nearby. Colombia police had arrested him and released him when they could not get enough evidence to arrest him. However, the sensed, and rightly so, that Henderson and the Patriots were behind the assassination attempt and they employed the help of the U.S. Government to help in the investigation. Henderson’s name came across my desk when I was asked to prepare a report on him and the Patriots. From my understanding of the case, the Colombia police almost had enough information to re-arrest Henderson’s henchmen and even Henderson himself and possibly other high-ranking members of the Patriots when the Pentagon bombing occurred.
“What else do you know?” one of the men asked. I prayed a quick prayer of help before I answered. “God,” I said in my prayer, “If you will help me out of this, I will start to pray again.”
“I will give you all the information you want, but I want one thing first,”
“What?” a man said gruffly.
“Please take off my hood so I can talk to you face to face.” There was a long pause and then I felt my hood being ripped off. At first, the light blinded me, but when my eyes adjusted I saw that I was in a room with simply a chair and a table. There were two men in the room with me. Both appeared to be blue-collar working guys.
“Are you guys with the Patriots?” I asked.
“Answer our question first,” they said. I related to them all that I knew. I seemed to have peace with revealing it. As I said it, I knew that no matter what happened, my career as a government lawyer was over. Even if I was never caught, I would never step foot inside a U.S. Government facility as an employee.
“Yes, we are with the Patriots, but we did not bomb the Pentagon.”
“Were you behind the gubernatorial assassination attempt?” I asked. One of the men looked at the other as if to ask if she should say it or not. “Go ahead and tell him, Dan. He’s already committed treason.”
Dan answered, “Yes, and it was the dumbest thing we’ve ever done. Henderson talked us into it. He said that the governor would never support succession and we needed to eliminate him.”
“Look guys, I’m on your side, really,” I said. “I hate the system, but assassination is not the answer. You’re just going to draw undue attention to yourselves.”
“What do you suggest then, lawyer boy?” the unidentified man said to me with sarcasm.
“Honestly, I don’t know, but you can’t murder someone. Maybe ya’ll were on the right path. If you don’t agree, succeed. But you can’t just go around killing people because they’re in your way.” The unidentified man hit me…hard. I fell back out of my chair. “Rex, man, what are you doing?” I heard Dan say.
“Stupid lawyer deserved it,” Rex said.
“Man, he just told us all we wanted to know, and you went and hit him. Now, he probably won’t tell us no more.”
“I will tell you all you want to know,” I said, “As long as you pick me up, put me back on the chair, and promise not to hit me again.”
Dan picked me back up and sat me upright. “Sorry, man,” he said.
“Don’t worry about it,” I responded.
“What do you know about the bombing?” Rex asked.
“Only that the government thinks the Patriots did it,” I said.
“Have they even looked at the possibility of anyone else?” Rex asked.
“I’m not sure they has time. Chaos broke out right after the bombing. And then the succession. They’ve been pretty busy trying to keep the country together.”
“I think we’re done with you, man,” Rex sneered. I did not know what that meant, but I really hoped that it did not mean the end of my life.
“Stay here,” Rex said. “If you try to leave, we will kill you.” Rex and Dan walked out the door.
I sat there and for the first time thought about my wife. What would she think when I didn’t come home? Is she ok? What time is it? I heard a vehicle start and speed away. Was it Rex and Dan leaving? Am I the only one here? I listened intently for what felt like an hour until I was sure there was no one else there. I began to rub the duct tape that my hands had been bound by on a sharp part of the chair that I had found. After just a few minutes, my hands were free. I unbound my feet and walked as silently as I could to the door. “Ok God,” I prayed, “Get me out of here and home to my wife and I will go to church again, I swear it.” I opened the door just a crack and peaked out. It was a warehouse, maybe more like a garage. When I finally made sure there was no one else there, I opened the door and walked out. Remembering my watch I glanced at it. 3:23pm. My cell phone was gone so I could not call her.
I ran down the street until I saw a church. Remembering my promise, I walked in the church. It was empty. I walked to the front of the church and the altar. It was then that the full weight of what had happened to me sank in. I could have died. I fell to my knees and began to pray yet again. “Oh God, I’ve wasted it!” I sobbed. Trying to collect myself, I looked up…and into the face of the very old picture of Christ that had been placed behind the pulpit of the church. “Jesus,” I said. “I remember you.”
I closed my eyes and drifted back to the tiny Baptist church that my family had attended when I was a child. I remembered my wrinkled, old, Sunday School teacher holding a well-used and worn Bible showing me how to receive Jesus as my Savior. “Do you believe?” she asked. “I believe,” I said.
“I believe,” I said again, out loud as I knelt at the altar. I collapsed into myself again, “Please save me, Jesus. I believe in you.”
As I collected myself, I got back on my feet. I was different. It was much different than my realization in the warehouse that I would never be a government lawyer again. I ran up the aisle and back out of the church. I hailed a cab and told him to get me home. I was going to get my wife and we were getting out of Virginia.
I arrived home to very relieved wife. She had heard about the kidnappings and she agreed after I relayed my warehouse story that we had to get out of town. We grabbed the sedan we drove, threw a few days worth of clothes in a bag and tried to leave the city. Apparently, we were not the only ones that had this idea. The expressways were packed. They were blocked going north because the city had been shut down. Everyone seemed to want to go south or west. I counted on south and I got off the expressway because they simply weren’t moving.
According to the one radio station that we could get, the Capitol building continued to burn and the rioting and looting continued in the city. North Carolina had decided to succeed while I was being held in the warehouse. As I drove along the secondary two-lane road, I reached over and grabbed my wife’s hand. “Honey, there’s something else I need to tell you about that happened to me between the warehouse and home…”
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Some more thoughts from a friend of mine...
Someone asked me why I thought that the divorce rate in the American Church is not significantly different from the rest of society. Below are some of the reasons why I think that this is so.
ONE:In my view the single greatest problem in the American church is the loss of the eternal perspective: there really are two places, one called heaven, the other called hell, and every human being is going to spend eternity in one place or the other. Heaven is so wonderful that we cannot comprehend its value this side of being there. Hell is so dreadful that no matter what it takes to avoid it, it is worth it. There is no one in hell who would not barter all he had owned in this world to be given an opportunity to exchange his current estate with that of anyone alive on earth, even in the worst possible circumstances: a woman being raped, a man being tortured, a convict in the worst prison in the world. As our Lord put it: “If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.” (Matthew 5:29, 30.)
TWO:The second problem, not unrelated to the first, is what is often called “easy-believism.” Whether we are dealing with the “walk an aisle, say a prayer and never doubt that you’re eternally secure” version, or whether it is teaching people that they should never question their salvation as long as they have been baptized and are members in good standing of a local church, we are dealing with the same destructive phenomenon: carnal presumption. While the Bible clearly and unequivocally teaches that God declares a person as righteous through faith alone, the Bible also clearly and unequivocally teaches that real faith is always accompanied by a changed life, as the little Sunday School ditty puts it: “If you’re saved and you know it, then your life will surely show it.” The Apostle Paul put it this way: “For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them.” (Ephesians 5:5-7.)And Saint John said: “Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.” (1 John 3:7-10.)The Church-Growth movement tends (thank God, not always) not to emphasize sin and grace but puts the focus on Jesus as a kind of self-help guru. “You can be a more successful business person with Jesus alongside you, helping you out” sells a whole lot better to unconverted people than does “You deserve nothing less than eternal damnation in hell. You must repent of your sins and cast yourself on God’s mercy in Jesus Christ.”I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of the members of America’s churches are lost and on their way to hell.
THREE:The third problem is a failure to take seriously that there are consequences to deliberate sin in this life, we do, indeed, reap what we sow: “If the righteous receive their due on earth, how much more the ungodly and the sinner!” (Proverbs 11:31.) Sexual sin is singled out in Scripture as a particularly egregious offense that calls down a “supernatural” phenomenon, the curse. This is seen so clearly in many places in Proverbs, particularly 5:3-23; 6:23-35; 7:4-27. Over and over again, I have seen Hebrews 13:4 literally carried out in people’s lives in this world: “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.”
FOUR:The fourth problem is a failure to press home the authority of Scripture alone over every area of life. As long as the Bible is simply a useful book alongside many other authoritative resources, people will never follow biblical standards with regard to the sanctity and permanence of marriage when the chips are down. People can concoct the damnedest excuses to bail out of a marriage that they no longer find emotionally fulfilling, and I am reminded of the wisdom of our Puritan and Presbyterian forefathers when they wrote:“Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage: wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case.” (WCF, XXIV, vi.)
Under this heading one should consider the terrible toll that much pop-psychology has taken on people’s lives, both in terms of individuals no longer taking responsibility for their own actions and in their bailing out of difficult marriages for dubious reasons, utterly lacking divine approval. Oftentimes authors with little or no scientific verification pontificate authoritatively and give people justification to disobey God. The Church must both stand against such disobedience and be a pillar of support to people pressed down with life’s burdens.
FIVE:The fifth problem is connected to the fourth: the failure of the American church to practice discipline even in the most severe cases. Many passages teach that if sin is not quickly dealt with it will spread to others: e.g. Deuteronomy 13:11; 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21, 24; 24:7. Saint Paul instructs: “Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.” (1 Timothy 5:20.)
SIX:The sixth problem is the pandemic of a personality disorder, narcissism—not in the absolute, scientific sense of how that term is used, but in the profoundly self-centered approach to life that is all around us. This grows out of the previous four problems, to be sure, but life in modern America, including the American church, is “all about me”—my significance, my self-worth, my self-esteem—“The music left me empty this morning.”
SEVEN:The seventh problem, growing out of the sixth and suggested by my friend Chris Poe after reading my original list, has to do with ‘over-inflated ideas concerning romance, romantic love, finding your “soul-mate.”’
Nothing is more destructive to two people building a solid, lasting and loving marriage than the notion that there is only one special person in the world for each of us, and only when we have finally found that unique person will we know true and lasting love. Twentieth century American films and songs helped to engrain this destructive approach to love in the Western psyche:
“Maybe I’m old fashioned, feeling as I doMaybe I am living in the pastBut when I meet the right oneI know that I’ll be trueMy first love will be the last“When I fall in love it will be foreverOr I’ll never fall in loveIn a restless world like this isLove is ended before it beganAnd too many moonlight kissesSeem to cool in the warmth of the sun“When I give my heart it will be completelyOr I’ll never, never, never give my heartAnd the moment I can feel that you feel that way tooIs when I give my heart to youAnd the moment I can feel that you feel that way tooIs when I give my heart to you”(“When I Fall in Love” by Edward Heyman, the theme song for the 1952 film One Minute To Zero. This song was first made popular by Doris Day.)
Given people’s incredible abilities to deceive themselves, even fooling their own memories, they can go from one infatuation to another, vainly trying to recapture that first, fleeting blush of adolescent love, each time obscuring the beautiful memories of the first stages of an earlier relationship. They “fall in love,” get married and when the “honeymoon is over” and they get down to the everyday business of life, they discover that the intoxicating obsession they called love is no longer the dominant emotional force in their lives. They become depressed and restless. Then they begin to look with an increasingly critical eye at the person with whom they were “in love” just a few months before. They imagine, “This couldn’t have been the real thing, or it would have lasted.”
The fact of the matter is that any two people who are willing to submit themselves to each other according to God’s holy ordinance of marriage can come to love each other deeply. That’s not only true of a spiritual relationship, but of a deep and growing friendship, as well as exhilarating romantic and sexual love. Modern notions of sex and love assume that sex without romantic love is evil, that love should lead to sex rather than sex leading to love. But the Bible teaches that sex without marriage is evil, and rather than love leading to sex, sex was especially designed by God to create a lasting bond of love between two people. According to God’s plan each time a married couple engages in sexual relations, the bond of love and intimacy between them is nurtured. You might want to read more about this at “Marriage” and “Thoughts on Sex, Marriage and Celibacy.”
EIGHT:The eighth problem is the idea that difficulties, suffering and pain are to be avoided at all costs and the problems of life should be able to be quickly resolved. Whether it’s popping a psychotropic drug or a quick divorce, when things begin to get difficult, people have little patience to work through their problems. This is vitally connected to the first problem. 2 Corinthians 4:16-18 reminds us: “Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.”
NINE:The ninth problem is the sexual saturation of American culture. I grew up in a world where a woman would never be told a dirty joke and where I almost never heard a woman cuss or use vulgarity. That’s not true today. With tampon ads and that goofy eyed woman in the Levitra commercial coming into people’s homes at all hours, with the nightly news dominated by Mr. Clinton’s cigars and fellatio a few years back, with films that have continued to push the envelope in language and nudity over the past forty years, with the proliferation of even hard-core pornography available in the privacy of one’s home, especially through the Internet, and especially with men and women working together in fairly intimate settings, sexual sin is off the charts.Back in the early seventies, I was a police chaplain. What was simple common sense for thousands of years has now been tossed in the trash can: you cannot put a man and a woman in a patrol car together for forty plus hours a week and them not form a powerful bond, a bond that oftentimes leads them into an affair, if they are not really careful, especially if they don’t have strong marriages.
TEN:Two or three generations ago, people lived in close proximity to their extended families, and there was both social pressure and easy transmission of cultural values. Today people move a lot more than they did in the past, often thousands of miles away from where they were brought up, and there are no grandparents, aunts and uncles close by, reinforcing the concept of putting up with stuff and working out your problems.
ELEVEN:Without the social safety net of twentieth and twenty-first century America, people were forced by economic consequences to put up with their problems. With financial assistance readily available without moral considerations, modern society encourages people more quickly to get out of difficulties. I’m not saying that this is always evil, only that it is a factor.
TWELVE:In the individualistic atomization of modern life, television often replaces flesh and blood peer group pressure with new friends such as Oprah and the main characters in soap operas. Psychologically people become bonded to these characters oftentimes more than to the people around them.
THIRTEEN:Public education has systematically been de-Christianized in the past half century—gone are the moral imperatives that were drummed into our heads in the public school system of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
FOURTEEN:Loyalty to the denomination of one’s upbringing is largely a thing of the past, replaced with a consumer driven kind of Christianity. In a small congregation, there is still a lot of pressure on people to deal with their business. In a mega-church while there is an on-site counseling center for those who want it, there remains a basic anonymity for those who don’t.I’m sure I could go on and on, but I’ll stop for now.
Bob Vincent
Someone asked me why I thought that the divorce rate in the American Church is not significantly different from the rest of society. Below are some of the reasons why I think that this is so.
ONE:In my view the single greatest problem in the American church is the loss of the eternal perspective: there really are two places, one called heaven, the other called hell, and every human being is going to spend eternity in one place or the other. Heaven is so wonderful that we cannot comprehend its value this side of being there. Hell is so dreadful that no matter what it takes to avoid it, it is worth it. There is no one in hell who would not barter all he had owned in this world to be given an opportunity to exchange his current estate with that of anyone alive on earth, even in the worst possible circumstances: a woman being raped, a man being tortured, a convict in the worst prison in the world. As our Lord put it: “If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.” (Matthew 5:29, 30.)
TWO:The second problem, not unrelated to the first, is what is often called “easy-believism.” Whether we are dealing with the “walk an aisle, say a prayer and never doubt that you’re eternally secure” version, or whether it is teaching people that they should never question their salvation as long as they have been baptized and are members in good standing of a local church, we are dealing with the same destructive phenomenon: carnal presumption. While the Bible clearly and unequivocally teaches that God declares a person as righteous through faith alone, the Bible also clearly and unequivocally teaches that real faith is always accompanied by a changed life, as the little Sunday School ditty puts it: “If you’re saved and you know it, then your life will surely show it.” The Apostle Paul put it this way: “For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them.” (Ephesians 5:5-7.)And Saint John said: “Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.” (1 John 3:7-10.)The Church-Growth movement tends (thank God, not always) not to emphasize sin and grace but puts the focus on Jesus as a kind of self-help guru. “You can be a more successful business person with Jesus alongside you, helping you out” sells a whole lot better to unconverted people than does “You deserve nothing less than eternal damnation in hell. You must repent of your sins and cast yourself on God’s mercy in Jesus Christ.”I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of the members of America’s churches are lost and on their way to hell.
THREE:The third problem is a failure to take seriously that there are consequences to deliberate sin in this life, we do, indeed, reap what we sow: “If the righteous receive their due on earth, how much more the ungodly and the sinner!” (Proverbs 11:31.) Sexual sin is singled out in Scripture as a particularly egregious offense that calls down a “supernatural” phenomenon, the curse. This is seen so clearly in many places in Proverbs, particularly 5:3-23; 6:23-35; 7:4-27. Over and over again, I have seen Hebrews 13:4 literally carried out in people’s lives in this world: “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.”
FOUR:The fourth problem is a failure to press home the authority of Scripture alone over every area of life. As long as the Bible is simply a useful book alongside many other authoritative resources, people will never follow biblical standards with regard to the sanctity and permanence of marriage when the chips are down. People can concoct the damnedest excuses to bail out of a marriage that they no longer find emotionally fulfilling, and I am reminded of the wisdom of our Puritan and Presbyterian forefathers when they wrote:“Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage: wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case.” (WCF, XXIV, vi.)
Under this heading one should consider the terrible toll that much pop-psychology has taken on people’s lives, both in terms of individuals no longer taking responsibility for their own actions and in their bailing out of difficult marriages for dubious reasons, utterly lacking divine approval. Oftentimes authors with little or no scientific verification pontificate authoritatively and give people justification to disobey God. The Church must both stand against such disobedience and be a pillar of support to people pressed down with life’s burdens.
FIVE:The fifth problem is connected to the fourth: the failure of the American church to practice discipline even in the most severe cases. Many passages teach that if sin is not quickly dealt with it will spread to others: e.g. Deuteronomy 13:11; 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21, 24; 24:7. Saint Paul instructs: “Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.” (1 Timothy 5:20.)
SIX:The sixth problem is the pandemic of a personality disorder, narcissism—not in the absolute, scientific sense of how that term is used, but in the profoundly self-centered approach to life that is all around us. This grows out of the previous four problems, to be sure, but life in modern America, including the American church, is “all about me”—my significance, my self-worth, my self-esteem—“The music left me empty this morning.”
SEVEN:The seventh problem, growing out of the sixth and suggested by my friend Chris Poe after reading my original list, has to do with ‘over-inflated ideas concerning romance, romantic love, finding your “soul-mate.”’
Nothing is more destructive to two people building a solid, lasting and loving marriage than the notion that there is only one special person in the world for each of us, and only when we have finally found that unique person will we know true and lasting love. Twentieth century American films and songs helped to engrain this destructive approach to love in the Western psyche:
“Maybe I’m old fashioned, feeling as I doMaybe I am living in the pastBut when I meet the right oneI know that I’ll be trueMy first love will be the last“When I fall in love it will be foreverOr I’ll never fall in loveIn a restless world like this isLove is ended before it beganAnd too many moonlight kissesSeem to cool in the warmth of the sun“When I give my heart it will be completelyOr I’ll never, never, never give my heartAnd the moment I can feel that you feel that way tooIs when I give my heart to youAnd the moment I can feel that you feel that way tooIs when I give my heart to you”(“When I Fall in Love” by Edward Heyman, the theme song for the 1952 film One Minute To Zero. This song was first made popular by Doris Day.)
Given people’s incredible abilities to deceive themselves, even fooling their own memories, they can go from one infatuation to another, vainly trying to recapture that first, fleeting blush of adolescent love, each time obscuring the beautiful memories of the first stages of an earlier relationship. They “fall in love,” get married and when the “honeymoon is over” and they get down to the everyday business of life, they discover that the intoxicating obsession they called love is no longer the dominant emotional force in their lives. They become depressed and restless. Then they begin to look with an increasingly critical eye at the person with whom they were “in love” just a few months before. They imagine, “This couldn’t have been the real thing, or it would have lasted.”
The fact of the matter is that any two people who are willing to submit themselves to each other according to God’s holy ordinance of marriage can come to love each other deeply. That’s not only true of a spiritual relationship, but of a deep and growing friendship, as well as exhilarating romantic and sexual love. Modern notions of sex and love assume that sex without romantic love is evil, that love should lead to sex rather than sex leading to love. But the Bible teaches that sex without marriage is evil, and rather than love leading to sex, sex was especially designed by God to create a lasting bond of love between two people. According to God’s plan each time a married couple engages in sexual relations, the bond of love and intimacy between them is nurtured. You might want to read more about this at “Marriage” and “Thoughts on Sex, Marriage and Celibacy.”
EIGHT:The eighth problem is the idea that difficulties, suffering and pain are to be avoided at all costs and the problems of life should be able to be quickly resolved. Whether it’s popping a psychotropic drug or a quick divorce, when things begin to get difficult, people have little patience to work through their problems. This is vitally connected to the first problem. 2 Corinthians 4:16-18 reminds us: “Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.”
NINE:The ninth problem is the sexual saturation of American culture. I grew up in a world where a woman would never be told a dirty joke and where I almost never heard a woman cuss or use vulgarity. That’s not true today. With tampon ads and that goofy eyed woman in the Levitra commercial coming into people’s homes at all hours, with the nightly news dominated by Mr. Clinton’s cigars and fellatio a few years back, with films that have continued to push the envelope in language and nudity over the past forty years, with the proliferation of even hard-core pornography available in the privacy of one’s home, especially through the Internet, and especially with men and women working together in fairly intimate settings, sexual sin is off the charts.Back in the early seventies, I was a police chaplain. What was simple common sense for thousands of years has now been tossed in the trash can: you cannot put a man and a woman in a patrol car together for forty plus hours a week and them not form a powerful bond, a bond that oftentimes leads them into an affair, if they are not really careful, especially if they don’t have strong marriages.
TEN:Two or three generations ago, people lived in close proximity to their extended families, and there was both social pressure and easy transmission of cultural values. Today people move a lot more than they did in the past, often thousands of miles away from where they were brought up, and there are no grandparents, aunts and uncles close by, reinforcing the concept of putting up with stuff and working out your problems.
ELEVEN:Without the social safety net of twentieth and twenty-first century America, people were forced by economic consequences to put up with their problems. With financial assistance readily available without moral considerations, modern society encourages people more quickly to get out of difficulties. I’m not saying that this is always evil, only that it is a factor.
TWELVE:In the individualistic atomization of modern life, television often replaces flesh and blood peer group pressure with new friends such as Oprah and the main characters in soap operas. Psychologically people become bonded to these characters oftentimes more than to the people around them.
THIRTEEN:Public education has systematically been de-Christianized in the past half century—gone are the moral imperatives that were drummed into our heads in the public school system of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
FOURTEEN:Loyalty to the denomination of one’s upbringing is largely a thing of the past, replaced with a consumer driven kind of Christianity. In a small congregation, there is still a lot of pressure on people to deal with their business. In a mega-church while there is an on-site counseling center for those who want it, there remains a basic anonymity for those who don’t.I’m sure I could go on and on, but I’ll stop for now.
Bob Vincent
Thoughts on the Sermon on the Mount
The crux of the Sermon on the Mount seems to be that outward shows of holiness will are not what God the Father is looking for. Jesus starts off giving a list commonly known as the Beattitudes where he continually says, “Blessed are…” Most of these are character traits that, once attained, would show in their outward actions. However, beginning in verse 10, Jesus talks about persecution which is an action that is done to a person rather than an inward focus. Jesus seemed to giving an insight here to what would happen to the true believers.
In Matthew 5:21, Jesus expounds on the original command not to murder (Exodus 20:13, Leviticus 24:17) and says, “21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.” “Raca” was an Aramaic word of contempt[1] very literally calling someone “empty-headed.” Jesus reference to calling another a “fool” is most likely a reference to an unbeliever. The main focus in this passage though is verse 22 where Jesus says that anger can constitute murder. This again points back to the main crux of the Sermon on the Mount, that holiness is about what happens on the inside, not just outward actions.
Likewise, Jesus comments on adultery are the same. It is not merely in the physical act of adultery. Jesus said that “anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Notice here that Jesus was not adding to the law, he was simply expounding on it.
Jesus also had some interesting and controversial remarks regarding divorce. In Jesus time, divorce had become very easy. Here, Jesus said that there is one reason for divorce, that of marital unfaithfulness. Jesus, in his statements, seemed to be expounding on the Levitical law and reining it in where the Pharisees had distorted it.
Jesus statements on oaths are within the same theme. Personal integrity is more important than what you are swearing on. His statements on revenge say that showing love is more important than becoming even and he expounds on that in the next passage by teaching them to love their enemies. Again, the theme of the Sermon on the Mount is that outward shows of holiness will are not what God is looking for. Holiness starts with allowing God to work within you, not the other way around.
[1]http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=MATT+5&language=english&version=NIV#footnote_22445779_3
The crux of the Sermon on the Mount seems to be that outward shows of holiness will are not what God the Father is looking for. Jesus starts off giving a list commonly known as the Beattitudes where he continually says, “Blessed are…” Most of these are character traits that, once attained, would show in their outward actions. However, beginning in verse 10, Jesus talks about persecution which is an action that is done to a person rather than an inward focus. Jesus seemed to giving an insight here to what would happen to the true believers.
In Matthew 5:21, Jesus expounds on the original command not to murder (Exodus 20:13, Leviticus 24:17) and says, “21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.” “Raca” was an Aramaic word of contempt[1] very literally calling someone “empty-headed.” Jesus reference to calling another a “fool” is most likely a reference to an unbeliever. The main focus in this passage though is verse 22 where Jesus says that anger can constitute murder. This again points back to the main crux of the Sermon on the Mount, that holiness is about what happens on the inside, not just outward actions.
Likewise, Jesus comments on adultery are the same. It is not merely in the physical act of adultery. Jesus said that “anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Notice here that Jesus was not adding to the law, he was simply expounding on it.
Jesus also had some interesting and controversial remarks regarding divorce. In Jesus time, divorce had become very easy. Here, Jesus said that there is one reason for divorce, that of marital unfaithfulness. Jesus, in his statements, seemed to be expounding on the Levitical law and reining it in where the Pharisees had distorted it.
Jesus statements on oaths are within the same theme. Personal integrity is more important than what you are swearing on. His statements on revenge say that showing love is more important than becoming even and he expounds on that in the next passage by teaching them to love their enemies. Again, the theme of the Sermon on the Mount is that outward shows of holiness will are not what God is looking for. Holiness starts with allowing God to work within you, not the other way around.
[1]http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=MATT+5&language=english&version=NIV#footnote_22445779_3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
