The (In)Scrutable Observer

The Nasty Bits

2006-08-19T09:08:00.000-05:00

Remember how life was so simple not so long ago? I mean, life before you got on the Internet. Perhaps you had a PC, but it just stood there all alone without any connection to the outside world. Once the Internet started to become popular, you hopped right on the bandwagon. Why not? Since the advent of the Web in the mid-1990s, the Internet has offered an unparalleled selection of information and entertainment, much of it being absolutely free. Going online seemed like such a no-brainer...

...but then you started to find out about the Nasty Bits. You know, stuff like spam, viruses, spyware, phishing scams, etc.. Too bad that you got your education almost as soon as you hooked your PC up to its first modem, because it sure was a big hassle to reinstall everything from the ground up to get rid of that virus. Having learned that lesson, you went out and put anti-virus software on your PC, and that worked alright until you let the anti-virus signature subscription lapse, reopening the door to all sorts of new viruses. Next, you got that email from eBay that informed you that your account information needed verification. It directed you to visit a Web page that then prompted you for stuff such as your credit card number. Too bad that it wasn't eBay that sent you that email, but a nasty impersonator who'd just managed to trick you into handing over the keys to your credit line. Through these and other experiences, you've learned that the Internet is a lot like a rose bush: lots of pretty flowers, but oh those thorns!

And now, a word from our sponsor...

Do you suffer from anxiety or nerves? Do you sometimes find yourself bored, without anything to do to focus your attention? Do you find it difficult to count your calories, or to attract the opposite sex? Are you a young person who'd like to find a way to feel more grown-up? If your answer to any of these questions is "YES!", then perhaps our new product is just what you need! We call it, simply but modestly, "The Wonder Drug." It's a mild stimulant when you need one, but it's also a mild relaxant when you want to wind down during a hard day at work. It helps to quench those hunger pangs that make it so difficult for you to stick to that diet. It helps you to concentrate on the most painstaking of tasks, and it provides you with an excellent way to emulate the sex appeal of your favorite stars of the silver screen. Although The Wonder Drug can be somewhat uncomfortable to use at first (common side effects include coughing and nausea), if you stick to it, you will quickly find yourself accustomed to the wonderful benefits of this wonderful product. In fact, you will most likely find it difficult to do without...The Wonder Drug!

The Wonder Drug is available at drug stores and gas stations everywhere. Ask for it by name. If your salesman hasn't heard of The Wonder Drug, just ask for it by its old name: a pack of cigarettes.

And now, back to our program...

Sorry about the commercial interruption, but that's the price I pay for using a free blogging service. :-) Come to think of it, though, isn't The Wonder Drug a good example of an item that seems to have so many advantages BUT is chock-full of Nasty Bits that may shorten your life by years? What a pity that the thousands of (usually young) people who take up smoking every day are ignorant of the severity of the negative side-effects of their beloved habit?

Dear reader, the problem before us goes far beyond the inconvenient (Internet viruses, etc.) and the unhealthy (cigarette smoking). As a matter of fact, today's evangelical church is rife with teachings and movements that promise all sorts of wonderful benefits.

For instance, Rick Warren's Purpose-Driven movement promises both personal fulfillment and radical church growth. If half of what he promises is true, who wouldn't want to hop on his bandwagon? But what about the Nasty Bits? What about the formerly gospel-preaching churches that find themselves torn in two when the PDL program is introduced? What about the countless souls who attend PDL churches and assume that they are Christians because they made a decision, walked an aisle, or prayed a prayer? What of the compromises that are made to the clear and forthright preaching of the Gospel in order to not offend the seekers? Warren and his collegues obviously won't make mention of these Nasty Bits, but yet it's becoming all too obvious that evangelical movements such as PDL aren't as wonderfully peachy-keen as they claim to be.

So, let us beware of Wonder Drugs that promise nothing but good. Any product worth using or movement worth following will come with a frank admission of the difficult stuff: the cost. A medicine will tell you the side effects you may encounter while using it, and in the Gospel itself we find Christ and the Apostles warning us that there is a price to pay for believing on and following Christ. Although the benefits of The Wonder Drug aren't sufficient to outweigh its Nasty Bits, the side effects of many legitimate medications are worth enduring in order to reap the benefits they provide. Likewise, the Gospel is well worth following even though you and I are going to have to take up our respective crosses. To our sinful flesh, the Nasty Bits of the Gospel--denial of self, etc.--utterly pale in comparison to the innumerable benefits of that wonderful message. Whereas the Nasty Bits of the Internet require diligent caution and those of The Wonder Drug arguably warrant total abstinence, the thorns amidst the roses of the Gospel are well worth the pain and suffering they will inevitably provoke.

Writer's block

2006-07-01T00:21:00.000-05:00

When I started this blog over a year ago, one of my reasons for doing so was to improve my writing skills. Lately, I've been realizing that I've not made as much headway towards that goal as I'd like. Although I have the feeling that I'm not terribly successful in expressing my thoughts in writing, I've had trouble with diagnosing the problem, much less fixing it. I'm thinking that the only way I'm going to truly improve my writing is to find myself a mentor/"constructive critic" to read my work and offer suggestions on how I might improve. Although the written word affords me with countless examples of good writing, the art of how to go about putting the lessons I learn from good writing into practice is one that's largely unknown to me. At this point, I think my shortcomings lie in the area of rhetoric, so I may be doing some research on that subject to see if I can pick up some useful tips.

I say all this in order that I might solicit your prayers that the Lord (if He so wills) would raise up a mentor for me and/or help me improve my writing on my own, and to let you know that my posts will likely be sporadic until I come up with an approach to improve my skills.

Since I might not be posting all that much for the foreseeable future, you might just want to point your RSS reader to my RSS feed . That way, you'll see my new posts shortly after I post them without having to visit my blog via your Web browser.

"I am no card-player"

2006-06-23T10:35:00.000-05:00

As a follower of Christ in this fallen world, I am a peculiar creature by definition, so I suppose I ought not be surprised when this person or that, noticing my rather atypical behavior, looks at me as though I'm a refugee from another planet. A number of years ago, I was talking with one of my co-workers about the movies we liked. I happened to comment that I like to pay close attention while I watch a film so I can get an accurate impression of the message it's trying to communicate. To this, my collegue scolded me for taking my entertainment far too seriously. For his part, he preferred to watch big, loud action flicks, turning off his mind and allowing his senses to wallow in the audio-visual extravaganza unfolding before him. How silly I was in his eyes to have any kind of serious purpose when I ought to be just kicking back and relaxing!

Several years have passed since that conversation, but I don't think I've loosened up very much. Now, I do think my sense of humor has improved (if I am to judge by how often and loudly my friends laugh at my not-so-wise cracks), but yet my outlook on life--both work and play--remains fundamentally serious. Mind you, I still like to have fun, but yet I continually bear in mind the fact that my life as a Christian ought to be more than fun and games. In view of Scripture's admonition to do whatever I do for the glory of God, it seems to be that I ought to have the purpose of pleasing God ever-present in my mind whether I'm worshipping in church, writing computer code at the office, or listening to music at home.

In contrast to the now-oriented, pleasure-oriented hedonism that's all around me, I suppose my serious worldview does make me a rather odd bird, so I find it to be reassuring that my plight is nothing new. In Jane Austen's novel Persuasion (published in 1818), we find that the heroine, Anne Elliot, thinks none too highly of the sociable frivolity of her day. Late in the novel, we find her reunited with Captain Wentworth, the naval officer whom she'd nearly married over eight years before:

Captain Wentworth left his seat, and walked to the fire-place; probably for the sake of walking away from it soon afterwards, and taking a station, with less bare-faced design, by Anne.

"You have not been long enough in Bath," said he, "to enjoy the evening parties of the place."

"Oh! no. The usual character of them has nothing for me. I am no card-player."

"You were not formerly, I know. You did not use to like cards; but time makes many changes."

"I am not yet so much changed," cried Anne, and stopped, fearing she hardly knew what misconstruction. After waiting a few moments he said, and as if it were the result of immediate feeling, "It is a period, indeed! Eight years and a half is a period."

Eight and one-half years had passed since Anne had been persuaded by a friend to break off her engagement to Wentworth, but even after all that time, Anne was still no card-player. In saying this, she didn't mean to imply that she never attended social engagements or that she enjoyed no amusements, but rather that her attitude towards life wasn't happy-go-lucky and frivolous. Although she was more than willing to make social engagements with those for whom she cared (such as an old schoolmate named Mrs. Smith), she saw no point in socializing for its own sake. In this conversation, Captain Wentworth was trying to discern whether Anne's recent attentions to him had been on account of formal politeness or sincere interest, so he was no doubt pleased to learn that Anne was "no card-player."

I wish that more people, especially Christians, exhibited our fictional heroine's seriousness of purpose, but all too many folks exhibit a tendency to treat the lighter side of life as though it was an end in itself. How many work and slave during the week primarily so they can afford to cut loose during the weekend? I think this pleasure-seeking ethos may be one factor behind today's platonic friendships which provide a man and woman with the pleasures of companionship without the responsibility of committment. If so, perhaps it ought to be no wonder to me that people don't know what to make of a peculiar person who believes that there is a higher purpose to life than that of having a good time.

Evaluating a suitable spouse

2006-06-16T19:25:00.000-05:00

On several past occasions, I've expressed serious concerns about the wisdom of using one's emotions as a primary factor in making major life decisions, especially the matter of determining whether a member of the opposite sex would be a suitable marriage partner. Thus far, I think I've invested more verbiage in expressing my thoughts regarding what's unwise. Now, I'd like to share some thoughts I've had about how to properly go about evaluating a person for suitability. Since I'm a guy, I'll use my male prerogative and refer to the person under consideration with feminine pronouns. If you're a gal, I encourage you to reverse the gender of all pronouns as you see fit. :-)

If you are single and you do not feel that God has called you to remain unmarried (in case of doubt, assume that He hasn't), make it your business to be looking for a spouse. Don't make it your top priority--laying up treasure in Heaven ought to be tops--but make it one of your highest temporal priorities.
Suitability tests fall into two categories: (1) spiritual tests and (2) temporal tests. Place a substantially larger weight on spiritual tests compared with temporal tests. Spiritual tests ask, "According to Scripture, is this person a suitable spouse?" whereas temporal tests ask, "Is there a reasonable likelihood that I'll be able to conduct myself towards her in a God-honoring manner?"
Consider everyone you meet who has any reasonable chance of being suitable. She must be a believer, and it would be best if she's substantially like-minded doctrinally, but if she appears to be willing to be taught and led wherever the Scriptures lead, you may be able to consider her further.
Keep your eyes and ears open at all times and places, but pay the most attention when you're in a venue where you're most likely to meet a candidate. Your church or other places where reasonably like-minded Christians gather are the very best places to look. Personally, I wouldn't bother checking out a gal at Borders or Barnes and Noble unless I spy her in the Religion section intently poring through a tome by someone like Spurgeon, Sproul or MacArthur. :-)
When you encounter somebody and have an opportunity to converse with her, make a mental note of your emotional reaction, but don't put too much trust in your emotions. Since we continue to struggle with remaining sin, our emotions can and do often mislead and deceive us. For my part, I've learned not to trust my emotions very much. They may tell me that a bad person is attractive or a good person is unattractive.
Continue to pursue an acquaintance as long as you have a reasonable hope that she might prove to be suitable for you. Give her the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.
If you discover something about her that fails one of the aforementioned spiritual tests, you ought to drop the acquaintance as soon as possible. Be kind and gracious, but GET OUT!!!
If you run into a temporal issue that concerns you such as a habit or behavior that really annoys you, make a note of it, but prayerfully consider the issue before you decide to break off the acquaintance. Perhaps God will grant you grace to bear with her regarding this issue. Keep Christian liberty in mind: where God has not bound the believer's conscience in Scripture, the Christian is free.
If you come to the decision that she would not be a suitable wife for you but yet you find that you enjoy her company and friendship, you may continue on as casual friends, but you are not free to continue as close "platonic" friends who spend a considerable amount of time together. Although you should by all means maintain a cordial relationship with her, you must not hinder her or yourself from the task of seeking out a suitable spouse.
Take your time. Don't allow fear to rush you into a hasty decision to drop the acquaintance or marry the person.

OK, that's enough for now. I'll reserve the right to post further thoughts on the matter of proper courtship at a future time.

Companionship without committment

2006-06-14T12:03:00.000-05:00

When I posted on the subject of platonic friendships some time ago, I hardly suspected that that article would be one of the most commonly read articles on this blog. Apparently a lot of people are interested in the issue of non-sexual relationships between men and women. I hope that my article has shed some light on the less obvious dangers lurking beneath the surface of this seemingly innocuous type of relationship.

Since writing that article, I have become even more firmly persuaded of the great danger of maintaining a close friendship with a woman whom I'm unwilling or unable to marry. The situation is hardly better if I think the woman may turn out to be a suitable life-partner but she's made it plain that she's not interested in me in that way. In such a case, we may mutually decide to enjoy the benefits of a companionship without entailing the obligations of a permanent committment.

In the context of today's culture, this may seem to be a perfectly reasonable arrangement. For one thing, the advantages of companionship seem obvious. Personally, I much enjoy the time I can spend in conversation or various activities with another person. Although I can enjoy many pursuits on my own, having another person with me to share my enjoyment is nearly guaranteed to multiply my pleasure. It can be plenty nice to talk about this or that with another guy, but let's face it: it can be even nicer to spend time with a pleasant, attractive woman. So long as we stick to activities that are respectable and stay out of trouble, there's nothing wrong with that, right?

Although that sounds like a reasonable line of thinking, I think it's significant that it's so often older singles who get involved in such platonic arrangements. Perhaps they think, "I haven't yet found the man/woman of my dreams, so I may as well hang out with my friends until I do." There's nothing wrong with friendships per se, even friendships with the opposite sex, but yet in my life I've seen how I so long used platonic friendships as a means to enjoy the companionship that's best found in marriage without having to take on the duties and responsibilities attendant with the committment of that covenant bond. This seemed good and right to me for many years. With my platonic friends, I could enjoy the pleasant parts of an intimate relationship while avoiding the difficult stuff. In place of "for better or worse, for richer or poorer", I could pig out on cake and ice cream without having to eat my veggies.

How nice all this seemed for so long, but with maturity and a better understanding of God's Word, I see the irresponsibility that was lurking underneath my season of pleasure. Not only was I shirking any responsibility for my friends--enjoying the pleasure of their companionship without taking any true care for them--I was also enabling them to shirk their responsibility to seek a suitable husband. Thus, I was irresponsible both to myself and to my female friends.

Today, my understanding of what is proper in a male/female friendship is vastly different than it was in those days. If a woman is willing to consider me as a possible husband, should we prove to be suitable for each other, I will by all means want to spend as much time with her as possible so we can work together to find out whether or not we are indeed suitable. On the other hand, if I am convinced that she would not be a suitable wife for whatever reason, I am obliged to leave her free to focus her attention on men who may be more suitable for her. Although I would obviously want to remain on cordial terms with her, perhaps chatting with her in group contexts, I'm no longer going to take up substantial portions of her limited time and energy on being close friends with her. If my sister doesn't believe that I would be a suitable husband for her, I owe it to her to leave her free to search for a man who is. Until I find a woman who is suitable for me, I'm going to stick to casual acquaintances with my sisters in Christ, and my close friendships will be exclusively with my brothers in Christ. I am no longer willing to settle for the illusory pleasures of companionship without committment.

"Cast thy burden upon the Lord"

2006-05-26T10:34:00.000-05:00

[An encouraging word from the Prince of Preachers that arrived in my inbox this morning. I hope you'll find it to be profitable. Dave]

"Cast thy burden upon the Lord, and he shall sustain thee. - Psalm 55:22

Care, even though exercised upon legitimate objects, if carried to excess, has in it the nature of sin. The precept to avoid anxious care is earnestly inculcated by our Saviour, again and again; it is reiterated by the apostles; and it is one which cannot be neglected without involving transgression: for the very essence of anxious care is the imagining that we are wiser than God, and the thrusting ourselves into his place to do for him that which he has undertaken to do for us. We attempt to think of that which we fancy he will forget; we labour to take upon ourselves our weary burden, as if he were unable or unwilling to take it for us. Now this disobedience to his plain precept, this unbelief in his Word, this presumption in intruding upon his province, is all sinful. Yet more than this, anxious care often leads to acts of sin. He who cannot calmly leave his affairs in God’s hand, but will carry his own burden, is very likely to be tempted to use wrong means to help himself. This sin leads to a forsaking of God as our counsellor, and resorting instead to human wisdom. This is going to the "broken cistern" instead of to the "fountain;" a sin which was laid against Israel of old. Anxiety makes us doubt God’s lovingkindness, and thus our love to him grows cold; we feel mistrust, and thus grieve the Spirit of God, so that our prayers become hindered, our consistent example marred, and our life one of self-seeking. Thus want of confidence in God leads us to wander far from him; but if through simple faith in his promise, we cast each burden as it comes upon him, and are "careful for nothing" because he undertakes to care for us, it will keep us close to him, and strengthen us against much temptation. "Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on thee, because he trusteth in thee." - Charles Spurgeon

A graciously timed interruption

2006-05-20T18:54:00.000-05:00

On my list of pet peeves--that is, issues over which I tend to nurse a grudge--near the top of the list is receiving a phone call when I'm in the middle of working on some crucial task. Although it's not my nature to outwardly lash out at the source of the interruption, I do have a shameful tendency to inwardly grumble and wish that the interruption would be over post haste.

While mowing the lawn this afternoon, I ran over a branch that caused the belt that drives the lawn mower's self-propel mechanism, causing it to run somewhat amok. I recalled that such a problem is caused by the branch somehow causing the drive belt to come loose from the blade pulley, so I flipped the lawn mower to try to reseat the belt. My efforts to do so by hand were fruitless, so I went inside the house to seek out an appropriate tool. As I was doing so, my phone began to ring. It was my mom. In itself the purpose for her call was positive, but yet I found myself resenting the timing: after all, I had a non-functional lawn mower flipped over on its side out in the middle of the lawn, and I wanted to get it fixed. After a few moments, I asked her if I could talk with Mr. Fix-It aka my dad. He gave me some useful advice, then turned the call back to my mom. After I was done with her, he had another thought regarding my problem, and spoke to me again. He reminded me to remove the spark plug wire before trying to do anything more with the belt and pulley lest the engine start.

As my dad's words sank in, I began to realize that my mom's ill-timed phone call could not have been a better-timed mercy from the Lord. Had I not spoken with my dad, I would have (in my ignorance of mechanical things such as lawn mowers) continued to work on the belt and pulley with the spark plug connected. Had the motor started, at least one of my limbs would likely have been turned into mincemeat. Through this "ill-timed interruption", God spared me from very serious physical injury.

As I write, I'm very thankful that this gracious providence happened today--at a time when I rightly understand it as an undeserved mercy from God--instead of in my charismatic days, when I would have understood it to be a confirmation of my wonderful spiritual gifts and my special hotline to heaven. A sounder understanding of Scripture has allowed me to give the praise and thanks to the One to Whom it belongs.

After I finished mowing the lawn--with my body physically safe and sound, and the lawn mower operating flawlessly--I called my mom again to ask her forgiveness for how I often inwardly grumble when she calls and to offer my sincere thanks for calling at the time she did. I went on to explain that her call, far from being an untimely interruption, was in fact a wonderful mercy from God. In so doing, I hope I was able to give the glory to Whom it belongs.

Recycling spoiled leftovers

2006-05-17T12:16:00.000-05:00

To slightly rephrase the "Revelation" of science fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon, 90% of everything is junk. Today, this is nowhere more evident than in the popular arts, especially cinema and music. In both of these art forms, at least 90% of what's being produced is a regurgitation or rehashing of what had been done to death long ago. For instance, most modern science fiction movies are rehashes of Star Wars, which was itself a rehash of the "space operas" that were popular in the early 20th Century as published in pulp magazines such as Amazing Stories.

In the world of popular music, if I am to judge by the stuff I overhear as I go about my daily routine, matters have gotten extremely dire. The cutting-edge stuff would seem to be hip-hop, but my brother was listening to that music in the late 1970's when it was simply called rap, so this cutting-edge music has been around for at least a quarter of a century. As for rock music, I continue to hear a great deal that is practically indistinguishable from the stuff that was being performed in the latter half of the 70's. In fact, I've heard quite a few records that are nearly note-for-note recreations of records that were popular thirty years ago. In virtually every case, the re-recording comes off as lifeless and flat compared with the original (many of which were derivative even at the time), leaving me to ask "Why did they even bother to re-record this thing?" The modern music I'm hearing today strikes me as being just plain dull and tired, saying the same thing that's been said better by those who have gone before. Why bother indeed?

It is largely on account of this mindless recycling in music and movies that I've made a conscious choice to go back to the stuff that was made by performers who were (in their day) on the cutting edge. Why bother with bland remakes and clones when I can enjoy the style as it was performed when it was fresh and new? Admittedly, the technology of the past wasn't as good as that of today, so I often have to put up with black and white photography and monophonic sound, but so what?

Take, for instance, the movie musical. If you think that its heyday was in the 1960s, you're sadly mistaken. Fine films such as Mary Poppins and The Music Man were in fact the last gasp of a dying genre. Instead, I suggest that you go back to the 1930s. Don't go too far back, though: the very earliest musicals were almost entirely turkeys. (Check out the recent DVD reissue of The Broadway Melody of 1929 if you doubt me.) In fact, movie musicals came to life in 1933, thanks in large part to the all-time classic 42nd Street. Featuring the often awe-inspiring choreography of Busby Berkeley, this is the first musical in which the camera was set free to move. Berkeley used this new-found freedom to great advantage. Numbers such as Young and Healthy, replete with tightly structured dances and frequent camera movements, must have amazed audiences of their day. For my money, this is the birth of the movie musical. Although many fine musicals followed (from MGM, RKO, Fox, and other studios) through the 30s, 40s, and 50s, for my money there's nothing like a classic musical of the 30s for freshness and invention. Give me 42nd Street or an Astaire/Rogers classic such as Swing Time over The Sound of Music any day.

Let's also consider the matter of rock 'n roll. Lest you think that I am a hater of that genre, you've quite mistaken me. Although rock has suffered from tedious, derivative performances ever since its earliest days, I would argue that many performers produced vibrant and creative work at the beginning, especially from the early 50s through the early 70s. However, I've chosen to not collect that era of music, concentrating instead on the various musics that helped to give birth to rock: jazz, country, blues, and more. Much of this music, especially in the years immediately following WWII, is full of energy, drive, and good humor. In country, there was a whole genre now known as "hillbilly boogie" that anticipated the style later known as rockabilly, whereas rhythm and blues--one of the most direct forebears of rock 'n roll--featured an energetic style known as "jump blues." For my money, much of this pre-rock music has infinitely more life and creativity than I hear in the popular music of today. Sure, the sound quality isn't always hi-fi, and it's never in stereo, but I'll take life over technical perfection, thank you.

In case you think my criticism of the popular arts has been harsh, it gets worse. In my opinion, the very worst stuff you can see or hear is the supposedly "Christian" music and movies that are cranked out as watered-down, allegedly "positive" imitations of whatever happened to be trendy in the secular world two years ago. Actually, I'm glad that this stuff is being promoted as being "positive" rather than "Christian", because with the new terminology the blessed name of our Savior is being spared further shame. People, let's face it: the music and movies that are being cranked out by the world are bad enough, both morally and artistically. How do we honor Christ by producing fourth-rate copies of what started out as third-rate imitations?

My friend, if I've helped you to think about today's dire lack of artistic excellence, I urge you to do something about it. First, start by doing some research. Whether you're interested in cinema or music, pick up some books that document the history of that art. As you read, you'll learn about the people who produced the stuff that's stood the test of time. These are the people whose work is being copied by everyone else! As you learn about these folks, seek out their work and find out why they were so good at what they did. As you go about your research, be warned that you may become just as weary of garbage as I have become. Watch your step! :-)

In technology I trust (???)

2006-05-12T22:16:00.000-05:00

What a comfortable life I enjoy in the Midwestern USA! I have everything I could want: electricity, reliable high-speed Internet service, and running water. I've enjoyed all of these comforts for so long I've come to take them for granted. Too bad they're not always here for me, because when I don't have them I miss them more than I ought.

Take, for instance, this past week. As the week began, all was peaceful and quiet here at Stately Dave Manor, or so it seemed. If only I'd heeded the harbinger of online doom that had arrived in my email inbox a couple of weeks before. My ISP, I was told, was planning major upgrades for the next few weeks. They expected the upgrades to pass without notice, but in case a glitch did occur, all I'd have to do was to reboot my cable modem, router, and PCs. It all sounded relatively painless in the email, but this rose-colored report fell well short of describing the pain that was going to ensue. The outages were numerous and lengthy, and rebooting modem, router, and PC seemed to avail nothing. This went on for the good part of the week, with the ISP all the while claiming that only 5% of their customers were affected by glitches. Strange, then, that 100% of my friends and acquaintances who use the same ISP complained of exactly the same glitches. For me at least, this was a relatively minor annoyance, since I continued to have a working Internet connection at my office and I rarely have to work from home, but yet it was only the beginning of my technological woes.

The next part of my story took place early in the week. Blessed with a fairly sizable income tax refund, I went out and ordered a new clothes washer. In order to be at home for the installation of the new washer, I took a vacation day from work. Little did I suspect that that day was to be the day that my water service was to be cut over to a new water main, but so it was, and thus my water was completely shut off at the time that the delivery guys installed my new washer. As icing on this less-than-tasty cake, a substantial amount of rust was introduced into the plumbing when the water finally was turned back on, and some of this managed to stain the first load of laundry I ran through my brand-new washer. Subsequent treatments have partially, but not completely, restored that set of garments to their original appearance, thus leaving me with an enduring reminder of that day's fairly disruptive events.

Finally, to wrap up the week, what could be more exciting than a power outage? Yes, that's right, and my local utility was happy to serve one up for me in spite of the utter lack of inclement weather. To make things more interesting, this outage wasn't a total blackout: it was merely a brownout. Would that it had been a blackout, because in that case I wouldn't have enjoyed the uncertainty that comes along with wondering which of my appliances and gadgets may have been damaged while trying to operate on substandard voltage. In the end, God was merciful to me: by unplugging my critical devices and then switching off the main circuit breaker, I was able to take everything offline during the remainder of the brownout. In fact, I actually went out to eat and shop in hopes that my neighborhood would be brought back to normal by the time I returned. In God's providence, that was indeed how it turned out. Also, I'm pleased to report that all of my electronics seem to be fully functional.

Actually, all of these very brief outages--although seemingly piled up on top of each other--showed both God's mercy and His sanctifying hand. Through the minor annoyance and deprivation I suffered during these glitches, I was reminded of just how transient the comforts I take for granted truly are, not to mention how much I've come to rely on them. What a useful reminder this trio of glitches has been to me!

The fatal attraction of emotionalism

2006-05-01T14:03:00.000-05:00

It's lately occurred to me that one of the consequences of the Fall is that it's made all of us into addicts of one kind or another. By nature, all of us are inclined to look for some kind of "high", and if we don't exercise some means of self-control, this pursuit is bound to rule the course of our lives. So just what is this "drug"? Our emotions.

Up front, let me say that our emotions are not bad in and of themselves. They are good and right in their proper place. This is confirmed by the fact that Jesus Himself exhibited emotions: sorrow, compassion, righteous anger, etc.. His example makes it clear that we too can channel our emotions in a righteous direction so long as we keep them in check.

Our problem, then, is not the existence of our emotions, but rather our sinful tendency to allow them to rule our lives. Whether our emotions are pleasant or unpleasant, we tend to rely on them to set the course for our day-to-day lives. It doesn't help that the world system does everything in its power to encourage this self-destructive tendency. We are constantly told to "follow your heart", as though how we felt would infallibly tell us whatever was best for us.

Especially when we pursue relationships with other people, we allow our feelings to tell us what to do. For instance, the gal whom I ought to marry is the one towards whom I have the strongest emotional attraction, notwithstanding any rational or practical considerations that may occur to me. If I really, really "love" someone, I'll do whatever it takes to win her hand, never mind that doing so might lead both of us in a very, very bad direction. Given this kind of unreasoning foolish reliance on emotions, I suppose it's no wonder that at least 50% of marriages end in divorce, because sooner or later even the strongest feelings diminish, leaving you and I to ask ourselves, "What in the world was I thinking?" Answer: I wasn't thinking because I was too busy feeling.

It has been my observation that the vast majority of those who get ensnared by the charismatic movement got into it on account of what it did for their emotions. You see, charismaticism--more than any other branch of professed Christianity--promises a fervently emotional experience with God. In many cases, it provides just what it promises, but no wonder: our emotions are easily stirred, thus posing little difficulty for a supposedly anointed leader to stir them up. Although it's self-evident that no Holy Ghost power is required to get our emotions going--a halfway decent movie or novel can do the same trick--the special bait on charismaticism's hook is that it purports that the emotional "high" it provides is direct from the hand of Almighty God. Thus, when charismaticism lets you down, you are left feeling as though God Himself has let you down. No wonder so many ex-charismatics leave the Christian faith altogether!

My friend, our emotions are powerful to be sure. We can't turn them off no matter how hard we try, but yet we must not allow them to rule over us. In the charismatic movement, many of us allowed our emotions to sit in the driver's seat, and can testify that the once-exciting ride led us to near spiritual ruin. Let us make no mistake: our emotions cannot be trusted, and we must learn to rule over them. This is no easy task. In fact, our addiction to our emotions is so strong that we cannot help but be ruled by them unless God sovereignly grants us the grace to order our steps according to Scripture instead of emotions. With His enabling grace, the impossible becomes possible: instead of struggling along on the sinking sand of our ever-changing emotions, we can learn sober-mindedness and self-discipline in the Holy Spirit as He speaks to us through the Scriptures.

If you find yourself caught up in a swirling tide of emotions--whether "positive" or "negative"--I urge you to cry out to the Lord for grace and mercy, and to search the Scriptures, for only in them will you find the way of Truth. You cannot prosper spiritually so long as you allow feelings to rule your life!!! If you find that anything or any person tends to draw you back in to emotionalism, ask the Lord to give you wisdom and to grant you a means of escape.

The sinful tendency of every man and woman is to be ruled by his emotions, and charismaticism serves only to grant the supposed stamp of God's approval onto our wicked tendency towards emotional drunkenness. My friend, I urge you to seek the Lord and ask Him to teach you through the Scriptures how you might practice the virtue of sober-mindedness, for that blessed virtue is the antidote to the emotions that Satan so often uses us to lead us astray from the right way. Although a way of escape from emotionalism can seem impossible--feelings can be overpowering in strength--God is well able to make the impossible possible.

Bass abuse

2006-04-19T13:43:00.000-05:00

It's spring in northern Illinois. I can see the green grass and the tulips and the dandelions, and I'm told that the birds are singing, but I'll have to take the word for the latter since I can't hear a single cheep. Yes, spring is in the air, so it's time for the noontime concerts at my college campus. Today's band, a typical rock band, was just as loud as any of its breed, so they did an excellent job of drowning out the robins. Thankfully, my lunchtime walk took me far enough away to escape most of their, er, music, but yet I never quite got away from all of it.

I'm no Luddite. I think most technology can be put to good use. However, I'm a bit baffled as to how the modern loudspeaker, the subwoofer in particular, is of good use. Oh, it can put out nice clean sound when amplification is employed judiciously, with the subwoofer providing a welcome body to the sound, but my ears tell me that this device is often grossly abused, perhaps because a substantial portion of the population has encurred permanent hearing loss from past abuse, thus necessitating the use of more and more amplification.

At home, at the office, and on the road, it seems that more and more people are occupied with discovering just how loud a loudspeaker can be. When this experimentation is performed on the loudspeaker's miniature cousin, the headphones, it harms only the ears of the researcher, but all too often larger speakers, invariably with the help of a big honkin' subwoofer, are employed, so innocent bystanders are provided with the dubious privilege of sharing in the sonic experiment. Now, I'm as big a music lover as anyone--witness my collection of several thousand CDs--but I'd rather that folks share their music with me when I give them permission to do so. Since my tastes in music are doggedly retro, I strive to not inflict my favorite tunes on unwelcoming ears, but I find that many of my neighbors are not so polite, or perhaps they so eager to share the music of their taste with me that they don't bother to solicit my permission.

This state of affairs would not be quite so bad, I suppose, if the music that's being shared wasn't so downright loud. To my ears, it would help even more if the subwoofer had never been invented. Perhaps I'm blessed with ears that are unusually sensitive to bass, but I find it to be extraordinarily difficult to escape the bassier portion of music. The ordinary means at my disposal--cranking up my own tunes, closing the windows and doors, etc.--are often insufficient to mask the thump-thump-thump that assults not only my ears but also my entire body. For me, bass is not just an aural experience. It's holistic: it affects my whole mind and body.

Oh, how I long for the days of yore when the air wasn't filled with the sound of booming bass! In the earliest days of the phonograph, there was hardly such a thing as bass: the acoustic process used to record and play records was technically incapable of reproducing the lowest tones. Bass didn't become a factor until the introduction of radio and electrically recorded phonograph records (the latter coming out in 1925), but up through the heyday of the transistor radio, bass was pretty much limited to one's home radio and music system. In the 1970's, however, bass became big business. That decade saw the sale of the first boomboxes and the first subwoofers. Every stereo system came with a "loudness" switch that, although intended for use only at low listening volumes, was kept on permanently by almost everyone who wasn't a true-blue audiophile because it added an extra thud to the thump-thump-thump. First invented for the home, the subwoofer eventually found its way into the automobile and truck, and from that mobile perch it's been rattling the frames of countless vehicles ever since.

If I had my druthers, I'd love to see the subwoofer go out of fashion and quick. It's my opinion that today's constant soundtrack of thump-thump-thump helps to drown out not only the birds of spring, but also the sounds of genuine person-to-person conversation, not to mention the flow of silent thought or reflection. Yes, today's hi-fi hammering is toxic to serious thought. I enjoy music in its time and place, but when I need to talk with someone or think something through, I turn it off. Therefore, I call on my neighbor to turn down the volume--or at least the bass--so I can hear myself think.

Speaking the words of God

2006-04-18T17:48:00.000-05:00

A little while ago, I wrote briefly on the matter of frivolous claims of divine revelation, so I was struck when I ran across this saying of Jesus in my morning Scripture reading:

He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.

Luke 10:16

What an amazing statement this is! "He who hears you hears Me." Our Lord offers no mights or maybes. "He who hears you hears Me." To put it another way, whoever speaks the words of Christ speaks for Christ. Although professing believers often err insofar as claiming special direct revelation from God, when we speak or preach the Word of God, we are certainly speaking for God. This is a great privilege and a great responsibility, for if we are speaking for God, we owe it to Him to rightly interpret what He's said. Whereas we are rarely provided any certainty as to whether this or that impression from a "still small voice" is indeed from God, Christ here teaches that Scripture, as the Word of God, speaks for God even when imperfect human vessels such as you and me speak it.

So, my friend, if you wish to speak forth the mind of God, you need look no further than the Scriptures. You have no need of further revelation from God, for He has seen fit to provide all that it necessary for faith and practice in the Scriptures. Therefore, I encourage you to put aside any misguided faith in random thoughts or impressions and instead put your faith in the Scriptures alone, for in them we can discern the mind of God with perfect assurance and clarity.

The Family Factor

2006-04-18T10:39:00.000-05:00

Courtesy of Al Mohler, I've discovered an article titled The Family Factor by Allan Carlson of the Howard Center of Rockford, Illinois. (This makes him my near-neighbor--my home in Belvidere is a mere fifteen-minute drive from Rockford.) In this article, Mr. Carlson covers much the same ground I covered not long ago regarding what I dubbed the "power of multiplication" wielded by people who subscribe to traditional family values. He explains how Europe, which has largely given up on the traditional family, is dying a demographic death, whereas the USA is seeing an increase in births amongst those who hold to family-friendly religions. He writes:

The best explanation for America’s greater fecundity—this openness to children—is the higher degree of religious identification and behavior shown by Americans. Forty-five percent of Americans in the year 2000 reported attending religious services during the previous week; in Europe, only about ten percent did. And believers usually do have more babies. Alas, outside of recent Hispanic immigrants, overall Catholic numbers today are not impressive, but “white fundamentalist Protestants” who attend church weekly show a fertility rate 27 percent above the national average, and the fertility rate of active American Latter-Day Saints, or Mormons, is about double the national average.

It is interesting to consider the consequences of disobeying vs. obeying one of the first of God's commandments: to be fruitful and multiply in order to populate the earth. The eventual demise of today's seemingly omnipotent and omnipresent secularism and hedonism is inevitable as its proponents meet their eventual end, without offspring and thus without a legacy.

Blabbing in the name of the Lord

2006-04-15T11:15:00.000-05:00

Back in my long-ago Charismatic period, I was by no means shy about telling everyone about all the things that God was telling me or doing for me. On one occasion, I showed up to our weekly campus fellowship group all excited about a miraculous provision. I'd just moved back to the area after a year out of state. Due to a lack of space in the moving truck, I found it necessary to leave my mattress and box spring behind, so I was in need of a new set. Thus, I was very excited when I just happened to find a store that was holding a 50% off mattress sale. How amazing that God brought me to this sale at just the right time! Indeed, He brought me to that store in just the nick of time, because as it turned out that store carried on a continual 50% off mattress sale up to the day they closed up shop ten years later, proving that my claimed miracle was a tad more ordinary than I'd testified.

Although it is a good thing to give thanks to the Lord and to testify of His goodness to us, I believe that we bring much dishonor to Him when we claim that "God told me" or say that "God did this for me." Throughout Scripture, we see that God takes His reputation seriously. He strictly forbids taking His name in vain, but that's what we do when we claim divine inspiration or assistance without clear and evident grounds. To put it another way, when we claim to speak the mind of God or know His purpose behind His works, we had better be 100% certain that we are correct, because if we're mistaken, we have attributed a falsehood to our holy God.

Now, I think I understand what motivates this kind of flippant "God told me" talk: a desire to think and act spiritually rather than carnally. It just sounds much more spiritual to say that "God told me to go to the mall" than to say "I felt like going to the mall", but I'd suggest that in fact it's usually much wiser to just say "I felt like it." So long as my trip to the mall doesn't involve any kind of sinful purpose, I am at liberty to go whenever I wish. I need no direct divine inspiration to undertake such an excursion. Moreover, by admitting that the trip was my idea I take responsibility for my decision, whereas if I claim that God told me, I'm saying that God is responsible for what I did. So, in my effort to sound spiritual, I'm digging an awfully big hole for myself by claiming divine inspiration and approval.

Let us face facts. Although God has indeed offered special revelation and specific direction to certain individuals, this is not His ordinary means for working out His will in the life of the believer. Unless God has some special purpose in mind, He uses the often mundane circumstances (or, more accurately, providences) of daily life to direct our steps and unfold His plan. This isn't particularly exciting much of the time, but it's how God works, so we ought to humbly submit to His ordinary means. Although we certainly ought to thank God for every mercy that comes our way, we must take care not to claim special insight into why He granted that mercy or how He worked it out.

On the other hand, we ought to remember that God does indeed speak directly to every believer through the Scriptures. Whenever the Scriptures are read, preached, or studied, the Holy Spirit is actively applying them to the believer's heart. When we read the Scriptures, we are reading the very words of Almighty God! Whereas we bring God dishonor when we flippantly claim that He told us something or did something, we honor Him when we take His Scriptures to mean exactly what He intended them to mean. Therefore, let us put aside vain and idle boasting about what God tells us or shows us through extra-biblical means, and instead seek the Scriptures to find the true mind of God.

The test of time

2006-04-04T22:30:00.000-05:00

One of the advantages I enjoy as a lover of vintage music, movies, art, books, etc., is that I don't have to work all that hard to distinguish between the good and the bad. It's not that everything that was made in the past was good, or that everything that's being created today is bad. Rather, the best of the old has had time to rise to the top, whereas the best of the new has not yet been in existence long enough to have passed the test of time. Thus, when I go shopping for CDs or DVDs, the percentage of dross amongst the new releases is much higher than that of the reissues of old classics.

Although I am rather lonely in this opinion today, I should point out that the wise men and women of past ages have been like-minded on this point: it often takes time for the good, right, beautiful, and wise to be proven in value. In this present generation, I fear that many lack either patience or inclination to let time perform its wonders. Instead of prizing the tried-and-true, our generation is entranced with what is new and fresh. In fact, the best of the past is often despised on account of its age. Many folks won't think of watching a movie unless it's in color or listening to music if it's in mono, and the writings of the wise sages of bygone days are rejected on account of their quaint old way with words.

Looking back on the history of the Christian church, we can see that the men who have had the greatest Gospel impact have shared a deep respect for the works of those who have gone before them. The Reformers such as Luther and Calvin owed a great deal to Augustine and other early church fathers, and in the 19th Century Spurgeon was in no way ashamed of the debt he owed to the Puritans. In our day, the growing revival of interest in Reformed theology has been accompanied by a renewed respect for the works of the great Christian teachers and preachers of the past.

What a different picture we see in much of modern Evangelicalism! Aside from the Bible itself, it is getting increasingly difficult to find any books that were written more than forty years ago. Also, the tried-and-true preaching of the undiluted Gospel has gone out of favor, replaced by an ongoing rush after religious fads and follies. All this is done out of a professed desire to reach the masses, but with a callous disregard as to whether the teachings and practices that are popular today are of any real lasting value.

Perhaps this love of the novel and distaste for the old ought to be no wonder to us. Consider our attitudes towards youth and old age. In the past, the elderly were seen as worthy of special respect, but now older folks are often put away in special homes, perhaps to help preserve our youth-oriented culture from having to confront the reality of our universal mortality. In fact, some have seen a trend amongst middle-aged adults to hold on to behavior, music, dress, etc., that was once associated exclusively with the young. Some have named such folks "grups." In the not-that-distant past, people's tastes and styles used to evolve with age. Musically, one's tastes once shifted from swing to jazz to classical, but more and more we see folks continuing to listen to the Stones, Springsteen, or the Ramones well into middle age.

Although I'll grant that a nostalgia for one's youthful days isn't necessarily a moral failing in itself, it seems to me that this and other indicators suggests that our society has become so besotten with the new and the youthful that it is no longer paying attention to the voices of older and wiser men and women from the past. No, you don't need to trade your Stones albums for the waltzes of Strauss--there is substantial room for liberty regarding such matters of taste--but yet regarding matters of faith I would argue that we would do well to pay less heed to today's trendy purveyors of religious fads, and pay more attention to the teachings that have stood the test of time: that have stood up against centuries of scrutiny in the light of Holy Scripture. My brother, it is unwise to adjust the course of one's spiritual life based upon the supposed wisdom of the latest best-seller. Instead, let us be patient, and let us be diligent to evaluate the new against the wisdom of the past, especially the God-breathed wisdom of Scripture. The words of Rick Warren and his ilk will pass away, but the Word of God will never pass away!

Walking in comfort

2006-03-16T13:31:00.000-06:00

A few weeks ago, I started to feel rather uncomfortable as I walked, especially on wet surfaces, and I noticed that the soles of my shoes had worn out. By then my feet were killing me, so I dropped into a "big box" shoe store and grabbed the first pair of new shoes that seemed to fit me. Within a day, I regretted my choice because they left my feet feeling miserable, albeit in a different way. Instead of having a sore sole, I now had sore toes. I went back to another store to buy a pair of walking shoes, but they weren't much better the first day. As I put them on the second day, I had a flash of insight, and realized that I'd been lacing my shoes too tightly at the very top. I laced them less tightly that day, and each day since. I've gone back to my first pair of new shoes and used this new approach on them. Lo and behold, that pair is much more friendly to my very particular feet than practically any shoe I've worn in ages. It turns out that it wasn't the shoe, but the way I laced the shoe, that was torturing my feet.

As I think about it, this story can be used as an illustration for the Christian's relationship to God's Law. As Paul tells us, God's Law is good and right. Out of gratitude to Christ, I strive to obey God's moral Law (as summarized in the Ten Commandments), but so often I find that doing so starts to become a burden rather than a delight. Whenever this happens, I eventually realize that I've gotten back into the old rut of striving to please God through my good works or trying to fulfill the Law mainly in my own strength. Once I come back to relying on God's strength and wisdom to obey His Law and put aside any notion of making myself more just in His sight by doing so (how could I possibly add to the perfect justification I have in Christ!), obeying Him is again the pleasure and delight that it ought to be. Much like my shoes can be instruments of torture if too tightly laced or of pleasure if more loosely laced, I find that to walk rightly in God's Law requires that I maintain the proper attitude of thanksgiving and reliance on His sustaining grace. The Law is good, just as a pair of shoes is good, but it must be used rightly if it is to be for my good.

If I were to choose two words to describe the proper attitude for obeying God's moral Law, it would be "relaxed diligence." Just as I need to take care to not pull the laces of my shoes too tightly, I also need to take care that I not rely too much on my human resources to obey God. If I will do so, I will be able to continue to walk the Christian walk in spiritual comfort.

Back in the closet

2006-03-16T11:43:00.000-06:00

Although I keep my palatial estate, Stately Dave Manor, in reasonably good order, let's suppose that I let things get rather disorderly, with various items strewn around the living room, bedroom, etc.. If you were to stop over to visit me, I'm sure that I'd be rather embarrassed by the clutter because you'd be seeing stuff out in the open that really ought to have been put away in a closet. A closet, you see, is a relatively unsung place that fulfills a most useful function: it allows you to keep things in a place that's out of normal sight. Sometimes we stow things in our closets of which we're somewhat ashamed (think of that leisure suit you haven't worn in over thirty years :-) ), but more often we store stuff of which we're in no way ashamed but that we just don't want the world to see. Many things are just fine left out in the open, but other things rightly belong in the closet.

To put it frankly, our "liberated" American society has failed to remember that sex of all kinds belongs in the closet. This is not to say that we ought to revert to some kind of prudery that teaches that all sex is shameful. Indeed, intimate relations between a husband and his wife are in no way shameful. Given that the relationship of husband and wife is a picture of the relationship of Christ and His Church, there is surely no shame in any legitimate intimacy that is shared between husband and wife. However, we ought to remember that what is intimate ought to be kept private, not out of any sense of shame, but rather to preserve the privacy that ought to attend acts of true intimacy. Thus, even good and right sexual relations ought to be kept out of public sight. They belong in the closet.

So, if good and proper intimate relations ought to be kept private, how much more should wicked and perverse intimate relations be kept out of the public eye! Although such reprehensible sexual practices have been performed by wicked men and women ever since the Fall, a sense of shame or societal reprehension has kept them "in the closet" for much of history. In our day, however, the door to the closet has been flung open wide in the name of "liberation." This was bad enough when it was the "straight" fornication of the early Sexual Revolution that was thrust in our faces, but lately we have endured the spectacle of having homosexual fornication paraded in public. To all this we are supposed to give not only tolerance (live and let live), but more so our approval lest we be labeled "homophobic." Instead of sexual immorality being kept in private on account of shame, it is now considered to be shameful to keep it private. Now it is considered a virtue to come out of the closet, and a vice to remain there.

My friend, it is no vice to keep what ought to be private a private thing. I pray that God will hasten the day when our society comes to its senses and returns sexual intimacy to the closet where it belongs.

Celibacy is for the celibate

2006-03-14T09:00:00.000-06:00

Tim Challies has an excellent review of Getting Serious About Getting Married by Debbie Maken. According to his review, Maken's book teaches that single men ought to pursue marriage unless they are certain that they are indeed called to a life of celibacy. For a guy to just hang around women without any thought of marrying any of them (as I did during my past series of platonic friendships) ought not be an option. To this, I would add my opinion that a single woman ought to be about the business of finding a husband unless she's likewise persuaded that she's called to lifelong singleness.

As I've written recently, there's too much "Hollywood thinking" going on in the heads and hearts of Christian singles. Far too often, we meet members of the opposite sex and evaluate them on whether or not we find them attractive instead of on whether they may be suitable. We put the cart before the horse, thinking that romance ought to come before marriage, failing to understand that romance is a mutual duty shared by the husband and wife once they enter into the wedded state. Over the years since I began my long-overdue search for a wife, I've been saddened to see how many single gals are just as confused on this point as I once was. So many Christian guys and gals think of the pursuit of a godly spouse as a romantic game rather than as a God-ordained responsibility.

Although not all members of the opposite sex are suitable marriage partners, and compatibility on certain matters--especially spiritual matters--is important, there's plenty of matters that singles often think of as being important that, to be perfectly honest, don't matter worth a hill of beans. Many of these "essentials" are little more than matters of personal taste. Frankly, I'm ashamed by some of the silly little excuses I've used to reject perfectly fine women, and I'm sure some single women have likewise rejected decent guys for equally silly reasons. If this is the case with you or me, we ought to quit blaming God for not giving us a mate; instead, we ought to look in the mirror and take a good look at the real reason for our so-called disappointments.

To my fellow Christian singles, both guys and gals, I urge you to quit majoring on the minors, and to prayerfully search the Scriptures to find out what you ought to be looking for as you busy yourself in the search for a spouse. Unless you are truly called to lifelong singleness, your business and mine is to marry, so we need to put aside any worldly thinking that might be hindering us from this vital task.

To my married friends, I urge you to pray for your single brothers and sisters and to do whatever is within your power to assist and encourage their pursuit for suitable spouses. We need your prayers, help, and encouragement.

The power of multiplication

2006-03-09T18:06:00.000-06:00

As a good Internet citizen, The (In)Scrutable One is always happy to help out when possible, even at the risk of doing something really noteworthy such as furthering world peace.

Therefore, I (Yours in (In)Scrutability) would like to assist the experts and pundits who have been at a loss to understand the substantial growth in religious observance in our postmodern age. At a point in history when the intelligentsia have expected that religion would continue to wither towards death, the opposite seems to be occurring. Especially in the Islamic world, religious people are becoming more numerous and more militant.

So what's a postmodern thinker to make of all this? It seems like a very complex question, but as a matter of a fact it's quite easy to understand. The problem, you see, is one of arithmetic, or more specifically one of multiplication: some people multiply more effectively than others.

On one hand, consider the cultural movers and shakers of Western society: scientists, feminists, homosexual activists, media moguls and their minions, etc.. This is a bunch of really smart people, perhaps, but the fact is that they just don't multiply well at all. In the case of homosexuals, they don't multiply at all so long as they stick to partners of their preferred sex, but in other cases, the intellectual/political/artistic life is the very center of their existence, so the idea of having and raising children isn't very attractive to them. Many in fact choose to remain childless throughout life, whereas others restrict themselves to one or maybe two children. Birth control helps to keep this camp's multiplication in check, and abortion reduces their birth rate still further. Whatever the reason, this group of folks--the people who have been steering Western culture for many years--just aren't multiplying a whole lot.

For that matter, there's a lot of other Westerners who aren't multiplying very well, either. These are the little fish who are so wrapped up in personal fulfillment and happiness that having children is just a bother, so very often they don't bother. There's just too much to be enjoyed in the areas of sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll to sacrifice the vast quantity of time and expense that's required to raise children. Although many of the couples in this group do have one or two kids, that's not enough to keep their numbers multiplying, either, so this group is continuing to shrink in proportion, power, and numbers.

On the other hand, there are other people who are doing a fine job of multiplication. For whatever reason--perhaps tradition, or perhaps deep-seated religious conviction--these folks are continuing to raise large numbers of children. We see such people in places such as India and Africa, albeit to a declining degree, but we see it most noticably amongst Muslims, conservative Christians, and members of other religious groups which adhere to some kind of "be fruitful and multiply." Instead of caring exclusively for their own personal felt needs, these people have a sense that to practice self-denial on behalf of their children is an inherently worthy way of life.

Thus, even while the experts, Hollywood pundits, and Emergent Church "prophets" continue to rattle on about self-esteem and personal fulfillment, their days are numbered. Before too much longer, their breed will die out due to insufficient reproduction, to be superseded by the offspring of others who have seen fit to care enough about future generations to raise them in growing quantities. If the offspring of these conservative religious folks follow in their parents'
footsteps, the power of multiplication will only continue to grow, until the voice of postmodern hedonism and liberalism will be little but a pipsqueak, victims of the success of their self-centered philosophy of life. Yes, the day is coming soon when the sheer force of demographics will bring about a return to old values and traditions that were so recently said to be "dead" by these experts who were too busy to get around to ensuring their legacy by having a quiverful of their own. Much like the Shakers and similiar groups who died out largely due to lack of spiritual and natural offspring, the day is at hand when our world will see a return to beliefs and habits that were thought outmoded if not dead.

So, my Christian friend, let us be diligent to obey the Lord's commandment to "be fruitful and multiply." As we raise large numbers of sons and daughters, taking care to train them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, we will be helping to set the stage for what might be a great revival of religion within the next generation or two. Let us be diligent, because the offspring of false religions will also grow in number. Simple multiplication demonstrates that our present liberal, hedonistic, and self-centered culture cannot endure much longer. Let us continue to pass the Gospel on to our sons and daughters that they might be prepared for the potentially huge demographic shift that may well already be in the making!

Better loving through chemistry(?)

2006-03-06T08:42:00.000-06:00

Regarding the allegedly mysterious world of romance, I don't argue against the popular emphasis of "chemistry" over and above sacrificial love-giving because I doubt its existence. I most certainly believe in chemistry. In fact, I've felt it in action. I can remember a number of incidents in which I felt rather swept away as I conversed with an attractive young woman. However, there was just one little problem: the woman was usually spoken for (i.e., married) or was obviously unsuitable for me for some other reason. Therefore, I acted in express contradiction to all of those good ol' romantic stories and swept my feelings under the rug, sensing that however powerful my emotions might be, they were not to be trusted to rule over what is right. Conversely, I can think of perfectly fine gals whom I overlooked in my younger days because I didn't "feel attracted" to them. So I am indeed aware of romantic chemistry, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to trust it.

"But waitaminnit, Dave! Sally and I have been happily married for twenty years. I remember feeling that she was the right woman for me the very first time I met her. Our personalities just clicked, and the rest is history."

Thanks for bringing that up, Harry. :-) I'm so glad that your marriage has turned out so well and that "chemistry" seemed to help you and Sally, but yet I think there's reason to doubt that it's anything but plain ordinary Scriptural self-sacrificing, self-denying love that's brought you through those twenty years happily together. Perhaps you learned how to serve one another from the beginning, or perhaps it was in the aftermath of your first big fight, but if you'll honestly consider what's sustained your marriage, I'm sure you'll realize that there's been a lot more to it than that feeling that attracted you to Sally. Oh, I don't doubt that that feeling has grown over the years, but I would submit that good feelings of affectionate regard are the common and ordinary fruit of right behavior. In other words, your feelings grow out of your actions rather than your actions out of your feelings.

Personally, I most certainly desire that should I marry, my wife and I would share a great deal of mutual affection for each other, but yet I'd hate to base the security and stability of our relationship primarily upon such affection seeing as how it is so easily strained by the trials and tribulations of this life. Therefore, as I consider the single gals whom I have occasion to meet, I try to place relatively little store on how she makes me feel and concentrate instead on whether she might be a suitable partner for me, confident that if I make God's priorities mine, He will graciously grant us the affectionate feelings we both desire. Thus, The (In)Scrutable One is no enemy to chemistry, but in fact upholds it in its proper place and priority.

Laying aside Hollywood dreams

2006-03-05T15:26:00.000-06:00

It's six years and counting since I began to earnestly search for a suitable Christian wife. No, I haven't met her yet, or at least I don't think I have. It's not that single gals aren't out there. They are. I've written, spoken with, and visited dozens of them. My experience with each one of them was unique, but yet in practically all of them I observed something in common: the desire for romance. Call it what you will--chemistry, the spark, whatever--single Christian women seem to want it just as bad as their unbelieving sisters. With few exceptions, single gals seem to have an earnest desire to be swept off their feet in romantic bliss.

During my journey, I've also seen a few Christian singles manage to get un-single-fied and take on a spouse. You know what I've noticed about them? There's no lack of mutual affection between them, but that's not the main thing: without exception, they demonstrate a willingness to serve one another and work alongside one another. Instead of each party living to have his or her emotional needs met, they are striving to meet the true needs of the other party. To be sure there is romance that comes out of this, but it is so evident that the romance grows out of the serving rather than the serving being fueled by the romance. Perhaps this is the crucial reason why these folks managed to get married whereas so many singles haven't: they've come to understand that love is built upon duty rather than emotion.

My single brother or sister, please pay heed to this. Any thought you may have of building a God-honoring marriage on the foundation of emotional bliss is based on Hollywood or Harlequin fantasy instead of Scripture. If you want to continue looking for a knight in shining armor or a damsel in distress in your daydreams, go ahead, but don't confuse such fantasies with reality. Put aside your worldly notions about chemistry, spark, etc., and search the Scriptures to see what they teach about the roles of husband/father and wife/mother. Next, apply those teaching to yourself insofar as the role(s) to which you aspire, and prayerfully search for a person who embodies the qualities that would suit him/her for the role(s) he/she would fill. Looks and personality matter, I suppose, but spiritual like-mindedness and submissiveness matter so much more!

Although I often enjoy watching old Hollywood romances and comedies, I've learned to file their often-hackneyed plotlines under "worldly fantasy." I am determined to build a marriage on Scripture instead of Hollywood. How about you, Christian single? How about you?

God is still moving, but where?

2006-02-24T12:31:00.000-06:00

For the last few posts, I've been addressing today's seeker-sensitive movement within evangelicalism. The more I learn about the Purpose-Driven Life and Emergent Church movements, the more I despair for the future of mainstream evangelicalism, but yet I in no way despair for the future of Christ's true church! My reason for hope: throughout church history, God has consistently used heresies and apostasy as a springboard for advancing the true Gospel. Many reformations and revivals have had their roots in the diligent efforts of godly believers to answer the errors of their day. The Protestant Reformation itself was a reaction to the many errors and heresies of the Roman Catholic church of the day. To paraphrase Paul's great statement in Romans, where error has abounded, truth has abounded much more.

To today's promoters and followers of evangelical fads and follies, I can say that I agree that God is moving today, but He's certainly not moving through the evangelical fad of the day. If you're seeing people truly turn to Christ in your churches, it's strictly on account of whatever portion of Gospel truth is being preached from your pulpit and is in spite of the man-made means you've been employing, but it is most certainly not your churches that are seeing a true move of God. Instead, it is in those churches that have remained faithful to preaching Christ crucified that God continues to be at work drawing sinners unto Himself. Many of these churches are quite small, and they are widely scattered in location, so you might not be aware of them, but they do exist. In these churches, expository preaching of the Word is primary, and worship is God-centered. The novel inventions of men, no matter how popular they be, are rejected in favor of the clear teaching of Scripture. No, the crowds don't flock to these churches, but that's no wonder because the Gospel is an offense to all save those whom God sovereignly chooses to draw unto Himself.

My friend, appearances to the contrary, the church of Jesus Christ is continuing to prosper and grow wherever the Scriptures are faithfully preached. It is only those churches who have rejected the plain teaching of Scripture in favor of evangelical fads and follies that are dying on the vine. Although I'm grieved by the abuse of men's souls that's being perpetrated by these wayward churches, I remain hopeful for the progress of Christ's church, for we have Christ's own promise that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it. No matter how great the apostasy around us, the true church will continue to prosper and grow.

The Fad-Driven Church

2006-02-22T22:19:00.000-06:00

Among the many services that are provided by today's Internet, one of the most useful is the means it provides for keeping track of the latest and greatest events in the American evangelical church. Not that many years ago, the big thing was something called Promise Keepers. Do you remember Promise Keepers? Sure you do! Why, there was a period of two or three years in which you hardly heard about anything else. To many evangelical leaders, Promise Keepers was the great move of God that the church needed. PK conventions filled entire football stadiums with professing Christian men, many of whom went on to form small groups for accountability purposes. If one were to judge by the testimonials from those heady days, God was using PK in a big way to transform men and their families. A little while after that, it was the Prayer of Jabez, a little book that made both the Christian and the general best-seller list. Church after church jumped on the bandwagon in order to provide their communities with the blessings that were promised by Bruce Wilkinson's teaching. Next up was The Passion of the Christ, a film which one minister called one of the greatest evangelistic tools of the last one hundred years. For several months, the members of evangelical churches filled theaters in which the movie was shown, helping to turn it into a surprise hit.

What with all the noise that was made by these alleged "moves of God" in their day, I think it's rather ironic that you hardly hear about any of them any more. In turn, each "move" rose to prominence to dominate the evangelical landscape for several months or a couple of years, only to shrink back to obscurity, making way for the Next Big Thing. As each of these "moves" came on the scene, so did the hype, but yet it seems that few noticed when they fizzled out and died. If God was indeed behind these "moves" as so many had claimed, it seems that He's either lacking in the ability to sustain His mighty work or else He has an extremely short attention span.

In any event, it's just as well that these past moves have gone by the wayside, because now American evangelicalism is reveling in Today's Big Thing: the Purpose-Driven Life movement and its seeker-sensitive and Emergent offshoots. Just like PK, Jabez, and the rest, everyone says it's great, and anyone who's anyone is jumping on the bandwagon. Surely the PDL is really, truly, absolutely just what evangelicalism needs! It's going to do everything that all of these other "moves" of the recent past did and more! Right? Right???

Ahem.

If you've read along thus far, I hope you see the point I'm trying to make: American evangelicalism is utterly hooked on following the tossing waves and shifting sands of the latest and greatest religious fad, so hooked that few seem to realize just how foolish this is. To say one year, "This is the thing God is doing", only to say the next year, "Now this is what He's doing for sure," betrays an incredibly short attention span and memory. As the mainstream evangelical church hops from one bandwagon to another, no one seems to realize that it is simply being tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine. No sooner does one fad fade out, another one rises up to take its place, with no one stopping to think, "Hmmm, haven't we been through this before?"

My friend, there's more wrong with the PDL, etc., than the flimsy proof-texting that's trotted out as alleged support. By claiming that these man-made fads are a "move of God" or a great evangelistic tool, we are dragging God's name through the mud and turning the church of Jesus Christ into a laughing stock. As we chase after every fad and fancy in its turn, we look exactly like a flock of blind men following a leader who's just as blind as they. Now, it might be understandable if the evangelical church would fall for a single fad once in a while and learn its lesson, but what we're seeing is a collective chase after an unbroken sequence of fads. This behavior is not only unscriptural: it's also flat out stupid.

By way of contrast, consider Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever. Consider the Scriptures, ever the sole, sufficient Word of God. Consider the true church militant and victorious, founded upon the Rock of Christ: even the gates of hell cannot prevail against its onslaught! While today's man-centered "evangelical" churches persist in going after the latest and greatest fancies, there remains a remnant who by God's grace remains faithful to the pure undiluted teaching of the whole counsel of God. It is through this remnant rather than through the crowds who are following the ever-shifting winds of man-made doctrine that Christ is continuing to build His church. Yes, the Church of Jesus Christ is alive and well and thriving wherever the Scriptures are preached and God remains the center.

I suspect it will not be long before the Purpose-Driven Life and its offshoots will pass from the scene unnoticed and unlamented. Many will be disappointed by their failure, but none of the shepherds who led these sheep astray will comfort them. At best, they will encourage these poor people to chase after yet another folly. In the meantime, the church will continue to grow and prosper wherever the Gospel is preached and Christ is lifted up. The church has no need of man-made fads and follies: it already has all that it needs in Christ.

The proper cure for spiritual disease

2006-02-16T11:40:00.000-06:00

As I've reflected upon the little fairy tale I've recently spun for you, I've realized that there was an additional problem with the young doctor's forty-day cure. Not only wasn't the cure permanent, it was also lacking in strength. Although the stimulation provided by his cure provided a temporary illusion of youthful liveliness, it simply wasn't strong enough to cure what ailed the sick woman.

Let us consider what is promised by today's seeker-sensitive churches: meaning and purpose for life, fulfillment, peace of mind, connection with other people, etc.. Although all of these things are desirable in and of themselves, they are woefully insufficient to address the needs of real people. You see, you and I aren't merely lacking in peace or fulfillment, although we could certainly stand to have more of those things. No, you and I and every human being with whom we share this earth has a far greater problem that today's megachurches deliberately fail to address. Given the design of these churches to avoid turning people off to what they have to offer, it's eminently understandable that they'd not want to address the underlying problem of humanity, but yet I would suggest that they are responsible for extreme negligence in their seemingly friendly offer to help people with their problems without saying a word about the fatal disease that is at the root of those so-called problems.

The name of this disease is, of course, sin. It is far and away the most prevalent disease suffered by mankind. The infection rate is 100%, and the fatality rate is the same unless miraculous means are brought to bear to lift the sufferer out of his woeful state. In fact, nothing less than a miracle of God's grace will do the sinner a single solitary bit of good. Yes, you and I have problems, but our problems are nothing more than side effects of our sin.

Now, some will say, "We're all sinners, and we all know that we are, so why run the risk of offending people by harping on what they already know?" Well, as a matter of fact, none of us have the slightest idea of what sin really is until we are confronted with what the Scriptures have to say about it. Sin isn't just problems, and it isn't about making mistakes. It isn't just about the really big mistakes, either. People such Hitler and Stalin and John Wayne Gacy and Charles Manson aren't the only sinners, my friend. In fact, you and I are just as sick at heart as they.

In a way, I think all of us are like little Pharisees. I certainly am. I look at myself in the mirror and say, "Dave, you're not a bad guy. You haven't murdered anyone, you haven't cheated on your income tax, and you even help little old ladies across the street. I'm certainly a lot better guy than my neighbor who's cheating on his wife. Yup, God must be really happy with me." We tend to judge ourselves with a quick surface-level once-over, and give ourselves a clean bill of health if we can't find any blatantly obvious warts or lesions.

But are we really as well off as we think? The Great Physician, the Lord Jesus Christ, got right to the crux of the matter when He demonstrated that anger towards my brother is tantamount to murder, and lust towards my neighbor's wife is adultery. Paul expanded on this point in one of the most horrifying chapters of Scripture, Romans 1. "But that's about the pedophile, the homosexual, and the pervert," you may say, "I've certainly never done anything nearly so bad as what Paul's describing!" Perhaps not outwardly, and perhaps not in such a manner that any other person could observe, but if you and I will examine our hearts in all honesty, we will discover that lusts and perversions are indeed festering there. Oh, we may not have ever gone so far as to act upon the wickedness that's brewing in our sinful hearts, but it is there all the same. The fact of the matter is this: whenever I presume to do or even think whatever pleases me in willful contradiction to God's express commandment, I am a perverted man. In the Fall, Adam and Eve willfully chose to disobey God's commandment, thus perverting all that is good and right. When I disobey God's Law, as I do countless times every day, I am just as perverted as they, and just as perverted as a child molestor or drug addict. I don't merely have problems: I am a desperately sick man.

My friend, consider a man who's suffering from sharp, repeated chest pains. Would I be doing him a favor if I gave him a bottle of aspirin and a pat on the back? No, I ought to be exhorting him to see a doctor at the earliest possible moment, because his pains may be symptomatic of a very serious condition. Likewise, the so-called evangelical church does the sinner absolutely no favor by professing to care about his symptomatic ills while willfully refusing to confront him with the true nature of his malady. Although this behavior is thought of as sensitive to the person, in true fact it represents an utter lack of true love and compassion for him. Even if you encourage the sinner to trust in Christ, you will do him no good unless you make it plain to him just why he so desperately needs to receive the imputed righteousness of Christ. Christ came not for the righteous, but for sinners. If my only problem is a lack of peace or purpose, then perhaps all I need is a social club so perhaps my local seeker-sensitive church is all I need, but if I'm desperately sick unto death, then nothing will do for me but Christ.

If you were suffering from a serious disease, and you were to discover that your doctor was withholding the true nature of your condition from you, you'd no doubt be indignant, especially if your condition was curable if it were promptly and properly treated. You might even decide to go find another doctor. This is much like what happens when a so-called minister of the Gospel refuses to tell sinners of their desperately wicked condition. My friend, this is rank irresponsibility, and it ought not to be! Therefore, I charge those ministers who have willfully refused to forthrightly preach on sin and its only Remedy to repent of their sin and to resume preaching the whole counsel of God: both the bad news and the good.

The only cure for a sick church

2006-02-11T13:25:00.000-06:00

A little while back, I shared a story of a sick woman who temporarily grew better while under the effect of a young doctor's forty-day cure. Although her cure didn't last permanently, it did seem to produce beneficial effects for a number of years, so you'd hardly blame that poor woman for thinking that the cure had worked. However, time and experience taught her that her confidence in that quick-and-easy cure had been misplaced, and she ended up disappointed in the end.

History is full of situations rather similar to that endured by the woman of our little story. Take, for instance, the ministry of the famous 19th Century minister Charles Finney. Surely all evangelicals have heard the stories of the amazing results that were seen during Finney's revival meetings. Thousands of men and women professed to have made a decision. In some towns, so many people were affected by Finney's preaching that all of the drinking establishments went out of business. To this day, the stories of Finney's revivals are told as examples of the amazing results that can be expected when effective methods are used to present the Gospel. However, there's more to the story of Finney's revivals. Although his preaching invariably produced quick, visible results, the passing of time was not kind to his revival fruit. Later in life, Finney himself began to realize that the vast majority of his converts had fallen away from the Christian faith.

As Phil Johnson writes in his excellent article on Finney:

Predictably, most of Finney's spiritual heirs lapsed into apostasy, Socinianism, mere moralism, cultlike perfectionism, and other related errors. In short, Finney's chief legacy was confusion and doctrinal compromise. Evangelical Christianity virtually disappeared from western New York in Finney's own lifetime. Despite Finney's accounts of glorious "revivals," most of the vast region of New England where he held his revival campaigns fell into a permanent spiritual coldness during Finney's lifetime and more than a hundred years later still has not emerged from that malaise. This is directly owing to the influence of Finney and others who were simultaneously promoting similar ideas.
The Western half of New York became known as "the burnt-over district," because of the negative effects of the revivalist movement that culminated in Finney's work there. These facts are often obscured in the popular lore about Finney. But even Finney himself spoke of "a burnt district" [Memoirs, 78], and he lamented the absence of any lasting fruit from his evangelistic efforts. He wrote,

I was often instrumental in bringing Christians under great conviction, and into a state of temporary repentance and faith . . . . [But] falling short of urging them up to a point, where they would become so acquainted with Christ as to abide in Him, they would of course soon relapse into their former state [cited in B. B. Warfield, Studies in Perfectionism, 2 vols. (New York: Oxford, 1932), 2:24].

Thus, the fruit of Finney's revivalism, at first so promising, turned out to be rotten at its very core.

In our day, we may observe the sad spectacle of countless once-faithful but now-dying evangelical churches turning to seemingly effective methods and programs in order to revive themselves. Predictably, these methods often seem to work, just as Finney's "new methods" once seemed so fruitful. Today, the results that are garnered by the methods of Rick Warren and others are trumpeted as proof of the value of the methods. "Look at how our church's attendance has grown, and look at how many decisions for Christ we've had since we've gone through our forty days of purpose!" On the face of it, this reasoning looks compelling. After all, who can argue with the results? Remember, though, what became of Finney's alleged results in the end. The witness of church history is clear: new methods developed and practiced without true regard to Scripture, however successful they seem to be in the short run, never produce good, lasting fruit. They always end up doing far more harm than good! Although the history of Christianity has seen times of reformation and revival in which old truths have been restored to the church, I am not aware of any instance in which a totally new doctrine or method proved to be both Scripturally sound and fruitful.

In my fairy tale, the woman who'd been temporarily cured by the forty-day nostrum eventually fell back into sickness, and in desperation called upon the town's old physician who prescribed for her a slower and less trendy cure that nonetheless restored her to full health and long life. In turning to the old, proven cure, the woman found the health that had been promised but finally denied her by the young doctor's new methods. Likewise, the churches who are flocking after the latest and greatest cures for their ailing fellowships would do far better if they were to seek help from the tried-and-true cure: the undiluted preaching of the whole counsel of God. Whereas church growth methods can produce an illusion of life, history and experience show that the lasting fruit will not be good, and that in fact lasting harm will be done to countless souls on account of the very methods that had seemed so effective. Instead, the ailing church ought to turn itself back to the Scriptures and to prayer, calling upon God to revive true religion and sound doctrine in its midst. This, my friend, is the only cure for an ailing church that really and truly works.

The marriage wars

2006-02-09T22:27:00.000-06:00

As I listened to the 2004 presidential election returns, I was one of many observers who was struck by a message that the American voter had sent through the election's results. Regarding certain issues of morality, many voters seemed to say, "Enough is enough! We're putting our foot down right now." In particular, referendums on homosexual marriage rights in several states were resoundingly defeated. The message seemed clear: the voting majority of Americans were willing to stand up for the sanctity of marriage as being the union between a man and a woman. It seemed like such a victory for traditional marriage.

What a pity, then, that this victory came so long after traditional marriage had become a mere shadow of its former self. By 2004, the time when marriage was viewed by most as a lifelong committment--"till death do us part"--was long, long past. For many years now, 50% of American marriages have ended in divorce. If marriage has ever been viewed as an covenant that's dissolvable only by death or in cases of adultery, those days are a distant memory. The fact of the matter is that the institution of marriage had long been a pathetic joke, a mere sham of what it once had been or ought to have been, so the leap to homosexual marriage was really not so large as it seemed during that election. In fact, the largest steps towards the destruction of marriage as a permanent covenant relationship between a man and a woman had been taken many years before.

Among my various avocations, I'm a fan of classic Hollywood movies and early 20th Century popular music. Compared to today's movies and music, this stuff seems ultra-clean. In some ways it is, but in other ways it reflects the sad fact that American society had already begun to lose sight of the true nature and foundation of marriage. Think of the classic Hollywood romantic flick of the 30's or 40's. With precious few exceptions, the love that is shown as being the prerequisite for wedded bliss is portrayed as emotional euphoria. Although there are instances where the lovers are shown as making great sacrifices for each other, the reason is invariably that they feel so much in love.

Now, I'm the first one to agree that there's something special about affectionate feelings for another person. Should I marry one day, I hope that I will share such wonderful feelings with my wife. However, I question whether such feelings ought to be thought of as sufficient grounds for entering into a permanent relationship. OK, let's say I'm swept off my feet by a lovely lady and we end up marrying. Time passes, and our feelings for each other cool markedly. In fact, we get downright sick of each other. We married for feelings, so why shouldn't we divorce over feelings? My friend, this is essentially what countless men and women have done for several generations now. One is in love when one feels love, and one is out of love when that wonderful feeling goes away. No wonder the divorce rate is sky-high, and no wonder adultery is winked at! My friend, this kind of marriage is hardly less a joke than homosexual marriage!

It is long past time that we face up to facts. Even if homosexual marriage or civil unions are outlawed in every ince of U.S. territory, the institution of marriage is anything but safe so long as the vast majority of marriages are based solely on the flimsy ground of emotional attraction. Pragmatism isn't the answer, either. Several decades ago, couples who detested each other would stay married for the sake of the children. Mind you, that was better than divorce, but yet such marriages were a mere shell of what they ought to have been. Not even social stigma--the fear of losing face--is a good enough reason to keep a marriage together.

In fact, there's only one way to start a marriage, and it's the same way that you've got to keep it together. It's the way that's laid out for us with the utmost clarity in Scripture. Although the Bible does indeed celebrate the joys of conjugal love (esp. in the Song of Solomon), it clearly teaches that marriage is a covenant--a binding relationship sealed by a solemn promise--based not on feelings of love but on Biblical duty love. This is the essential truth that's long been forgotten by American society: love is a duty. Think of the Ten Commandments. They are an expansion or commentary on the two Royal Laws: to love God with all one's heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself. Love, my friend, is not primarily a feeling: it is a duty. Husbands are to love their wives, and wives their husbands, not because they share feelings of affection or attraction, even though such feelings ought to be coveted and even cultivated: no, they are to love one another because God commanded them to do so. The difference between this type of love and this type of marriage is as different from the world's view of love and marriage is as great as that between day and night.

Let us make no mistake. Marriage is not under any new threat now. No, it has been under threat ever since our society rejected the essential truth that marriage is a covenant that's kept on account of divine Commandment. If marriage is to be rescued, it is not enough to overturn homosexual marriage. Instead, God must grant our nation the grace to reject our individualistic, feelings-based notion of romantic love in favor of the Biblical standard of duty-based love. In so doing, we need not discard our desire for a affectionate romantic relationship, but rather we must come to realize that true affection can only be built upon the foundation of a love that is constant both in fair and foul weather. It is only the love that denies self and puts others above oneself that can be a proper foundation for true marriage. Until our nation is granted a God-given revival of true religion, marriage will continue to be a faint shadow (at best) of what it ought to be. So, let us not be unduly dismayed if homosexual marriage or even polygamy become legal, for our hope for the revival of marriage is not in presidents or courts but in God!

The parable of the sick woman

2006-02-09T09:54:00.000-06:00

[Greetings, dear readers! I have a bit of treat for you today. It's a fairy tale that takes the form of a parable. As you read, see if you can figure out what is represented by the woman, the young physician, and the old physician. Enjoy!]

Once upon a time in a wealthy kingdom, there lived a woman of venerable age. As a youth she enjoyed robust health. Upon entering middle age she began to lose her youthful vigor, but yet retained enough of her strength and beauty to remain fairly attractive to many suitors. As the years passed and the woman advanced into old age, her suitors gradually fell by the wayside, and her health began to leave her, so she asked the local physician to see what he might be able to do for her. He was a younger man whose head was filled with all the latest medical knowledge. He exuded the confidence that comes only with youth.

It did not take long for the physician to form a notion of what ailed the woman. "Why, it is the very same affliction that has been common amongst many women of your years! I have brewed a potion that has restored youthful vim and vigor to many such women, and I am confident that if you will partake of it for only forty days that it will do you much good!!!" As the physician spoke of the marvelous cures that had been wrought by his potion, the woman found her heart swelling with rising hope. "Very well, then," she said, "let us begin at once."

So, the woman began the forty-day cure, and soon the results were marvelous to behold. In place of her elderly listlessness, she enjoyed a renewed sense of purpose. It seemed to her that everything that the doctor had claimed for his cure was true. Just like the other women he'd treated, this woman found herself with a new vigor and attractiveness such as she hadn't enjoyed since she was a youth. Moreover, her old beauty began to be restored, and--wonder of wonders!--suitors began to come to her door for the first time in many, many years. Needless to say, the woman was more than happy to lend her name to the physician's list of testimonials.

During the next few years, the woman continued to enjoy her renewed vigor and purpose. One day, though, she learned that another nearby lady who had also partaken of the doctor's forty-day cure had suddenly taken ill. Almost as suddenly as it had been restored several years ago, the woman's vigor, beauty, and purpose had been stripped away from her, leaving her worse off than she'd been before she'd begun the doctor's treatment. Upon hearing this news, our woman began to fear and fret. "Why, I have partaken of the very same treatment as this poor creature. Am I doomed to suffer the same fate as she? What is to become of me?"

In due time, the woman's worst fears came to fruition. Much like her neighbor, the benefits of the doctor's forty-day cure suddenly left her bereft of all strength and beauty. Desparate, she called for the physician who'd once done her so much good, but her servant returned with the sad tidings that he'd fled for parts unknown not long ago and had not been heard from since. "What am I to do?", the woman cried, "Who is to help me in my distress?" To this the woman's servant replied, "Well, there remains the old physician in the town. He is ignorant of the new ways, but has remained true to the old treatments. Would you like for me to send for him?" "Very well!" the woman replied. "I had tired of his treatments many years ago, but now I suppose I have no other hope. Send for him if you must."

Later that day, the old physician arrived at the woman's bedside to examine her. His manner was brusque and indelicate, but yet a heart of real concern for the poor woman showed through his craggy exterior. "I understand that you have been a victim of the infamous forty-day treatment of our town's recently departed quack," he croaked. "Yes," she wearily replied, "I'd once thought he'd done me such good, but now I'm far worse off than I'd been before!"

It didn't take long for the elderly doctor to determine what truly ailed the sick woman. "It is a pity that you failed to call for me at the first, because your case and cure are quite simple," he said. "Although your cure will be a slow one, it will in time result in a full restoration of your health and the addition of many, many years to your life. You see, the problem has been with your diet. The foods and drinks of which you've imbibed since your youth have slowly but surely sapped your health, leaving you in your present condition. The quack's treatment had merely added a stimulant to your diet, but failed to remedy your poor diet. I counsel you to go on the diet that I will recommend. Be warned, though, that there will be no speedy cure, and that if you lay off this diet, you will lose everything that would would have gained had you stayed on the diet. You must persevere with it to the very end of your days."

So, left with no other alternative, the woman began to partake of the doctor's old-fashioned diet. As he had warned her, the improvement in her health came very slowly, almost inperceptibly, but in due time she noticed that she'd begun to thrive on the old diet. As the years went on, she adhered religiously to the doctor's diet. Of the many victims of the forty-day quack, only a few found their way back to the old-fashioned diet, so most burned out and died long before our woman. Although she had labored hard to try to persuade her friends to use the old doctor's tried-and-true diet, most of them refused, but our woman in the end lived happily ever after.

THE END.

Duty, R.I.P.

2006-01-25T22:44:00.000-06:00

Somewhere in the graveyard of dead and gone virtues lies a lonely, neglected, and long-forgotten gravestone. It bears just one simple word: "Duty." So long has Duty laid in its grave that few if any souls ever come to visit it. Although it was once universally known in many nations, although not always as well respected as it ought to have been, Duty is now a distant memory.

In place of Duty, this generation has set its affections upon a new virtue: Convenience. Whereas Duty formerly acted as a compelling force to do what one ought to do regardless of what one felt like doing, Convenience is a much easier virtue to cultivate. All it requires is that I decide what's most important for me to do based upon whatever standard I think best, and disregard any other task that might be done. In place of Duty's universal standard of what was important and what was not, Convenience sets the individual free to decide how he ought to invest his limited time and energy. Convenience is especially beloved in today's America. It is honored not only in every drive-through food pickup lane and ATM, but also in the way people choose to use their precious time. Duty is dead, long live Convenience!

Before its demise several generations ago, Duty enjoyed a long life. In addition to its sporadic enshrinement as a cultural virtue in various nations at various times, Duty played a prominent role in the Christian Scriptures. Long ago, especially in churches that purported to subscribe to the old doctrine of Sola Scriptura--Scripture alone--strange notions were taught in the name of Duty. For instance, believers were told that love was not primarily an emotion or a passion, but was instead a Duty that one owed to God and one's neighbor. Whereas a Convenience is left up to one's free choice, a Duty is invariably tied to some kind of commandment such as "love your neighbor as yourself" or "husbands, love your wives even as Christ loved the church and died for her."

This belief in Duty led to some rather strange situations. In many old Christian households, husbands sacrificed personal comfort--leisure, sleep, solitude, etc.--in order to act as the spiritual leader of their households. No matter how hard he worked during the day, he always took the time to patiently instruct his wife and children in the Word of God. Not only did he count it his obligation to be his family's breadwinner, he also counted it his Duty to act as the loving servant leader of his family. Mind you, he wasn't necessarily the world's greatest teacher, and his efforts invariably fell short of what they could have been, but because he believed that God had commanded him to be the spiritual leader of his household, our old-fashioned husband invested countless hours into doing things that seem peculiar and quaint today. Some wives also acted in a peculiar manner. Many, even though they may have been more richly endowed with gifts of teaching or intelligence than their husbands, graciously submitted to his leadership not because of his greater talent, but because they believed that it was their God-ordained duty to submit to his spiritual authority. Like our strange husbands, these strange wives did what they did on account of the Duty they felt to do what God had commanded regardless of their personal comfort or Convenience.

Things have changed a great deal since those days. Many Christians, excepting a tiny handful of renegades and rebels, have come to adopt the virtue of Convenience. Husbands still bring home the bacon, but many wives bring home their share as well. Their hard work as well as all the time and effort necessary to live a prosperous, comfortable life often makes it difficult to obey all of those old-fashioned commandments, so many have learned to disregard them as though they were relics from a bygone day. Thus, husbands often leave it to their wives to bear the primary load as spiritual leader in the household. In our fast-paced, hectic world, the old virtue of Duty seems to be woefully unrealistic, because circumstances have made it so clear that it's simply impossible to do all of those things that God commanded us to do. Thus, it's just as well that we no longer profess the sufficiency of Scripture for all matters of faith and practice, because we've learned to pick and choose the parts of Scripture we're going to use based upon our circumstances, preferences, and talents.

Convenience is indeed king. No wonder then that Duty lies a-moldering in its grave, forsaken and forgotten, along with so many of God's commandments that are difficult or just plain Inconvenient to obey.

American evangelicalism on the downgrade

2006-01-23T19:06:00.000-06:00

Some time ago, I shared some thoughts about the monarchy of God. The Reformers had no trouble understanding the great truth that God was King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and that He had every right to show mercy to whomsoever He chose.

However, with the birth of a new kind of political freedom in the nation of the United States of America came a new kind of thinking. With no king and no nobility, the USA saw itself as an egalitarian, classless society in which anyone with sufficient talent and ambition could lift himself up by his own bootstraps. Whereas past generations in the Old World had largely accepted the individual's lot in life as being ordained by God, the people of this new nation came to think of themselves as being free to choose their own destiny. They were free: free not only from the tyranny of the king, but free also from the tyrannies of class and birth.

Little wonder, then, that the 19th Century evangelicals saw an explosion in the popularity of the old doctrine of Arminianism. This doctrine had been around for centuries, first under the name of semi-Pelagianism, later under the name of its Dutch proponent Jacob Arminius, and saw growth in popularity through the influence of John Wesley and his Methodists, but it was in America that Arminianism rapidly overtook Calvinism as the "majority report" amongst evangelicals. In contrast to Calvinism's emphasis on the sovereignty of God over all aspects of man's salvation, Arminianism taught that Christ died to make salvation for all men possible, but left it up to man's free will to decide whether or not to appropriate His saving work for himself. Although God's grace was seen as essential, it was man's decision that determined whether or not he was to be saved or damned. All things considered, the teaching of Arminianism was admirably well-suited for the new American philosophy.

So, it is little wonder that Arminianism has maintained its near-total sway over American evangelicalism ever since. Whereas earlier Arminians such as John Wesley retained much of the God-centered emphasis of their Calvinist contemporaries, American Arminianism has steadily evolved into a form that places nearly total emphasis on man. In place of the Reformed and Lutheran preaching of both Law and Gospel, evangelicalism now tells the world that "God loves you, and has a wonderful plan for your life," placing little or no emphasis on the minor matter of sin. Although this watered-down gospel brings countless thousands into church every Sunday, it is also true that only a small fraction of the converts won by it stick around those churches very long. The percentage of "decisions for Christ" that persevere in the Christian faith is woefully small.

What with a doctrinal foundation that's an excellent match with the prevailing world philosophy, it ought not be surprising that much of the evangelical church bears a close resemblance to the world insofar as human roles and relationships are concerned. In such churches, fewer and fewer men outside the senior pastorate seem to be motivated to take on leadership positions. In order to fill the vacuum, women are taking on many ministry roles which historically had been held by men alone. Whereas Paul exhorted Timothy to not let a woman teach a man, and taught that an elder (aka pastor) ought to be the husband of one wife, today's church is filled with women teachers and pastors. Instead of waiting to discuss theological matters with her husband at home, today's evangelical woman is not only freely participating in such discussions with men, she is also often teaching the men. The great apostle would see little resemblance between the church order he taught and the order we see today.

Although much could be said to explain how this shift towards egalitarianism in the evangelical church took place, I'd simply like to make one simple point: the church is not to be led by the philosophy of the world. Instead, the church ought to order its affairs based on one source: the Scriptures. The plain fact is this: the Scriptures do speak regarding human roles and relationships. They are far from silent! In both testaments, God took pains to reveal to us His will for His church and the Christian family, but yet American evangelicalism has persistently refused to hear what He has to say. Instead of obedience to Scripture, it has repeatedly chosen to conform itself to the world, doing this or that not because God said to do it, but because it seems to work.

My friend, pragmatism rather than Scripture has been the rule of a growing portion of American evangelicalism for over two centuries, and has nearly taken over every church that claims to be evangelical. Little wonder that some are warning that we are presently in the midst of a spiritual downgrade far worse than that which Spurgeon so eloquently preached against a century ago. If you find yourself in a church that is more beholden to the felt needs of man than the Word of God, I urge you to search the Scriptures and seek out a sound Bible-preaching church that puts the focus on God where it belongs! Even if you have to drive an hour each way to attend services, your spiritual life may depend upon it. Put aside your drive for happiness and fulfillment, and make it a priority to seek to learn and do what is pleasing to God. The downgrade which we see is severe, but yet God continues to cultivate a remnant. Do not be mistaken by the apparent success of today's megachurches: true spiritual life continues to be found only where God is central and the Scriptures are diligently preached.

Platonic friendships

2006-01-21T11:25:00.000-06:00

It's been a while since I've shopped for bananas (I'm more a plum man nowadays :-) ), but when I did so, I thought it wasn't a terribly difficult task. My preference was for bananas that had just a touch of green to their color. If no such bananas were available, I'd choose those that had a minimum of brown spots. In general, this procedure garnered a bunch of bananas that were free of soft spots, but from time to time, peeling open a banana that appeared free of blemishes on the outside revealed a substantial amount of soft spots. Although my efforts to judge a banana by its outward appearance usually gave me a reasonable impression of the quality of what was inside, this kind of problem happened often enough that I came to distrust whether my all-yellow banana was in fact all that it appeared to be. Regarding banana inspection, I think I was guilty of two main faults: (1) my wisdom regarding what outward signs indicated a good banana was lacking, and (2) my outward visual inspection was insufficient to reveal the inner faults of the fruit.

Regarding the discernment of sin, especially the sin that lurks within our own hearts, I think we're all pretty rotten fruit inspectors. Don't take my word for it: Jesus Himself said so. Whereas we love to compare our behavior with the grossest external wickedness--compared to which we are apparently white as snow--Jesus taught that sin constitutes not just obvious outward behavior, but inner heart motives as well. When I look at a woman with lust, I commit adultery, and when I'm angry with my brother, I commit murder. Like the Pharisees of Jesus' day, we judge ourselves by far too superficial a standard.

Lately, I've been mulling over the subject of male/female relationships. As I've done so, it's occurred to me that a lot of destructive relationships start out as outwardly innocent "platonic friendships." A man and woman start to hang out with each others, sometimes publically, sometimes in private. They enjoy talking with each other and doing things together, but they don't feel a strong physical attraction to each other, so they manage to avoid blatant fornication. Although there are many times that such a friendship evolves into a romantic relationship, there are other times that the relationship never crosses the line from friendship to romance. So long as this line isn't crossed, it's easy for the pair to think, "There's nothing wrong with what we're doing. We're just friends. Why, we've never even kissed!" In such cases, it is indeed a mercy of God that blatant fornication doesn't take place, but yet we ought to consider whether such a standard of judgment is sufficiently strict.

When I was a young adult, I had a number of platonic friendships with women. Not a single one led to any kind of obvious immorality. I came to fancy that I had a special gift of self control: that I could handle a considerable degree of emotional intimacy without letting things get out of hand. Moreover, I learned to conduct myself towards women, both unmarried and married, in such a way that they felt that they could trust me. When my friend was married, I always made it a point to get to know her husband and spend time with both of them. After all, I was just friends with his wife, and had no desire to disrupt their family life. In a very real sense, I was successful in this balancing act. I was, in a way, the best-case scenario for the participant in platonic friendships.

During that season of my life, I was a professing Christian, but like so many in the modern charismatic and evangelical church, I was ill-taught in the Scriptures. In due time, God had mercy on me and brought me to a solid Bible-preaching Reformed Baptist church. Through my own Scripture reading and the preaching I enjoy in church, I've become better acquainted with God's standard of righteousness and the various roles and relationships He has ordained for His creatures. As I've grown in knowledge and wisdom, I've come to realize that there was in fact much evil in my former friendships, and if the outward damage from them was limited, it was on account of God's amazing mercy rather than any righteousness of mine. I broke off my last platonic friendship shortly after coming to my church six years ago. Since then, I've concentrated on building friendships with other men, and have pursued close relationships with women only so long as both of us were open to the possibility of marriage, breaking off each such relationship once we came to realize that we were not well-suited for each other.

Although I discontinued platonic friendships years ago, it is relatively recently that I've come to realize just how dishonoring to God those friendships had been. In the cases where my friend was unmarried, our relationship served as an excuse to avoid the long-term commitment that ought to be found only in marriage. When my friend was married, my friendship with her was never helpful to the health of her covenant relationship with her husband. Although I always broke off such friendships when I saw that things were not going well with my friend's marriage, I now realize that the very fact of my friendship with the wife would have had a tendency to weaken the special intimacy that she ought to have had only with her husband.

Thus, much like the skin of a banana doesn't necessarily prove that it's fresh, I have learned that the lack of outward sexual immorality in a "friendship" in no way proves that it is honoring to God. It is not enough to avoid the commission of the most blatant sin. In our relationships, we must consider not only the sanctity of the flesh, but also the sanctity of the marriage covenant. If I pal around with a married woman, I can only weaken her marriage, whereas if I pal around with an unmarried woman without any consideration for possibly marrying her, I am trifling with her affections. Although it can be good and right for men and women to be friends to a certain degree, a husband's closest friend ought to be his wife, with his other close friends being other men. The lack of fornication in no way sanctifies the type of intimate friendship that weakens or demeans the marriage covenant. Thus, I must join my voice to the chorus who warns men and women against entering into so-called platonic friendships.

Related article: Companionship without committment

The fingerprints of the Designer

2006-01-03T15:28:00.000-06:00

A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of taking a flight in a small plane courtesy of my church's amateur pilot. Along with the complexity of the nuts and bolts of aviation, especially the navigation systems, I was struck by the scene I saw passing several thousand feet below us. Everywhere I could see the evidence of man's creative works: roads, railroads, buildings, farms, etc.. The order and complexity of all of this infrastructure made it unmistakably clear it was not the result of random chance. Instead, it was plain that intelligent designers had been at work. People are not fools. When we look at a bridge or a building or a painting, we immediately recognize the distinctive fingerprint of the work of intelligent men and women. One must be truly deranged to look at the Sears Tower or a painting by a great Dutch Master and think, "This is the result of random chance."

However, there are many in our generation who frequently, and willfully, disregard the obvious fingerprint of the Great Designer, Almighty God. Wherever we focus a telescope or a microscope on a galaxy or a microbe, the awesome complexity and order ought to shout out, "This is the work of a great designer, not the result of random chance." Yet, we are led to believe by many so-called experts that all of this complexity is the result of random, natural processes. On one hand, we freely acknowledge the countless man-hours that were put into the creation of the fastest computers, yet we attribute the creation of the human brain--a computing engine far more powerful than the fastest supercomputer--to random chance. What an affront to the Great Designer that we refuse to honor Him for His wonderful and awesome work, and how amazing that we can be so selectively ignorant of the handiwork of the greatest Designer of all. No matter how far away we peer into space or how closely we zoom in to a single cell, the evidence for design is everywhere, but yet man in his depravity and foolishness refuses to see it.

My friend, the myriad structures of this earth and universe are far, far greater in complexity than anything that any man or woman has ever created. Are you so blind as to not see this? Have you put your faith in naturalism--the presupposition that nature is all that there is or ever will be--even in the face of such overpowering evidence? Mind you, the object of the Christian's faith, Almighty God, is an invisible God, so He must be trusted in faith, but how much greater faith is necessary to believe that the world around us is the product of random chance and natural processes! Yes, yours is the greater faith, for you believe in billions upon billions of small events that happened at just the right time and place over eons of time worked together to create the universe we see today, whereas I must merely believe that our Creator spoke the universe into existence.

The Bible speaks truly when it says that the heavens proclaim the Glory of the Lord. His fingerprints are all over Creation. How long will you deny Him the Glory that is due Him for His awesome work of creation? Although experts may scoff against this truth and courts may decree that it not be taught in classrooms, the evidence for design in the tiniest cell or the greatest star is hidden only to the basest fool: the man who refuses to believe what he sees with his own eyes. Such men will be found without excuse on the great Day of Judgement, for the revelation of Nature itself will be enough to demonstrate beyond doubt that the existence of God was abundantly clear to all!

Unreasonable offenses

2005-12-26T16:22:00.000-06:00

I've just gotten back home after a very enjoyable visit with my family. Among other activities, I had the opportunity to give my dad a listen to some of my favorite vintage recordings that I'd burned onto a CD-R. He enjoyed the first few tracks on the CD so much that he asked me if I'd make him a copy. I'm a person who loves to share, so I would have gladly done so but for one little detail: I'd be violating U.S. copyright law by doing so. Although the "fair use" doctrine of copyright law allows me to make copies of CDs, etc., for personal use, it doesn't allow me to distribute copies to others: family, friends, etc..

Although I wholeheartedly agree that the indiscriminate file sharing that's emdemic today constitutes robbery against the intellectual and artistic property of both record companies and artists, I regret that the law against sharing is so restrictive so as to make me choose between obeying the law and sharing my blessings with those closest to me. Even though I can't think of any Biblical law that prohibits such sharing, this is one instance where I think man's law is far more draconian than God's. Although I reject any notion of doing anything such as making my music collection available to the entire Internet, whether for free or profit, I'm grieved that man's law forces me to keep my treasures to myself with the only exceptions being the occasional temporary loan. Instead of making my dad a copy of that CD, I felt bound to do nothing more than to allow him to borrow it for a few weeks. What a shame!

In my opinion, the problem when man enacts such overly strict laws, with very small "offenses" constituting a violation of law, he provides much temptation to go beyond the minor to the major. With music sharing, one might think, "If it's against the law to burn a copy for my brother or best friend, I'm already a crook, so why not go ahead and share my music with the world?" Likewise, when the speed limit on a road is set unnecessarily low, it's all too likely that people will thus think themselves free to speed on roads which do have reasonable speed limits. Therefore, I think that good government would do best to ensure that laws are reasonable and avoid making such acts as copying a CD for my dad into an illegal act. With reasonable laws, people are, I think, more likely to obey, but with unreasonable laws, they are likely to progress from minor to major violations.

On account of Scripture's teaching regarding the Christian's responsibility to the governing authorities, I count myself as being bound to obey such unreasonable laws--thus my reluctant refusal to copy my CD for my dad--but so many other folks aren't as scrupulous as me. What a shame that man's laws so often fall so far short of the utterly reasonable and just laws of God, and what a reminder this is that I won't experience true justice until I depart to be with Christ.

The end of compromise

2005-12-26T15:49:00.000-06:00

On the blogs I frequent, one of the most popular topics is that of the seeker-sensitive church or its younger cousin, the emergent church. Very few sit on the fence regarding this topic. On one hand you have those who think that these movements are today's most vital means for reaching people for Christ, whereas on the other there are those who decry these movements for the manner in which they have allegedly compromised the Gospel by emphasizing the positive (purpose in life, heaven, etc.) and eliminating the negative (sin, hell, etc.). Given that a number of bloggers are doing an excellent job of expressing my concerns about these movements, I'm not going to try to improve on their work.

Instead, I'm going to make a fearless prediction about what will become of today's efforts to make Christianity "relevant" to today's generation. In the short run, churches that ally themselves with Purpose Driven Life, Willow Creek, etc., will no doubt continue to experience rapid growth, but the day will come when such churches will wither and die, becoming mere husks of the seemingly vibrant churches they are today. I base my prediction on the sad fate of a very similar movement from the late 19th and early 20th Centuries that saw the rise of the Social Gospel. In the face of threats such as Darwinianism, a substantial portion of the professing church invested much effort in reinventing the church so as to better address the issues of the day. Proponents of this movement were found in many denominations: Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.. For a time, their message attracted many people, but as the years went on, the affected churches ended up compromising more and more Biblical truth, resulting in what is now known as theological liberalism. The denominations in which this liberalism took greatest hold have seen substantial decline, both spiritually and numerically. Thus, a movement that began with an evangelistic zeal for bringing more men and women into the church ended by killing whatever spiritual life had once existed in the churches that had welcomed it with such enthusiasm.

My friend, we ignore church history at our own peril! Although the names and details of heresies and errors have varied substantially, the substance of them has varied very little. The seeker-sensitive and emergent movements bear more than a little resemblance to the Social Gospel movement of past days. Although these movements seem to prosper today, you may mark my words: time will make their true fruit known, and their now-crowded amphitheaters will play host to nothing but dead air. In the meantime, God will continue to gather His remnant among those who hear those preachers who faithfully preach the whole counsel of God.

I say all this not as a prophet, but as a student of history who knows all too well the inevitable fruit of doctrinal compromise. Like every attempt to water down the Gospel to attract unrepentant sinners, the seeker-sensitive and emergent movements will certainly fail.

All gifts are free

2005-12-24T12:16:00.000-06:00

Exhibit A: the man with the white beard and red coat who wags his finger at little boys and girls, saying, "You better be good, for goodness sake, lest you not receive any presents for Christmas!"

Exhibit B: Almighty God, who, looking upon fallen humanity in its wretchedness, chose a people for Himself, giving them a Savior to pay the price for all their sins.

So what's the big difference between God and Mr. Claus? Simply put, the gifts that the guy in the red suit bring are granted based upon human merit, whereas the Gift that God gave in Jesus Christ is based solely upon God's free grace.

The distinction could hardly be greater, but yet how often I have acted as though God was little more than a greater version of Mr. Claus! I've done so whenever I've fancied that I somehow deserve this or that gift. So often I fail to remember the wretched, fallen state I was in when Christ found me out: the state I would be in to this day were it not for His wholly unmerited grace to me. How I dishonor God whenever I think that my good works--filthy rags all--somehow make me more worthy than some other creature to obtain His favor.

This is not to say that I ought not seek God's face to ask Him for the things which I desire, for if I do so with a right attitude and right motives, I will acknowledge my utter dependence upon His grace and favor. The same God who gave me the greatest gift of all--salvation through His only Son--will freely give me all other things, but I must always remember that every favor I enjoy from Him, whether great or small, is a free and gracious gift. Thus, I am left without any cause to boast in God's gifts, with my only proper response to His graciousness being a simple, heartfelt "Thank You!"

The monarchy of God

2005-12-15T11:31:00.000-06:00

The kingdom of God is a theme that's found in many places in Scripture. The Gospel writers tell us that Jesus went about preaching the Gospel of the kingdom. In the Lord's Prayer, Jesus taught us to pray, "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." In fact, the kingdom of God is found so frequently in Scripture that we can't help hearing it mentioned whenever the Word is preached.

However, this doesn't mean that we understand the significance of the kingdom of God as well as we ought. Often, when we hear of the kingdom, we think of its subjects, the church, but we fail to think of its head: the King of kings. Scripture reveals that God is perfect in all His attributes--love, holiness, goodness, justice, etc.--and this fact implies that God is perfect in every role that He fills, including His awesome position as King over all creation.

One of the many features of Reformed theology that I appreciate the most is its central focus on the sovereignty of God: His full and complete control over all things that come to pass, including in the salvation of His Elect. To be honest, sovereignty is a difficult subject to understand, and in our democratic generation, we often fail to realize that sovereignty goes hand in hand with the kingly role of the one who holds that sovereignty.

So many people in the Western world are so accustomed to representative government that we understandably have little clue of how a true monarchy (as opposed to a constitutional monarchy such as the UK) works. In particular, we don't realize what it's like to have literally no say-so regarding how the affairs of government are carried out. In a true monarchy, the king makes and enforces the laws. Although he may appoint advisers and governors to assist him, they are responsible to submit to the king's every wish and decree. If an adviser happens to give the king advice that pleases the monarch, it remains the king that enacts the law and who determines how it is to be enforced. Should a state be blessed with a good and wise monarch, all is well with the people, but should they be burdened with a cruel despot, all will suffer the consequences, with their only hope of deliverance lying in a better king taking power after the death or overthrow of their tyrant. Of course, the king's subjects remain free moral agents who in their hearts may take strong issue with his rule, but should the king catch wind of their rebellion, the consequences for them may be terrible.

Although there are some parallels that may be drawn between the reign of a human king versus the reign of the King of kings, there are many ways in which the rule of God is unique. For one thing, He is the only King who is altogether good, wise, and just. For another, He is very much aware of every word and thought of His subjects, so He will not allow any evil to go unpunished unless in His mercy He allows that subject to find mercy through His appointed Substitute, Jesus Christ. Also, there is nothing that transpires in His kingdom that fails to fall under His sovereign control. There is no King mightier than the King of all creation!

God's very work of Providence testifies to His sovereign rule. Although we like to fancy that we possess a substantial degree of control over our lives, the fact is that the only control we have is that which God the King allows us to have. A great deal of the issues that define the course of our lives are totally out of our control. Our family, our place of birth, our race, our gender, our degree of wealth or poverty, the availability of education, even whether or not we ever hear the preaching of the Gospel are matters that are outside of our control. I'm sure that all reasonable people will agree that these things are beyond our control, but yet many fancy that there's a great deal of things of which we do enjoy a measure of control.

Judging by what I understand of history, the various doctrines that claim for man a degree of sovereignty over his eternal destiny have been most popular in ages and places where people have become accustomed to a degree of political freedom. For instance, semi-Pelagianism, although formulated many centuries before, began to attain prominence under the name of Arminianism in 17th Century republican Holland, grew in popularity in constitutional monarchist Britain through the preaching of John Wesley, and became nearly omnipresent in 19th and 20th Century America. As true monarchy receded, so did Calvinism, and as republican government spread, so did Arminianism. In other words, as the doctrine of the political freedom of man spread, so did the doctrine of man's spiritual freedom to choose or refuse salvation.

Today, I think one of the significant side effects of the lack of understanding of God's sovereign reign is seen in the efforts in some circles to reinvent the church to better meet the perceived felt needs of man. Were my nation ruled by a sovereign king, he would not be my servant, catering to my felt needs; instead, I would be his subject, responsible to do his bidding and obey his commandments. Likewise, the primary purpose of the church is to honor and glorify God rather than to obtain blessings for itself. Although our gracious God is indeed pleased to bless His people, man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Thus, the work of the church ought to be centered upon how man ought to serve God, not upon how God ought to serve man, for all mankind owes total allegiance to its sovereign Lord.

I in no way wish for a return to the human despots of past times, and I thank God for the many freedoms that I enjoy on account of modern democratic government, but yet I feel that my generation would profit from a greater understanding and appreciation of the monarchy of God. If we were to rightly understand the nature of God's sovereign rule over His creation, it would not seem to be so strange that God is sovereign over even the eternal destiny of His creatures.

The church victorious

2005-12-13T12:58:00.000-06:00

With all the recent news about the compromising, man-centered church, it's encouraging to be reminded by Tim Challies that the true church continues to be victorious against all its enemies. An encouraging word for the church in discouraging circumstances!

True faith is hard work!

2005-12-13T09:56:00.000-06:00

One of the things that attracted me to the charismatic movement was its emphasis on the present-day miraculous working of the Holy Spirit. No matter what my affliction, I was told that I could get it taken care of in no time by speaking the name of Jesus, rebuking the devil, or naming and claiming whatever I desired. Lazy guy that I was, all this sounded very appealing to me: I could get all the goodies I wanted handed to me on a silver platter with little or no effort on my part. Sadly, the fruit of this type of teaching wasn't very good. Oh, it worked well enough when my affliction was the common cold (I always got over 'em in no more than a week :-) ) or a temporary financial deficit (my next twice-monthly paycheck was always enough to carry me through), but once I started to encounter greater difficulties, I found that I'd somehow failed to learn anything about the true walk of faith. Far from being a walk in the park, I started to learn that Christianity is a life-long battle against the world, the flesh, and the devil, and it's not easy.

The fact of the matter is this: "faith" that depends upon instant gratification of my every felt need isn't true faith. No, true faith trusts God and takes Him at His Word even when circumstances are screaming out, "Where is my hope of deliverance? Is there any way of escaping this affliction?" True faith takes God at His Word regardless of whether circumstances are pleasant or devastating. Moreover, true faith is prepared to wait on the Lord until He sees fit to bring deliverance, whether that deliverance comes in this life or in that which is to come. In fact, the object of true faith isn't deliverance from trouble: instead, it's Christ Himself. Although we free to cry out to the Lord for deliverance--we ought to do so for He is our only hope!--we ought to look upon our trials not so much as troubles to be escaped as soon as possible, but instead as opportunities to learn to trust ourselves less and trust God more.

None of this is easy. There are few, if any, quick fixes in the walk of faith. Although God often delivers speedily, He often takes His time in granting that speedy deliverance. We're so inclined to get things over with quickly. We tend to crave temporal comfort and peace, so it's natural that we'd do so. God, on the other hand, is in no hurry. He has all eternity ahead in which to work out His sovereign will, so He has no need to rush. This is very hard for us to understand. We are weak, emotional creatures who don't cope well with ongoing troubles.

So what are we to do when we find ourselves in terrible trouble but yet receive only silence when we call earnestly upon the Lord? Should we give up on the Lord and turn to man for help? God forbid! What help is the arm of the flesh? No, we have no better choice than one: to call the things which be not as though they were, or, in other words, to take God at His Word--the Scriptures--even when circumstances are as bad as we can possibly imagine. Of course, we ought not engage in the Christian Science or Word of Faith madness of denying the symptoms. If Christ treated man's afflictions as being real, we ought to emulate his example. Also, we ought not refuse the help of our fellow creatures when it's right and prudent to accept it, for God usually chooses to work through ordinary means, but yet we must reject any notion of pinning our hopes on the help of mere creatures. God alone is the object of true faith.

When I was a charismatic, I was a mere spiritual babe at best or an unbeliever at worst, but once I began to put aside the charismatic crutch of prompt and total deliverance from every problem, I began to learn just how difficult the walk of faith really is. In fact, it's so difficult that I couldn't walk the walk in my own strength. I needed the twin helps of Scripture and the Holy Spirit: the first to give me knowledge, the second to give me grace and wisdom to use that knowledge. It wasn't enough to cry out to the Lord in earnest prayer for a day or two. Having put aside my supersitious ways, I had to learn how to walk as a mature believer, trusting the Word even when God had seen fit to allow my afflictions to go on without apparent relief. This walk of faith is often difficult, but through it I've grown in maturity to a far greater extent than I would have had God always answered my prayers as quickly as I would like. Answered prayer is a blessing to be sure, but I'm learning that waiting for the answer to my prayer is a blessing just as great!

Spurgeon: delays in answered prayer

2005-12-09T13:37:00.000-06:00

[The following is an excerpt of Spurgeon that's quite encouraging to folks such as myself who find themselves waiting for God to answer prayer. Enjoy!]

"Therefore will the Lord wait that he may be gracious unto you." - Isaiah 30:18

God often delays in answering prayer. We have several instances of this in sacred Scripture. Jacob did not get the blessing from the angel until near the dawn of day-he had to wrestle all night for it. The poor woman of Syrophenicia was answered not a word for a long while. Paul besought the Lord thrice that "the thorn in the flesh" might be taken from him, and he received no assurance that it should be taken away, but instead thereof a promise that God's grace should be sufficient for him. If thou hast been knocking at the gate of mercy, and hast received no answer, shall I tell thee why the mighty Maker hath not opened the door and let thee in? Our Father has reasons peculiar to himself for thus keeping us waiting. Sometimes it is to show his power and his sovereignty, that men may know that Jehovah has a right to give or to withhold. More frequently the delay is for our profit. Thou art perhaps kept waiting in order that thy desires may be more fervent. God knows that delay will quicken and increase desire, and that if he keeps thee waiting thou wilt see thy necessity more clearly, and wilt seek more earnestly; and that thou wilt prize the mercy all the more for its long tarrying. There may also be something wrong in thee which has need to be removed, before the joy of the Lord is given. Perhaps thy views of the Gospel plan are confused, or thou mayest be placing some little reliance on thyself, instead of trusting simply and entirely to the Lord Jesus. Or, God makes thee tarry awhile that he may the more fully display the riches of his grace to thee at last. Thy prayers are all filed in heaven, and if not immediately answered they are certainly not forgotten, but in a little while shall be fulfilled to thy delight and satisfaction. Let not despair make thee silent, but continue instant in earnest supplication. - Charles H. Spurgeon

A new move of God?

2005-12-09T12:34:00.000-06:00

I did a lot of reading after I first professed faith in Christ, but I regret that the stuff I read wasn't particularly sound. I read lots of stuff about end-time prophecy, cults, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but what especially struck my fancy was the stuff I read about revival. I found the accounts of alleged revivals in various places--Asuza Street, Wales, Indonesia, etc.--to be fascinating and exciting. Compared with my relatively dull and boring life, I thought that it would be wonderful to be used by God during a revival.

For several years, I did my best to get myself into the best position to find the right revival. I hung out in the charismatic circles that were at least as revival mad as I was, attending lots of special "revival" meetings, and I prayed with great fervency for revival. I even received dreams and visions of a revival that was supposedly going to come.

For a time, my hopes were high enough to provide me with a considerable amount of "steam" to keep me chasing after them, but in time, I became discouraged and gave up the chase. Although I'd checked out all sorts of promising leads, every fresh move of God that I encountered failed to live up to its billing. It was tough to give up my dreams, but in retrospect I'm so glad I got off that roller coaster when I did, for in the years following my disillusionment, a number of alleged revivals swept the Charismatic Movement. They had names such as the Toronto Blessing and the Brownsville Outpouring. In each instance, the boosters shared amazing tales of what God was doing, but yet one after another, each revival fizzled out and came to nothing. More than that, each of these "revivals" left considerable spiritual wreckage in its wake, understandably so if one believes that God Almighty is doing something only to find out that the whole thing had little or nothing to do with Him. I never found my revival, but I still came close to abandoning the faith. I can imagine that if I had found what I'd hoped for only to come to see it as a counterfeit, my devastation would have been far greater.

Thus, I was grieved to hear that a new "revival" had begun, this time in Kansas City. According to the account I read, this revival had been prophesied a number of years ago by the so-called Kansas City Prophets, but was delayed by some "mistakes" that had been made. Although I don't know all of the details of what's going on with this "revival", I'm not afraid to plainly state that I know that it's going to turn out to be a lie and a sham. The prophets on whose word this thing is founded showed themselves to be false prophets years ago: they boasted of their high--60% or so--accuracy, disregarding the Biblical standard of 100% accuracy for a true prophet. Scripture makes it plain that God speaks only through those prophets who accurately and faithfully proclaim His Word, so we can be 100% confident that God did not speak to the KC Prophets. Thus, whatever is taking place in KC, it is certain that God is not behind it and that He is not blessing it. Since God is not behind it, it will come to no good end, leaving disillusionment in its wake. Far from being a move of God, such a revival can be only a judgment against the foolish people who run after fanciful tales that are not in accord with Scripture. Although exciting experiences may well come to those who plunge into this revival, you may mark my words: the end of the thing will not be pretty and will bring nothing but dishonor to the name of Christ.

Should God have any people of His amongst the KC crowd, I pray that He will have mercy on them and grant them a way of escape from the deception and disappointment that will come. As for the ravenous wolves who are leading this mockery, I pray that God will make them willing to repent of their wickedness and turn to Christ, and that if He's not so willing that He will speedily expose their lies and discredit their "ministries." A false revival is no blessing from God; indeed, it is a curse against false doctrine and practice. I pray that this counterfeit revival would come to a speedy end!

Underemployed

2005-11-28T11:43:00.000-06:00

For the last five years, I've been going through a rather peculiar season. If I were to describe this season in one word, that word would undoubtedly be "underemployment." No, I'm not talking about how I earn my living--I've held a full-time job all this time--but the responsibilities I hold and roles I fill in my private and church lives.

I was reminded of my underemployment during my church's recent Thanksgiving services. In these services, people of all ages rose to offer thanks to the Lord for His blessings during the last year. Almost without exception, each adult gave thanks for their spouse and their children, and many specifically thanked God for the blessing they enjoyed of serving as husband/father or wife/mother. It was clear from these testimonies that relationships are at the very center of their lives.

My situation is quite different than theirs. To be sure, I have relationships. All of my family members are alive and well: father, mother, and brother. I have relationships with people at church and with people at work. I have friends. However, during the time I spend at home, I'm on my own. I am responsible for one person: me.

This is a really peculiar situation, because I really, truly have a heart to give to others. During the preceding season when I enjoyed several close friendships, I was never happier than when I had opportunity to help my friend with this or that, even if all that I could do was to listen. Although (like all men) I'm a son of Adam, I believe that God gave me a measure of grace to be a help and encouragement to my friends. In the case of my last close friend, I was able to help her along through some very difficult times until she went and found herself a husband. Since then, I've found myself to be lacking in opportunities for building close relationships.

Since I have plenty of time on my own, I have lots of time to think, so one of the things I've thought about is whether there's anything I might do to help obtain fuller employment. For much of the last five years, I invested lots of time, effort, and expense in trying to meet single Christian women. Although I learned and grew a great deal through my efforts, the bottom line is that God didn't see fit to bless them. On some occasions, He most clearly hindered my efforts to spend one-on-one time with a single lady. As for friendships, I enjoy cordial and edifying contacts with several folks, but they're all busy people who already have a full slate of relationships and responsibilities, so there's really been no opportunity for me to get very close to any of them. As for the online world, I seem to be best suited to fill a small place there, too.

Thus, God has left me to pretty much fend for myself. In many ways, this has been good for me. For much of my life, I had a tendency to lean on other people rather than Christ for support, so this season has given me much opportunity to learn how to trust Him rather than man. This is a lesson that's helped me to put my human relationships in proper perspective. Also, I've learned to take care of more and more mundane day-to-day tasks without running to other people for help. In all this, I've learned much about how to take best advantage of the situation in which God has placed me.

Occasionally, I find myself thinking about one of my favorite Biblical persons: Joseph. During his lengthy stretch as a bondservant and prisoner, Joseph suffered much injustice and was no doubt lacking in close relationships, but yet by God's grace he managed to conduct himself in a God-honoring manner. Sadly, my attitude often falls far short compared to Joseph's. Instead of being content to fill a small place (should that be God's will), I often find myself resenting my lonely lot and pining for fuller employment and responsibility. Although I largely manage to submit to God's providence, I fear that I don't always do so cheerfully. No doubt my season of underemployment will continue until I learn to submit willingly and cheerfully to God's sovereign plan, even if the place He has for me is very, very small indeed. Perhaps this is why He's left a man who's eager and willing to give his life in loving service to others in an underemployed situation for such a long time. Hopefully, Lord willing, I will one day be blessed with greater opportunities for loving service. Until then, I must strive to be content with the small influence I have and use my ample free time in the most profitable way, trusting that God has a good purpose for everything He brings into my life.

Discipline works!

2005-11-22T13:51:00.000-06:00

The last two Lord's Days, I've enjoyed the privilege of spending the afternoon with a family of dad, mom, two boys, and a girl. In addition to excellent fellowship with the grown-ups, I also had much pleasure in talking with the kids. Like every child of Adam, they are sinners, but yet I couldn't help but be struck by the major difference between these kids and the children I so often see in the world at large. They were well-behaved for their age, but what also struck me is how cheerful they were. Their parents are careful to practice consistent Biblical discipline including the rod (i.e., spanking (gasp!)), a practice that's commonly thought to be oppressive to children, but I didn't detect any signs of oppression. Instead, I saw every indication that they enjoy the daily blessing of living under the care of two loving and godly parents.

The example of this family is not an isolated one. In fact, I know of quite a few other families whom I could characterize in equally glowing terms. Contrary to today's worldly thinking, which presumes that pretty much any form of strict discipline is tantamount to child abuse, I have seen the evidence with my own eyes: strict but loving discipline carried out in a consistent and diligent manner is the very best favor we can do for our children. Although all people ought to abhor overly harsh discipline that's carried out in an angry, unloving manner, proper discipline is the most loving thing we can give our children.

Not (yet) a parent, but once a child,
Dave

Punishing the good with the bad

2005-11-17T15:41:00.000-06:00

As I confessed at the beginning of this blog, I'm a big music lover. In a sense, I'm one of the recording industry's best friends. I own several thousand CDs of a wide range of genres. Although I've transferred several thousand CD tracks to my computer hard drive, every single track came from CDs that I've bought and paid for. All in all, I'm the model of a good music loving citizen.

Thus, it's with a fair degree of bewilderment that I've followed the recent developments surrounding Sony BMG's failed CD copy protection scheme. Please follow the link for details, but in a nutshell, the issue is that Sony started to put DRM (digital rights management) software on their new CDs, and that software turned out to mess up people's Windows PCs big time. (It has no effect on standalone CD players, Macs, or PCs that run Linux.) The software, intended to limit CD buyers to making a maximum of three copies, was so poorly designed that it provided a platform for at least one new Windows virus.

To be frank, I think Sony BMG's move was a big mistake in practically every way. On the other hand, I understand Sony's concerns about the rampant "sharing" of music, and can see why they'd like to come up with a way to stem the flow of illegally copied music. However, I am of the opinion that DRM is the exact wrong way to go about solving the problem. For one thing, DRM as implemented by Sony and other vendors has always caused the legitimate purchasers of CDs to suffer inconvenience and outright infringement of their rights as lawful customers. At least in the US, copyright law incorporates a concept called "fair use" that allows the person who buys a CD to make copies for his own personal use. (Fair use, as I understand it, does not allow one to make copies for friends, even for free.) Along with hindering the illegal distribution of digital media, Sony's implementation of DRM interferes with the fair use rights of legitimate purchasers. Thus, they end up hurting the very people they ought to encourage: the people who willingly pay money for their products!

Incidentally, DRM is not going to stop all forms of copying. Even if a DRM scheme could be perfected to the extent that it hinders making digital copies of the CD, there is no means that can prevent someone from hooking up an audio cable between their sound card output and the input of a PC or stereo device that is capable of capturing the music, albeit in analog form. (This method cannot be circumvented, to my knowledge, by any DRM scheme: the sound card output is the way the sound gets to the speakers or headphones, so without it there's no music to which to listen!) This method results in a degree of sonic degradation, naturally, but given that the very act of encoding a song into MP3 format degrades the sound quality to a degree, I suspect that most listeners would be willing to put up with the small amount of background noise or distortion that would be introduced by capturing CD tracks via an analog method. Mark my words: if Sony and company manage to hinder both legitimate purchasers and illegitimate copiers from making digital copies of their products, the bad guys will have no problem with switching to the analog approach for copying music from CDs.

Don't get me wrong. I think illegal file sharing is a violation of copyright law as well as a failure to respect the right of the musicians to be paid for their hard work. I have no sympathy for illegal file sharers. Nonetheless, I think the recording industry's response to them is wrong-headed at best. Instead of trying to persuade music lovers that illegal sharing is morally wrong, they are trying to hinder all types of copying, whether legal and illegal, thus incurring the risk of alienating many folks who presently do the right thing by paying for their music. In my opinion, this is exactly the wrong approach, one that Sony and its competitors will regret if they fail to come to their senses. If they were instead to treat their customers with respect, providing them with extra value in the legitimate product that cannot be had in a downloaded digital copy, and respecting their fair use rights, they might have a chance to restore their tattered reputation. If they don't wise up, I suspect that many folks whose consciences are not as sensitive as mine will give up on purchasing legitimate CDs entirely in favor of illegal file sharing. As for me, I might simply decide to be content with the many CDs I already own and no longer buy any more. Although I haven't been able to think of a good way to balance the rights of legal buyers with the abuse of illegal copiers, I am certain that it is counterproductive for a business to punish their good customers as Sony has just tried to do.

Notes from the field

2005-11-15T11:54:00.000-06:00

Although God might not give direct revelation to me, my body certainly does. This weekend, it told me that I've been trying to deal with too much stress, and that part of that stress has been related to my recent involvement in the cessationism debate. Therefore, I'm going to have to throttle back my involvement. Before I do so, I'd like to share a few thoughts, starting with a little bit of background.

As you'll note from the list of archive links to the left of this page, I've been writing this blog since February of this year. During most of this time, my readership has been small--usually fewer than ten visitors a day--friendly, and loyal. Practically everyone who visited was largely like-minded on most doctrinal issues. Once the cessationism issue came around, a lot of new folks started visiting, with a surprisingly large percentage who espoused views on some points that were quite different than my own. Thus, in one "swell foop", I found myself swept up in a tidal wave that carried me from quiet, peaceful waters to a turbulent sea. For a few days, adrenaline-fueled enthusiasm seemed to carry me through, but this weekend I began to realize that I'm not ready to sail the ocean blue quite yet. :-)

One of the things I've learned during this last tumultous week is that the blogsphere has some rather unique features that set it apart from the more old-fashioned means of written communication. One of these features has to do with the short article format of most blog posts, and the other has to do with the commenting feature. Whereas the first feature encourages bloggers to break up their thoughts into small chunks, the other encourages blog readers to immediately begin discussing, debating, praising, or decrying what the blogger has written. There are many benefits to this state of affairs, especially when the subject under discussion lends itself to short and sweet "sound bytes", but I've noticed this past week that it does not lend itself to subjects that require a more thoughtful and detailed exposition. Once I make a new blog post, my writing is fair game for any and all comers to praise to the skies, rip into shreds, or any combination thereof. :-) By comparison, a book is made up of chapters (similar to a blog post), but the one-piece format of the book tends to encourage the reader to react to it as a whole. When I read a chapter of a book, I may find myself saying, "Wait a minute! Where is this author taking his argument?", but I usually postpone final judgment until I've finished the book, for experience has taught me that the author may turn out to have had a very different meaning once I've read the whole book than what I'd thought upon reading only the first part of the book.

As several folks have remarked during The Great Cessation Debate, cessationism--or non-cessationism, for that matter--doesn't stand or fall on a single proof-text. Instead, it's a doctrine that must be gleaned from the examination of the whole of Scripture by comparing Scripture against Scripture in context using the rules of sound exegesis. A number of books have been written on the question of the cessation or continuation of the spiritual gifts. In each case, it took the author more than one chapter, and often hundreds of pages, to adequately defend his view. As I read such a book, I'm certainly evaluating the author's argument "on the fly", but yet I reserve final judgement until I've finished reading. During our present debate, I've noticed a tendency to do something very similar to reading just a chapter or two of a book before coming to a final judgment of the author's argument. Although this is an excellent way to generate lots of heat, I think it's not a great way to cast much light.

In our debate, I've noticed a peculiar thing. Although the vast majority of the participants would claim to hold to Reformed theology, and the vast majority of Reformed believers are cessationists (or so I thought), the majority of the folks who are actively involved in the debate seem to be non-cessationists. In a way, this makes a lot of sense. In the marketplace, a dissatisfied customer is much more likely to give feedback to a merchant than a satisfied customer. Likewise, in a debate, a party who has been put on the defensive (in this case, by Phil Johnson's criticism of modern-day prophecy) is likely to be more strongly motivated to take to the guns than the party who thinks that he's got the stronger forces behind him. I think this most likely explains why the cessationists have been less vocal than the non-cessationists. Thus, cessationists such as myself seem to find ourselves in the rather awkward position of being outnumbered by the minority. :-)

I have said all this so far with two purposes: (1) to share my "take" on the give and take of blogdom in general and the cessation debate in particular and (2) to explain that I'm going to be handling my future posts on cessationism in a slow and easy manner. As I mentioned earlier, some subjects require that time be taken to throughly deal with them, and I believe that cessationism is one of those subjects. Also, this is my very first Internet debate of any substance, so I've not had any previous occasion to engage in any kind of through exegesis. If I'm going to continue my expositions on cessationism, I'm simply going to have to take my time. I'm neither a theologian nor a pastor, just a church member who takes the sufficiency of Scripture very seriously, so I'm not well-practiced at this kind of thing. That's the biggest reason why you're likely to find the occasional hole in my argumentation: it's not that my position isn't tenable (I have many theological juggernauts on my side :-) ), but rather that I'm not the most qualified person to take the lead on defending an important doctrine of the faith. Although the cessationist position warrants a strong defense, I'm just not the man to lead it. Additionally, since it's going to take me time to lay out my position, I'm just not in a position to defend individual posts in a piecemeal manner until I've had a chance to speak my entire piece. Until I have, y'all are welcome to comment all you like, but I'm not going to be paying a whole lot of attention most of the time. For one thing, the questions and issues you come up with during the early stages of my argument may well end up being answered once I get farther along, so I'd rather invest my energies on writing the posts than writing up all sorts of comments that cover the same ground that I'm going to cover later.

So, here's what I have in mind at this point: I'm hoping to continue researching the Biblical texts that are relevant to the cessation of the spiritual gifts, and as I do so I'll write an occasional post on what I find. In between, I may write additional thoughts on cessation and spiritual gifts or even on unrelated subjects, or I might not even write at all. So long as I remain in the process of spelling out my position in detail, I'm not going to invest much effort in defending the "bleeding chunks" I write. Although I have no intention of turning off commenting on my blog, I'm not going to be writing many comments. (I'd really appreciate it, though, if my cessationist readers would help me by answering the non-cessationists.) Once I've said my piece, I'm sure I'll be in a much better position to conduct a reasonable debate with my very vocal "opponents", but until then I'm going to concentrate on saying my piece.

As for the cessationism debate in general, I'm just not the guy to be on the forefront of the cessationist forces. Don't even ask: I won't do it. I'm just a grunt in the trenches who'd like to get some experience with defending what I believe. If you're a non-cessationist and want to deal with the big guys, wait until someone like Phil Johnson gets around to writing on the subject. As my cessationist friends, I'd much appreciate it if we'd speak up and work together a little more. As a debate newbie, I'd very much appreciate your assistance in helping me to improve my posts as well as responding to the non-cessationist multitudes. I'm really, really not up to fighting this battle "solo", and in fact I don't think I should. After all, Christ Himself appointed twelve apostles, not just one super-apostle.

In closing, don't be surprised if you don't see any posts from me for a while. I may need some time to research and think about the issue before I write further. Although this is an important issue, it's not worth getting myself unnecessarily stressed about. In the meantime, thanks for your patience.

[Update: 11:54 AM Nov. 15 2005]

Since I wrote the above, Phil Johnson has reminded us, in his inimitable manner, that the subject he's discussing remains modern-day prophecy, not cessation. After reading his article, I've put some further thought into the issue, and have decided that I'm going to emulate his example and suspend posting on cessationism for the foreseeable future. To be honest, I didn't much enjoy the tone of much of the recent discussion. I thought it was a useful discussion at first, so I'm disappointed that it didn't turn out to be all that edifying in the end.

As for whether I'm going to post on the subject of modern-day prophecy, I'm not yet decided. For now, I'm most likely going to lurk in the background and listen to what other folks are saying. Personally, I think Phil and some of the commenters on his blog are saying a lot of the stuff I'd like to say, but better, so I think my side is in good hands.

So, unless I decide to plunge back into the debate later on, I think I'm most likely going to steer this blog back to its old, obscure, and (in)scrutable ways. It was fun to discuss prophecy, etc., and it was cool to have so many visitors for a few days, but this whole experience has taught me that I don't much enjoy contentious discussions. Besides, there's other things I'd rather talk about right now.

(In)scrutably yours,

Dave

Cessation #1: the Perfect Has Come

2005-11-12T11:15:00.000-06:00

Among my favorite alleged witticisms, one of the top ones must be one I learned from one of my best friends: "Growing older is mandatory, but growing up is optional." I like the way this quip defends the notion that it's quite alright for me to remain young at heart even though my physical being is breaking down as I slowly but surely wait for the day that I go to be with my Maker.

However, there is a sense in which I've already grown up, for I attained the state of maturity over twenty years ago. No, I don't mean to say that my degree of maturity reached its peak way back then. In fact, I've matured a great deal since I first moved out of my family's house and set up a household of my own. Nonetheless, the fact remains that I attained maturity when I was no longer dependent on my parents to care for me and was able to take care of myself. At that time, I put aside childish things and became a grown man.

Although no analogy is perfect, I think this one can be used to shed considerable light on the history of the church of Jesus Christ. The church was born, as all agree, on the day of Pentecost with the mighty outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles and their cohorts. With the church's birth began the period we might call the childhood of the church. Many Christians have looked back on the early church with a nostalgic eye, thinking of its early history as something of a golden age. Although this thinking is not altogether unfounded, there remains a real sense in which the early church was immature. No one blames a young child for his immaturity: he is expected to be immature. Likewise, when I point out the immaturity of the early church, I do not mean to lay blame but merely to point out a self-evident fact. The early church, like a young child, had a great deal to learn, and needed much special teaching and guidance in shepherd it through to maturity. Through the ministry of the apostles, prophets, and other gifted men, many of whom possessed mighty spiritual gifts, God taught the church everything it needed to know in order to stand on its own two feet. In due time, once the church had reached the stage of maturity, He withdrew these gifted men and left the church to fend for itself with the twin aids of the completed Scriptures and the ordinary operations of the Holy Spirit.

Paul, like all of the apostles, functioned as a prophet, and it is in this office that he provided the young church of Corinth with a prophetic nutshell history of the early church. This prophecy is found in 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 (NKJV):

8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

One thing is clear about this passage right at the beginning: the gift of prophecy is going to cease along with all of the other extraordinary spiritual gifts that were so abundant during the childhood of the church. As for when the gift will cease, a casual reading of verse 10 might encourage the answer, "Why, with the return of Christ, of course. Surely the church won't enjoy perfection until He comes again." However, this reading of the word "perfect" falls short of doing justice to Paul's original language in Greek. Walter Chantry addresses this issue in his book, Signs of the Apostles (pages 50 and 51):

When and why they [the spiritual gifts] must disappear from the church is clearly stated in verses 9-12. Knowledge and prophecy were only partial and imperfect forms of revelation. But there is something 'perfect' coming. At once our minds think of heaven. That is the perfect state. But the word translated 'perfect', in its New Testament usage, does not always mean ideally perfect. The very same word is used again in 1 Corinthians 14:20, where it is translated 'men'. The idea is 'mature' in contrast with 'childish'. That this meaning of the word is intended in 13:10 is quite clear from the continuation of the contrast with 'childish' in verse 11. When fully-matured or adult revelation comes, then the partial revelations of a childish state will be put away.

...

The amazing gifts catalogued in chapter 12 would only serve for an inferior situation. There partial usefulness consigned them to a temporary state. But there is no need to cling to these gifts. Does a full-grown man cling to childish speech, understanding, and thought [v. 11]? When the man is mature he puts away childish things. Similarly the manly words, thoughts, and satisfying insights of a completed Scripture will cause the church to outgrow the childhood of charismatic revelations.

Regarding verse 12, Chantry goes on to explain that Paul is continuing to contrast the "now"--the childhood of the church--with the "then": the church's coming maturity. Given the context provided by the verses immediately preceding, Paul is talking about the near-future falling away of the gifts and not of the final heavenly state. According to Chantry, Paul is saying that the revelation that's imparted through the charismatic gifts is like "seeing through a glass darkly" compared with the knowledge that would be had once the Scriptures were completed and the need for prophecy done away. He writes (page 52):

In the Old Testament, Moses stood as the great prophet who spoke to God 'mouth to mouth, even apparently'. Other prophets received 'dark speeches' and 'similitudes' by the obscure means of 'visions' and 'dreams'. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ stands as the great prophet who dwelt in the bosom of the Father and has declared him. His full and complete revelation of the Father was inscripturated by the apostles. Other 'charismatic' revelations were the equivalent of seeing through a glass imperfectly transparent (like Old Testament dreams and visions). They gave only partial disclosure, 'darkly' (that is, 'in a riddle'). By comparison, receiving Scripture was coming 'face to face' with God. It is the 'familiar' approach to God by his Son, Jesus Christ. Verse 12 summarizes the necessity for miraculous gifts to cease!

This reminds me of Hebrews 9:1-10:18, which reveals how Christ is the fulfillment of the types and shadows of the Old Testament. Whereas the message of the Old Testament prophets revealed Christ through types and symbolic language, the completed New Testament reveals Him plainly in all His Glory. Thus, in the revelation of Christ we have come face-to-face with God!

I believe that Chantry has stated the case quite clearly. If in fact Paul used the Greek word translated "perfect" in 13:10 in the sense of "mature", then he was foretelling that the charismatic gifts would cease with the church's attainment of maturity. Paul's comparison of the 'types and shadows' of the OT with the clarity of NT revelation further confirms that prophecy was no longer needed once Christ was fully revealed. The history of the church shows that no further Scripture was written after John completed Revelation. By that time, the charismatic gifts had fallen out of use. Thus, history confirms that the maturity of the church took place with the completion of Scripture. The perfect has come, so the gifts have ceased.

Cessation: a position paper

2005-11-11T11:48:00.000-06:00

Well, sometimes the best treats are sitting right under one's nose! :-)

This morning, it occurred to me that my church's Web site has a position paper on spiritual gifts. I've just finished reading it, and I must say I found it to be an excellent defense of the cessationist position on the spiritual gifts. As I read it, I didn't notice any disagreement with my view. In fact, I was struck by how many times the paper makes specific points that I myself have made on this blog and elsewhere. I especially appreciated this portion of the paper:

[Continuing prophecy] is sometimes presented as a difference between the infallible prophecy used for the objective revelation of Scripture and a lesser “congregational prophecy” which may be in error because of flawed communication through present-day vessels. Too much is made of Agabus’ prophecy as an example of prophecy only for local congregations. After all, it was recorded in Scripture. Further, some use Agabus as an example of prophecy which may not be communicated accurately by the vessel. The prophecy of Agabus has, by no means, been proved flawed. This is a very hermeneutically flawed argument, using a disputed historical text to establish a doctrine of continued lesser congregational prophecy.

Along with this view is the possibility of visions, dreams, tongues, interpretation of tongues, and words of wisdom as present-day revelations of God, yet not equal to the infallible revelations of Scripture because the vessel may not understand or communicate them accurately. This very argument has been used by some liberal theologians who hold to a form of biblical inspiration yet who deny inerrancy. As John A. T. Robinson once remarked, “I believe that John wrote the Gospel, but who can trust the memory of an old man.” There is little difference between Robinson’s view of inspired erroneous Scripture and this other view of possibly erroneous prophecy. What if the believer is prophesied to act upon a choice of an available job or marriage partner when he is still unlearned in many Scriptures having to do with guidance? Especially, when the prophecy may prove wrong over time? He is forced to choose on the basis of the possibly wrong prophecy instead of relying wholly on the Scripture alone.

The adoption of this lesser prophecy view will ultimately undermine the priority of and the dependence upon sola scriptura. Also, it may create a contradiction between wise counsel from ordained elders versus possibly erroneous prophecy, undermining biblical ecclesiology. Thus, according to this view, there may be continued revelations through revelatory gifts, yet the canon of Scripture is closed as the only infallible and inerrant revelation of God. The LBC [London Baptist Confession of Faith], however, includes prophecy and other revelatory gifts as having ceased since Scripture is closed.

The bibliography at the end is worthy of special note: it lists a number of books that I would recommend as admirable defenses of the cessationist position. As I post my own comments on cessationism in the days to come, I'll most likely be using this position paper as a guide, so I encourage you to take a few moments to look it over.

Just part of the picture

2005-11-11T09:34:00.000-06:00

Over the last few weeks, I've made a number of posts to this blog which discuss some of the experiences that led me into and out of the charismatic movement. These posts have apparently found at least a small readership. In one article, Right & Blond expresses sympathy for the difficult experience I had with charismaticism, the Word of Faith movement in particular, but goes on to draw some conclusions from what I've shared thus far.

At one point, he comments that on account of my experience and not on account of Scripture, I've swung from charismatic extremism to the other extreme which is "fraught with legalism." Were his analysis of my spiritual journey accurate, I have most certainly jumped from the frying pan into the fire, because legalism as normally defined is the teaching that we are justified before God entirely or partially on account of our good works. If one has any doubt that legalism is a damnable doctrine, sit down for a few minutes and take a peek at Paul's letter to the Galatians: if I were to try to add even one single good work to Christ's imputed righteousness, I would be denying the faith and saying that Christ died in vain! Thankfully, though, I can report that far from moving towards legalism, I have moved away from it. Whereas as a charismatic I believed that one of my good works--my decision for Christ--was pivotal in my salvation, I have since been persuaded by Scripture that even the faith I exercised at conversion was a sovereignly bestowed gift of God. My works outside Christ are 100% filthy rags, so my entire hope for salvation is placed on Christ alone. Thus, I plead innocent to the charge of legalism.

However, I don't think that that's what Right & Blond means to say when he speaks of legalism. Instead (I hope he'll correct me if I'm mistaken), he sees that on account of my experience I've made a flying leap into a Scripture-only mindset that discounts the active role of the Holy Spirit. I suggest this possibility because in my charismatic days, I tended to think of non-charismatics as "Word-only" people: cold and dead in their faith. In fact, I sometimes characterized the non-Spirit-filled as legalistic because of my perception that they stuck only to the cold, literal text of Scripture and discounted the work of the Holy Spirit. If this is the charge against me, I again plead innocent, although I do plead most wholeheartedly guilty to the charge that I hold to the Scriptures alone--Sola Scriptura--as my sole and sufficient guide of faith and practice. Although my experiences were most certainly used by God as a catalyst towards making the transition from charismatic to Reformed doctrine, they were not pivotal or foundational. Whereas I held my former views first on account of personal experience and second because of Scripture, I have come to my present views through my study of Scripture. Although my former experiences help to confirm the counterfeit nature of the spiritual gifts in which I once professed to operate, it is through the study of Scripture that I have found the true doctrinal foundation for my present understanding of Scripture, a fact that I hope will become evident in my future posts.

Also, I feel that I must plead innocent to another charge that's often implicitly pronounced against those who are deemed guilty of holding to Sola Scriptura: the charge of denying the present-day operation of the Holy Spirit. If I were to deny the Holy Spirit's gracious work, I would be forced to deny my salvation, for it is through His work that I came to believe the Gospel and trust in Christ. If I had only the Word but not the Spirit, I would yet be in my sins on account of my depraved nature, for by nature I am utterly unwilling to repent of my sin or trust in Christ. To this day I completely depend on the Holy Spirit to open up the Scriptures to me and to apply them to my sin-prone heart. Moreover, I depend on the Holy Spirit's ongoing help as I go about my day-to-day life, for it is He who brings Scripture to mind as I make decisions and deal with my sinful neighbors. The Holy Spirit is my constant companion as I run the Christian race. Although a more through understanding of Scripture has led me to understand that the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit as described in 1 Corinthians are no longer needed by the church and have therefore ceased operation, I most wholedheartedly acknowledge the ordinary operation of the Holy Spirit as He speaks to me through the Scriptures and guides me through God's work of Providence.

Finally, I plead innocent to any charge that I have changed my view on the gift of prophecy primarily on account of my negative experiences with the Word of Faith doctrine. In fact, on this blog, I have already shared some of my Scriptural reasons for my belief that the gift of prophecy that we see in Scripture is not in operation today. Lord willing, I hope to expand upon this aspect of my argument in greater detail in the days to come.

In some conversations, I notice that folks will sometimes listen to part of what I say, then jump in to interpret what I've said thus far as though I've finished expressing all my thoughts on the subject. Since I'm less articulate in spoken conversation than in writing, I occasionally have to catch my breath to gather my thoughts, so sometimes folks mistake my pause for breath as a signal that I've said all that I'm going to say. Such is the case with my posts on charismaticism: I've only begun to say everything that I have to say. Although I've concentrated on my personal experiences in most of my earlier posts, I've done so because of my observation that charismatic belief tends to be based on experience first, Scripture second. Therefore, I've so far concentrated on experience, but henceforth I will have more to say about the Scriptural reasons I have adopted a cessationist view. Once you've heard what I have to say about the true foundation for my view, you may be in a better position to accurately judge me and my position. I've so far divulged only part of the story. For the rest, stay tuned!

Legalism, etc.

2005-11-11T06:47:00.000-06:00

Thanks to the useful Sitemeter service, I've discovered that Right & Blond forgot to create a trackback link to my recent posts. Therefore, I'll be helpful and add this link back to his discussion of my posts. :-)

My detailed comments to him will have to wait for a little while, but in the meantime, I'd like to encourage him to double-check his usage of the word "legalism." Since leaving Charismaticism, I've come to believe that my salvation is 100% of grace and 0% of my own works. In fact, I don't even believe that I exercised my own initiative to trust Christ to begin with. Since legalism refers to the teaching that we are justified in whole or part by keeping the Law, my post-charismatic stance is the very opposite of legalism. Perhaps you are mistaking my espousal for Sola Scriptura (the sufficiency of Scripture) for legalism.

Just one more comment: although I've lately chosen to focus on the "experience" aspect of my exodus from Charismaticism, that aspect is far from the sole reason why I've made such a vast theological change. Since human communication by nature is made up of bits and pieces of conversation, it's easy to think that when you've heard all that a person has said so far that you've heard their whole argument, but in many cases including this one, you'd be quite mistaken. Although the WoF doctrine and the bad fruit of my experiences were surely catalysts in my exodus from Charismaticism, it was the Scriptures rather than experience that informed my conversion to Reformed Christianity. I will, Lord willing, have more to say about this aspect of my journey at a later time. Thanks to Right & Blond for prodding me to do so! :-)

The sufficiency of the Spirit

2005-11-09T22:21:00.000-06:00

When I hear of professing Christians who have recently discovered the charismatic movement, I invariably hear testimonies that speak of how the professor has found greater peace, joy, zeal, power, etc., since his fresh encounter with the Holy Spirit. Whereas life before charismaticism was relatively dry and lifeless, life since encountering the fullness of the Holy Spirit just has more of everything. I understand this enthusiasm to a great extent, because I experienced it myself twenty years ago when I received what I understood to be the baptism of the Holy Spirit complete with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. From that point on, I felt that I'd "arrived" at a higher plane, much higher than where I was at when I was merely born again.

Little did I suspect way back in 1985 that in the year 2005, I'd have renounced my "baptism of the Spirit" as spurious, and that I'd be rejoicing in being "merely" born again. Wait a minute, let's scratch that word "merely", because I truly feel as though I am more complete than I ever was as a "spirit-filled" professor. After all, look at all the benefits I enjoy:

All of my sins are forgiven and imputed to Christ's account, thus leaving me justified before God.
In Christ, I have eternal life.
I am indwelt and sealed by the Holy Spirit.
I have the Word of God--the Scriptures--which are fully inspired by God, and which are sufficient pertaining to all matters of faith and practice.
I enjoy the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit whenever I study the Scriptures or hear the Scriptures preached.
By God's grace I enjoy the benefits of progressive sanctification, through which I see the continuing increase of the fruit of the Holy Spirit.
On a daily basis, I find that I am constantly in the perfect will of God, as He leads me through the Word as applied to my heart by the Holy Spirit in concert with the daily unfolding of His sovereign will through Providence. Every step of the way, He leads me perfectly and infallibly.
God is working all things--both good and bad--out together for my ultimate good and for His glory.

Since I've left charismaticism and adopted the Reformed faith, I feel like anything but a second-class Christian. Although some may pity me or even look down on me for lacking the fullness of the Holy Spirit, I truly feel as though I lack absolutely nothing!

In particular, I am persuaded that I have all of the spiritual gifts and graces that I need--and then some. Although I no longer claim to move in the gift of prophecy in any sense of the term, I count myself as far better off than those of the early church who did move in that gift. During the apostolic age, the New Testament was in the process of being written and compiled, so the church's knowledge was not as complete as that which it now possesses in the form of the completed Scriptures. In the Scriptures, I find the words of the prophets and apostles, and through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, their words are alive to me to this day. Although I freely grant that the early church had much need of prophetic ministry in the days when the Scriptures were not yet complete, I do not envy them their gift, for in the Scriptures I have all I need.

Moreover, when it comes to applying the Scriptures to my day-to-day life, I have no need of any kind of special revelation. In fact, I find that the Scriptures as applied to my heart by the illumination of the Holy Spirit are more than enough to lead me in the right direction. When it comes to choices and decisions that are not specifically addressed in Scripture--which job to take, which car to buy, whom to marry, etc.--I have found that God in His Providence always leads me in the direction that is best for me, whether that "best" involves pleasure or pain. I have no need for special revelation, a "still small voice", to lead me. He always leads me exactly where I ought to go.

With all due respect to those who insist that the gift of prophecy is still operational in the church today, I ask one simple question, "Why?" As my testimony has shown, God has given me everything that I need in Christ. As far as revelation is concerned, I have found that the Scriptures as illuminated through the Holy Spirit are sufficient for all of my needs, so I need no new words of revelation to add to my knowledge or to encourage me, and since God always guides me rightly through Scripture and Providence, I have no need for a still small voice. The ordinary operations of the Holy Spirit that I enjoy are more than enough to aid me to live the Christian life in a joyous and victorious manner! I have all the revelation I need in the Law, Prophets, and Apostles, and have no need for any new prophetic witness. I am complete in Christ.

Two tiers of inspiration?

2005-11-06T15:18:00.000-06:00

Over in the ongoing discussion on modern-day prophecy at PyroManiac, things have taken an interesting turn. At least one member of the continuist (aka non-cessationist) party has conceded that the gift of prophecy we see today isn't of the same type that was manifested in the apostolic age. For my part, I'm quite relieved to hear this. This means that I agree with at least some of my charismatic friends that the gift of prophecy as seen in the ministry of the Biblical prophets and apostles did indeed cease with the passing of the apostles. Wonderful!

However, I'm not yet in 100% agreement with my friends, for they continue to insist that (1) the gifts have not entirely ceased, and (2) a gift of prophecy, albeit one of lesser authority and reliability, remains in operation. Since PyroManiac himself has promised (threatened?) to address the issue of cessation, I won't touch that subject for now, but I would like to address myself to the matter of today's alleged gift of prophecy.

To set the stage, let's consider the type of inspiration that was reflected in the ministry of the Biblical prophets and apostles. In both offices, an exceedingly standard of accuracy and truthfulness was expected, and rightly so. The prophet or apostle was expected to speak with 100% accuracy and trustworthiness whenever he spoke in the name of God. That was a good thing both for their contemporaries and for us, because the Bible is largely a compilation of the recorded utterances of these inspired men. When a true prophet or apostle spoke, you can take it to the bank: they were surely speaking for God, so you could be assured that you were hearing from God whenever they spoke. Although they were otherwise fallible sinners like you and I, whenever they spoke in God's name, they were always on the money. If they were not, the consequences for them were severe: under Mosaic Law, false prophets were to be stoned to death.

So that's what a prophet or apostle of Bible times was like, but what of today's prophets and prophesying? My continuist friends tell me that those who exercise the post-apostolic gift of prophecy are prone to error. They are sometimes right, but other times wrong. Moreover, authentic predictive prophecy is exceedingly rare, and that's if one grants that it takes place at all. Although no one has yet gone out and said so, I surmise that what they're saying is that today's prophet doesn't predict future events, but instead instructs, encourages, corrects, or comforts the Body of Christ with God-inspired words.

So far so good. I'm relieved to learn that my Reformed charismatic friends are so skeptical about the perpetuity of predictive prophecy. However, I'm not completely at ease, because they're still telling me that are still other types of inspired prophecy continuing on in the church. From what I understand, they have a few main reasons for holding to the perpetuity of a kind of low-octane prophecy:

The Scriptures don't specify that the charismatic gifts will cease prior to the end of the Church Age, so they must still be in operation in some form.

The New Testament, in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14, mentions the gift of prophecy and provides some rules for its exercise and testing.

Certain types of prophecy are taking place in some churches, and those prophecies seem to often fit the description found in 1 Corinthians 14.

On the surface, this seems like a fairly convincing argument. After all, the first two points are based on Scripture, and the third point is simply to explain that the same thing that Paul described in 1 Corinthians seems to be taking place today. However, things are in fact not nearly that simple, for in fact this argument opens up an absolutely huge can of worms.

As I see it, the crux of the problem with today's alleged low-octane gift of prophecy is this: although it is conceded that it doesn't hold a apostolic level of inspiration or authority, it nonetheless claims to have a degree (albeit a lesser degree) of God-given inspiration and authority. Thus, if we are to accept the perpetuity of this low-grade gift of prophecy, we must accept a two-tired system of divine inspiration and authority: (1) the Biblical level and (2) the post-apostolic level. The first tier is admitted to be fully inerrant and trustworthy, whereas the other is conceded to be fallible but yet is admitted to be "from God" when a prophecy is proven to in fact be of divine origin. We know quite a bit about the first tier of inspiration, for it is that type of inspiration that's behind the Bible itself, but the question that occurs regarding the second tier is this: what do we know about it? What has God revealed about the vitally important matter of how a lower degree of inspiration is to work? How is the gift to be exercised, and how are utterances to be tested? Let us make no mistake: if God has indeed ordained that there would be a lower-grade type of inspiration, we are in great need of instruction and wisdom regarding how to handle it. Whereas the old-style prophets and apostles were to be treated in an all-or-nothing manner--if they weren't right 100% of the time, they were known to be wolves in sheep's clothing--new-style prophets are allegedly supposed to be handled differently. But how? Where are the instructions?

In my charismatic days, I thought I knew the answer to that question: 1 Corinthians 14. Indeed, there's no other passage that goes on in such length or detail regarding how the spiritual gifts were to be exercised in the church, but yet I fear that Paul's instructions somehow fail to give us any idea of how to deal with a fallible gift of prophecy. Now, he does tell the church to reject the false and hold fast to what is good, excellent advice indeed: surely if a prophecy is evidently false, it ought to be rejected immediately. But what of the frequent modern-day cases in which it's unclear whether a prophecy is from God or simply from the imagination of a well-meaning believer? Often, nothing is blatantly wrong with the prophecy, but yet it seems to fall short of full-blown inspiration. For instance, "My children, I love you, and I have a wonderful plan for your life." I can't point out anything that's blatantly unscriptural about God saying that He loves His people or that He has a wonderful plan for them, but neither can I or should I conclude with any certainty that such a message was inspired by God. Would God have us accept every such "Hallmark greeting" type of prophecy as inspired or potentially inspired because it's not blatantly unbiblical? Neither Paul nor any other writer of Scripture tells us, but it seems to me that to accept such a "prophecy" as being of divine inspiration would tend to cheapen the value of divine inspiration and authority.

My friends, if there is in fact a post-apostolic gift of prophecy, the Scriptural guidance for exercising or testing such a gift just isn't there. Whereas Paul's advice in 1 Corinthians 14 would have been plenty for a church that knew only the 100% accurate type of prophecy--they would have known to kick out a prophet the first time he missed the mark--he leaves too many questions unanswered to be able to tell us how to properly handle a lesser degree of authority and inspiration. Moreover, Scripture is (to my knowledge) devoid of any example of the low-octane type of prophecy. (Yes, I know that some folks argue that Agabus in Acts wasn't 100% accurate, but I've read at least one convincing argument to the contrary, so I won't grant you Agabus without a fight. :-) )

Additionally, the notion of post-apostolic prophecy presents another serious problem: its lesser degree of authority tends to undermine the authority of Scripture itself. Whenever we read the Bible with the Holy Spirit's illumination or hear it rightly preached, we are literally hearing the mind of God. Scripture is 100% the Word of God, and so were the unrecorded utterances of the true prophets and apostles. However, the word of today's prophet is conceded by continuists to be less than 100% inspired, so when a prophet rises in church and says, "Thus says the Lord", you don't know for certain whether he's really speaking for God or not. What a contrast to Scripture, which speaks for God 100% of the time! But what of preaching? Isn't preaching prone to error, too? Yes, but a good preacher can claim to speak for God only when he rightly divides the Word of Truth; otherwise, he is evidently speaking only his own opinions. At no time does he claim to be passing on a freshly inspired "word" from God.

To conclude, I'm glad to hear some of my charismatic friends admit that the apostolic gift of prophecy has ceased, but yet I submit that they have opened up a huge can of worms by asserting the continued existence of a post-apostolic gift of prophecy. If they are indeed committed to teaching a two-tier scheme of inspiration and God-given authority, I call on them to provide the church with sound exegetical books and sermons that demonstrate from Scripture the perpetuity of such a gift in addition to the proper practice of that gift and proper testing of its manifestations. Otherwise, I suggest that the perpetuity of such a gift is open to serious doubt if its only warrant is a handful of Bible verses referring to prophecy, Scriptural silence regarding the date of cessation, and a bunch of personal experience. There are admittedly Scriptural difficulties attendant with the cessationist view, but I would argue that the ramifications of a two-tier scheme of inspiration/authority present immensely greater difficulties.

The unanswerable argument

2005-11-05T23:48:00.000-06:00

The last few days, I somehow got involved in a debate on the gift of prophecy over at Pyromaniac (here and here). As the words from cessationists and continuists have flown, it's become evident that pretty much everyone, barring one or two fence-sitters, is fully persuaded in their own mind of the truth of their view.

In the continuist camp, we have those who are convinced that the gift of prophecy has not ceased and therefore continues in operation to the present day. Some of these folks, perhaps all, will admit that the type of prophecy that was seen in Biblical times did indeed cease with the end of the apostolic age. Others say that predictive prophecy has largely ceased, but other forms of prophecy are still operational. I've noticed many nuances that distinguish the views of my continuist friends, but they seem to agree on several points: (1) the gift of prophecy continues in some form because (2) the Scriptures nowhere say that prophecy will cease with the close of the apostolic age and (3) their experience has shown them the Holy Spirit is still moving today through some form of the charismatic spiritual gifts: tongues, interpretation, prophecy, healing, miracles, etc..

Over in the cessationist camp, there is essential agreement that the charismatic gifts ceased once and for all some time ago, most likely with the end of the apostolic age. For evidence, the cessationists (including myself) point out that Scripture does teach eventual cessation (1 Corintians 13), as well as the evident fact that the gift of prophecy that's allegedly in operation today bears little resemblance to the gift that was exercised by the Prophets and Apostles. Additionally, we have strived to demonstrate that with the completion of Old and New Testaments, there is no need for further direct revelation, and thus no further need for the charismatic gifts. To us, the sufficiency of Scripture is the primary reason why we conclude that prophecy and the other gifts are no longer necessary and therefore no longer in operation.

Thus, the two camps find themselves at an impasse. Both sides are firmly entrenched, throughly persuaded of the rightness of their cause. Some folks do find their way from one camp to another, traffic that apparently travels down a two-way street. Both sides are convinced that they are right, and both profess to hold to the inerrent, inspired Scriptures, but yet they have come to such drastically different conclusions regarding the gift of prophecy. How can this be?

Well, books can and have been written to address this issue by far wiser men than yours truly, so I won't endeavor to supersede their work, but I would like to address one issue that I think lies at the crux of the matter: the relationship of Scripture with experience.

Although I am a cessationist, I will not for a minute argue that the experiences we encounter in the Christian life don't matter. Quite the contrary! In fact, I am fully persuaded that God uses all sorts of experiences--including the mundane trials, temptations, and ups and downs of life--to teach His people many things about Him and His ways. Given that God is sovereignly in control of everything that comes to pass, there is a sense in which every experience we have comes from the hand of God, and a sense in which God has a purpose for everything we experience in life.

This is very well and good when we're talking about the mundane trials and troubles of life, but what if I suddenly find my life disrupted by an experience that seems to be well beyond the ordinary: an inexplicable physical healing, an extraordinary material provision, or even a spiritual encounter that seems to bring me far closer to God than ever before? Such experiences can have a tremendous impact, and the fact is that they do happen to a great many people. Many of us will have at least one such extraordinary experience in our lifetime, and some such as myself will have more than that.

As a person who has had a number of extraordinary experiences, I can attest to the tremendous impact they had upon me. I found it to be impossible to take them in stride and carry on with my life as though they had never happened. Instead, I felt compelled to interpret and act upon my experiences in ways that resulted in my making major decisions, including several decisions that continue to have an impact on my life to the present day. During the last couple of weeks, I have described a number of these experiences in this blog. In the case of many of these experiences, I felt an extraordinary, often overwhelming sense that God must have a special purpose for allowing the experience to take place, perhaps a lesson He wanted me to learn or a message He wished to impart to me. When I first experienced speaking in tongues while praying alone at home, or when I had a demonic visitor appear at my bedside one night, or when a young girl was quickly and visibly healed in answer to my prayers, the meaning of these experiences seemed exceedingly clear: God was speaking to me and leading me, and the charismatic gifts of the Spirit mentioned in the New Testament were still in operation. God Himself had seen fit to meet with me in a very special way, so I felt compelled to react in the manner that seemed most appropriate to me. Thus, I cast my lot with the charismatic movement. Such was my experience, and such is the experience of some of the folks I encountered over on Pyromaniac's blog these last few days. My experience, and theirs, was so powerful and real that it just had to have an impact on what I did and believed. How can such experiences be wrong, especially when I could look in the Bible and find chapter-and-verse references that were so very similar to my experiences?

If you've read my blog recently, you know how my story turned out. Insofar as my time in charismaticism is concerned, my story had a miserable ending. My powerful experiences bore fruit alright, but the fruit was 100% rotten. Obviously, I had been deceived, but how? Didn't my experiences line up with Scripture? Didn't I pray that God would show me the right way? Hadn't I asked the Father for spiritual bread? Given that I had, why would He give me a stone instead? What went wrong?

In a nutshell, my error, I think, was this: I had turned the proper priority of Scripture and experience upside-down. Rather than take the teaching of Scriptures as a whole--rightly dividing the Word of truth--and evaluating my experiences in that light, I had used Scripture as a source of prooftexts, often taken grossly out of their context, as validation for my experiences. Thus, I put aside the charts and maps of Scripture and instead allowed the winds and waves of experience to pilot my ship of faith. Rather than subjecting experience to Scripture, I did the reverse: I used Scripture to validate my experience. Instead of practicing sound Biblical exegesis, I had practiced eisegesis: reading whatever I wanted to see into the Scripture.

In so doing, I managed to twist the Christian faith into a shadow of the real thing. For me, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, not the atonement of Jesus Christ, was the center of my faith life. Rather than cultivate spiritual fruit, I pursued greater gifts. Rather than lay up treasure in heaven, I heaped up treasure on earth. The Name of Jesus--the Name above every name--became an incantation with which I bound and rebuked devils and demons. Rather than seek after a greater knowledge of the Scriptures, I ran from one church meeting to another in search of more extraordinary experiences. Such was, sad to say, the fruit of my powerful encounter with the "Holy Spirit."

Such is my testimony. I have no hesitation in sharing it, primarily that God might be glorified as I speak of the great deliverance He granted me in the end, but also as a warning to others who might be tempted to go down the same path that has caused me such misery. However, as I meet folks who are where I was at twenty years ago--excited over the extraordinary spiritual experiences they've had--I find that they, like me, are so enraptured with the apparent joy, peace, and excitement of the experience that they cannot imagine how such a wonderful experience could ever lead to such a miserable end. In my case, Word of Faith doctrine played a major role in leading me astray, so some will attribute that teaching as the key source of my negative experience with charismaticism, but yet it cannot take all the blame: I had my most extraordinary experiences well before I ever heard of the Word of Faith teachings.

In my experience, practically everyone who loves their special experiences will end up disregarding stories such as mine. Although they will often express true, unfeigned sympathy for how my charismatic experience worked out for me, they are confident that their experience will bear better fruit. They have their experience, just as I once had mine, and that is the argument that I cannot answer.

Traditional roles

2005-11-02T10:36:00.000-06:00

One of the reasons why I think I can be so, er, (in)scrutable is that my thinking on some issues doesn't fall out along conventional lines. Take, for instance, my views on cultural tradition. On one hand, I insist that extra-Biblical tradition is not binding on my conscience, a stand that's gotten me pegged as a rebel against society on several occasions, but on the other hand I think that a lot of traditions are good and right. In fact, I often wish that Western society would experience a "revival" of traditional customs. Although I certainly don't wish for a return of all old traditions, I think we would benefit if many of them were to experience a resurgence.

In particular, let's consider the roles of men and women. Although I most heartily welcome the way in which Western society has granted women nearly equal liberty to exercise their gifts and talents in practically every way, and I remain convinced that women were shamefully under-utilized and disrespected in the past, I have noticed a movement to treat women as though they ought to strive to do whatever men do as well as men do it. To put it another way, if men do something, women ought to try to do it, too. Who hasn't seen an article about a woman who's pursuing a field of endeavor that is usually pursued only by men? In such articles, we read about how great of a job she's doing, so good that many of the men in her field are amazed by her talent and ability. Although in most cases I think it's commendable for a woman to pursue a given social or professional role, even if that role is non-traditional, I think it's rather sad to see how so often women who choose to pursue traditional roles are overlooked. Although it's wonderful if a woman becomes a great race car driver or rocket scientist, I think it's just as wonderful if she becomes a great wife or mother. In fact, I would argue that the self-sacrifice that's often involved in the pursuit of such traditional roles is worthy of just as much praise as the often considerable effort that's involved in pursuing a non-traditional role.

Long before human society grasped the notion of the equal value of men and women, Scripture revealed that "in Christ there is neither male nor female." (Galatians 3:28) Men and women stand equal in value before God, but yet Scripture also reveals that men and women are different in role. To be frank, this generation despises the notion that a person's role may be substantially determined by facts of birth. To be sure, the racism that's so long been a cancer on most human societies is utterly evil: the same Scripture I just quoted goes on to say that in Christ there is "neither Jew nor Greek, nor slave nor free." Likewise, the view that women are inferior in value to men is alien to Scripture, but yet the Word tells us that wives are to submit to their husbands, and that only men are to lead and teach in the church. (Scripture does allow for women to lead and teach other women and children in church-related functions such as Sunday School, and has relatively little to say about whom women are to teach or lead outside the context of home or church.) Scripture draws this distinction not because women are inferior in value to men, but because they are given a different role than that of men. In my opinion, we ought to embrace not only the equality but also the difference of men and women! I think past Western culture had a tendency to respect the difference in the roles of men and women but at the same time treated women as being inferior to men, but today we've seen a flip-flop: men and women are equal in value and in role. For my part, I would like to see us embrace both equality of value and distinction of role.

As I've written in the past, I lament the decline of formality in my culture, and I sense this decline most strongly regarding the social roles of men and women. So much of the time nowadays, men and women look and act so much alike, and I think this works against the distinction in role that today's society is so eager to deny. Therefore, I'd like to see a revival of distinctions in the appearance and behavior of men and women in social situations. I find it to be attractive and becoming when men and women look and act different. However, I recognize that we ought not go beyond Scripture. Regarding apparel, God strictly prohibits transvestism (Deut. 22:5), but yet history refutes any notion that any particular type of garment is inherently male or female for all time and in all cultures. In Moses' and Jesus' day, both men and women wore robes, in today's America both men and women wear trousers, and in Scotland both men and women wear kilts to this day. Thus, the thinking of certain fundamentalists that women ought not wear pants is unbiblical. However, God did command that there be a distinction of some kind in appearance between the sexes. Although I would reject any notion that women ought to put away their trousers (or the Scotsman his kilt :-) ), I would nonetheless like to see a greater effort on the part of both men and women to cultivate a distinction in appearance so as to better reflect the God-ordained distinction between the sexes.

Although I am glad to see the increasing opportunities that are available to women in my culture, I am grieved to see how quick we have been to throw aside what was good and right about our old ways. The fact of the matter is that God has appointed men and women to different roles. Although all people, both believers and unbelievers, are responsible to obey God's Law as revealed in Scripture, I believe that professing Christians bear a special responsibility to set an example of obedience to the Lord in this respect. I do not advocate a wholesale return to old ways, nor do I say that old ways are good merely because they're old. Instead, I believe that we are responsible to thoughtfully evaluate our society's view of gender roles in comparison with Scripture, discarding what is bad in our practice and holding fast to what is good.

Our shameless generation

2005-10-31T15:21:00.000-06:00

The other night while watching the latest volume of Warner Brother's excellent Looney Tunes DVD reissues, I was struck by how often one of the fanciful cartoon characters, caught in an embarassing situation, would betray his inner emotions with a beet-red blush across his face. For instance, if Elmer Fudd found himself without his customary garb, he'd clutch his polka-dotted boxer shorts while wearing a mortified expression, for he was ashamed to have been caught in a state of undress. On countless occasions in older cartoons, I've seen how an animated gag culminated in the visible shaming of the victim. Even today, at least fifty years after the creation of these cartoons, I often find myself laughing uproariously at such depictions of comic shame.

Of course, shame is not always a laughing matter. During my childhood in the 1960s, I enjoyed the great benefit of being brought up with a goodly amount of good ol' fashioned moral virtues such as shame. Yes, my friend, shame is a good thing. Although the situation that leads up to one's shaming is generally a bad thing, proper shame is good and right because it serves as a reminder that we have willingly (or sometimes unwillingly) violated a moral or social standard of God or man. If I have sinned against God or my neighbor, it is good that I am ashamed if my shame helps to lead me to repentance, and it is far better to be ashamed for cause than to sin in a shameless manner.

In Genesis, immediately after the Fall of Man, we read of the very first manifestation of man's new guilt before God: Adam and Eve, realizing for the first time that they were naked, sewed together fig leaves to make themselves aprons. They had sinned against the commandment of God, and thus felt shame for the very first time in human history. Although their sin obviously put them in the wrong, they were nonetheless right to be ashamed because they stood guilty before their Holy God.

Shame obviously does not always lead to repentance, but shame does accompany guilt, and the awareness of one's guilt is necessary before one will see the need for repentance. This is why the Law ought to be preached alongside the Gospel: I cannot rightly understand why I stand in need of a Savior when I am not aware of my guilt before God. Guilt and its accompanying shame isn't sufficient to work repentance in a sinner's heart, but it is an essential beginning.

Therefore, I'd like to suggest that one of the most fearful trends in American society is its outright shamelessness. Admittedly, sin and vice of all kinds have always had a thriving existence in our society, but in past generations those who indulged in such wickedness possessed enough shame that they pursued their pleasures more or less in secret. This behavior of course didn't make them righteous, but it did at least signal an awareness that what they doing stirred up at least a small amount of shame. How things have changed since then! Perhaps on account of the post-Freudian drive in psychology and related sciences to eradicate guilt and shame, we now live amongst a generation that betrays little or no shame for their deeds. Far from being ashamed, people will now offer often eloquent defenses of their conduct: "I only do it with a consenting partner" or "I'm not hurting anyone but myself" or even "I was born this way." Behavior that was once held to be morally suspect at best, or wicked at worst, is now nothing more than a lifestyle choice. For shame we have traded shamelessness, and for liberty, license.

As I close, I would like to submit an antidote to the vice of shamelessness: the virtue of modesty. I use the word modesty in the sense of "formality or propriety of manner." In contrast to the license that's practiced by the shameless man, the modest man will take care to conduct himself in a proper manner. I am not speaking merely of propriety as defined by the written and unwritten standards of human society, but far more importantly the standard of Scripture. The righteous man, far from granting himself the license to do whatever he pleases without shame, will take care to ascertain what behavior God requires, and will therefore take pains to conduct himself accordingly. In so doing, he will serve as a living testimony of the evil of the increasingly shameless generation in which he lives.

God's mercy

2005-10-27T10:49:00.000-05:00

With the exception of 9/11, the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina is undoubtedly the greatest disaster that has been seen in the US during my lifetime. Although my generation has seen large swathes of destruction wrought by earthquakes, hurricanes, fires, floods, and tornadoes, I can't recall any pre-Katrina disaster that essentially wiped out such a large portion of a major city. Therefore, it is at least somewhat understandable that some people have pointed to Katrina as being a special instrument of punishment or judgment from God.

But yet as bad as it was, Katrina could have been much, much worse. The New Orleans death toll, once predicted to rise into the tens of thousands, turned out to be less than a thousand, still a devastating toll to be sure, but much, much less than it could have been. Morever, the forecasted epidemic of Katrina-related disease has largely failed to come to pass, perhaps because the "toxic soup" that had been feared to be brewed from Katrina's floodwaters fell well short of the often dire predictions. Also, the economic fallout has been less than what had been expected. In my area, gas prices peaked at just over $3.00 per gallon, but have since moderated to $2.45, not much higher than they were before Katrina and Rita did their damage. All in all, it seems to be apparent that the direst predictions of devastation have failed to come to pass. Compared to what could have been, or even compared to what did actually come to pass with the recent earthquake in Pakistan and India, it seems as though God's mercy was abundantly evident insofar as the death and destruction wrought by the late hurricanes is concerned.

In fact, as I think back on the many disasters and near-disasters the US has suffered in my lifetime, I am struck by the thought that they could have been so much worse! I am not the only person to have noticed this. I have heard of others who have said that this fact is proof of God's special favor towards the US. To an extent I agree, so long as we rightly define the basis of God's favor. Has America been spared so much calamity because it is somehow morally superior to other nations? Does God compare the US to other nations and say, "The US isn't perfect, but it's better than other nations, so I'll be kind to them." Quite the contrary! Instead, I would submit that the US is just as wicked and depraved as any nation. My country has shed an untold amount of innocent blood. As a nation and as a people, our hands are far, far from clean. Before God, our supposed righteousness is a heaping pile of smelly, filthy rags.

But yet, I remain persuaded that God has continued to be pleased to show mercy to the US, not because of our works, but solely because of His good pleasure. God is sovereign over all affairs of men, and as such holds the power to lift up and cast down nations as He sees fit. Although the US has done much wickedness, and may well be more guilty than most of the sins of self-righteousness and hypocrisy, yet God continues to show mercy to its people. God's reason for His mercy is hidden to us, but yet the fact of it is evident.

So what are we to do? Should we thank God that we are better than other men? God forbid, for we are in no way more righteous! Instead, we ought to respond to His mercy in humility and repentance. Scripture and history alike make it plain that God's patience is great indeed, but we know not when His patience will be exhausted. Mercy is an altogether undeserved gift, one that ought not be trifled with. It may be withdrawn at any time without any advance notice.

Therefore, I call upon my fellow US citizens to heed the mercy of God, and turn back to the Lord with repentance. We ought to call upon Him, pleading with Him to graciously send a true revival to our land: not a false "revival" marked by false signs and lying wonders, but a true revival marked by bold Gospel preaching and a national turning away from sin. We ought to take hope from the Lord's mercy, but we ought never presume upon His mercy, for we know not when He will remove it.

For my friends in other nations, you too may take hope even if God's mercy seems to be less evident in your land. If darkness is great in your nation, then I encourage you to call upon the Lord all the more to plead that He would show mercy to your nation. The Lord is patient and long-suffering, delighting in mercy, so He may well be pleased to revive your nation! Even if your nation has never known abundant Gospel light, who knows? Call upon Him in hope, and ask Him to call many people unto Christ in your land. So long as Christ's return tarries, there remains the hope that God will smile upon your nation and call many Elect unto Himself.

Thoughts on building a bridge

2005-10-26T11:24:00.000-05:00

Quite a few years ago, I enjoyed the rare privilege of becoming involved with a group of international students at my university. A large majority of the students were from Southeast Asia: places such as Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and the Phillipines. Most of them were ethnic Chinese, but on account of their national origin, they tended to enjoy the highly spicy and seasoned curries of that part of the world. Although I'm 100% European-American, I somehow found it to be easy to fit in with this group. Perhaps it was their strong sense of hospitality, or maybe my sense of being a stranger in my own land, but whatever the reason, I had no difficulty with becoming part of their crowd. For better or worse, this happy season didn't last very long. My friends were, after all, students, so it was inevitable that each one would eventually graduate and return home.

Since then, I've not had occasion to enjoy such an immersion into the fellowship of strangers, but yet the lessons I learned back then continue to benefit me. Of these lessons, perhaps the most useful has been that I don't need to look or act like a person in order to be his friend. Our backgrounds and philosophies may be very different, but if we can find something to build a bridge between us, those differences can mean a whole lot less. Although it's good and right to respect the customs of both neighbors and strangers to a certain extent, there's no need for me to try to turn myself into a carbon copy of the person whom I wish to befriend. Garden variety respect can go a long, long way to building a bridge.

Another thing that I've found to be useful may seem counter-intuitive: rather than try to adopt someone else's culture, get to know your own. As I've taken the trouble to get to know Western fine and popular arts, I find that many non-Westerners actually respect me more. Perhaps that's because they see in me the same kind of love of my culture that they see in themselves. Obviously, a xenophobic viewpoint would have quite the opposite effect, as that would imply that I think that only my way is good and right. Instead, I strive to respect what is good and proper in my culture as well as in the cultures of others.

As for customs that contradict the Christian Scriptures, I obviously avoid making any kind of endorsement, but strive to express kind and tactful disagreement when it's appropriate to do so. Although taking such a stand inevitably entails the risk of offense, in practice I find that I can often avoid undue offense in such cases on account of the enthusiastic respect I show for the customs of which I can approve.

Thus, I find that I'm well equipped to befriend people who are very different from myself. Just as there's no need for me to have plastic surgery to change my appearance to better match that of my friends, there's no need for me to turn myself into a carbon copy of the strangers who are closer to home. For instance, I don't need a single body piercing or tattoo before I can treat my local "bod-mod" fan with kindness and respect. He most likely doesn't expect me to look or act like him anyway. Instead, it's generally more than sufficient to look beyond the surface--food, drink, clothing, cosmetics, etc.. After all, that's how I want folks to treat me, so shouldn't I treat others accordingly? So, if you can't handle spicy food or you lack the inclination to get your body pierced, don't let that stop you from being a friend to the stranger who's in your midst.

Kicking the habit

2005-10-21T11:23:00.000-05:00

Although I've never been addicted to drugs, I understand that kicking the habit is a lot more difficult than falling into the habit. My experience with the charismatic movement was a lot like that: easy to start, but hard to quit. If I had to come up with an outline for my exit from charismania, it would be a simple two-parter: (1) leaving the church and (2) giving up the doctrine and practice.

For me, leaving the church was relatively quick and easy, albeit not without pain. Although each of the churches I regularly attended was classical Pentecostal, I was heavily influenced by Word of Faith teachers such as Kenneth Hagin. After my pastor preached a sermon that exposed the bankruptcy of the WoF and I read "A Different Gospel" by D.R. McConnell, my questions and doubts began in earnest. My previous openness to all manner of spiritual gifts was quickly replaced with a new zeal for discernment. I was no longer content to unquestioningly receive every prophecy, but instead felt that I ought to test each one against my understanding of Scripture. As I did so, I became painfully aware that the vast majority of the "manifestations" at my church were at best well-meaning piffle ("I love you and have a wonderful plan for your life") and at worst heretical garbage (e.g., a prophecy in which we were exhorted to pay greater homage to the Virgin Mary). On no occasion did the pastor or worship leader offer any rebuke to even the worst of these prophecies. When I shared my concern with the pastor about one of the worst of the prophecies, he agreed that it was in error but that if we were going to allow the Spirit to do His work that we had to allow a little wildfire. He went on to warn me of the danger of entertaining a critical spirit. Thus, the same man who'd been instrumental in getting me to think about charismatic doctrine and practice was unprepared to exercise the same discernment that he himself had promoted from the pulpit. Feeling as though I was caught between the proverbial rock and hard place, I concluded that there was no point in my attending that church any longer.

Although it was relatively easy to leave the charismatic church, it wasn't nearly so easy for me to give up on charismatic doctrine. Looking back, my problem was that I'd built my faith upon the wrong foundation: my personal experience rather than Scripture. For years after leaving the church, I desperately clung to the prophecies, visions, and healings as proof that God wasn't through with me yet, and that He would one day deliver me and use me again. On the flip side, I felt very much betrayed by the church. My zeal to throw out the spiritual bathwater (without harming the baby) only grew, but I'd seen that the churches that shared my belief in the charismatic gifts were utterly lacking in any kind of discernment. Although I somehow knew that I'd have to return to church sooner or later, my bitterness and disillusionment was great indeed, so for at least five years I didn't ever seriously consider finding another church.

This will probably come as no surprise, but my personal spiritual life during this season was poor at the start and only declined as time passed. My faith was still based upon my experiences, and I looked at the Scriptures as "old hat", so I hardly read the Bible at all. I did pray after a fashion, but my prayer time degenerated into angry rants against God's dealings with me and desperate pleas for Him to stop making me so miserable. Like a drug addict going through withdrawal, I continued to crave my old spiritual highs, but my cries for deliverance went unheeded. The heavens were as brass to me, as though I was a stranger to God and God was a stranger to me. For five years, maybe more, this dark season dragged interminably on. Although I considered myself to be a believer, there was little or no fruit that would have led anyone to suspect that I was. In fact, my spiritual life was so dismal that I'm now of the opinion that I wasn't converted until after my "withdrawal" from charismania.

In speaking of the redemption that Jesus Christ purchased for His Elect, Paul tells us that "where sin abounded, grace abounded much more." A good thing, too, because were it not for sheer grace I'm certain I would have remained in my spiritual dungeon to this day! My anger against God and bitterness towards the church was such that He ought to have cast me aside permanently, but instead He had pity on me, a wretched sinner.

In retrospect, I think my final recovery from charismania began at the very beginning--my real conversion--because it wasn't until then that I began to realize that I really was a wretched sinner who, far from deserving any kind of favor, deserved nothing but condemnation from the hand of a Holy God. Moreover, I began to see that I could never put 100% confidence in even the most real of my supernatural experiences, so I made a deliberate choice to put them on the shelf. At this point, I wasn't prepared to give them up entirely, because I wasn't yet sure of what was true and what was false. Instead, I told God that I was giving my experiences back to Him, and that if I was to put any trust in them that He'd have to make it exceedingly clear that they were from Him. When I did this, I had no idea that I'd end up giving up on my experiences permanently. Also, I made the commitment that, unless God gave me clear affirmation to the contrary, that I was only going to trust what I could know for certain: the Scriptures.

At this point, more changes came into my life. The most pivotal was the unexpected decision of my landlords to sell their house. They lived in the first story, and rented the second story to me. I had no desire to go through the uncertainty of a new landlord, so I considered the options of moving to another apartment or buying the house from my landlords, but neither option appealed to me. Even though I'd had absolutely no desire to own my own home for its own sake, I ended up buying a house simply because it seemed like the best use of my financial resources. This was the first decision I'd made in years without relying on a "still small voice", and my move to a new house in a new community directly set the stage for my return to church, but that, as they say on TV, is another story. :-)

A lasting reminder

2005-10-18T12:13:00.000-05:00

As I've shared in my recent posts regarding my charismatic experiences, God has been most merciful to me by minimizing much of the lasting "fallout" from my folly of those days, but yet in His providence I'm often reminded of certain lasting consequences of my charismatic foolishness.

In my charismatic days, I fancied myself to be the recepient of many "words from God." Although these "words" covered a variety of different subjects, the ones that were nearest to my heart had to do with my, er, love life. In fact, I held on to no "word" longer than the one that revealed to me whom I was to marry.

The lady in question had been a leader of my college Christian fellowship. For a season we frequently prayed with each other, and we got to be close enough that many folks thought we'd eventually marry. However, strife and conflict eventually entered into our relationship, not to mention a year-long absence when I left to teach at ORU in Tulsa, OK. Things were quite tense between us at the time I returned to Illinois, and we didn't make up until just a couple of months before she graduated and moved back home.

It was only after the gal moved back home that the "words" began. First, it was revealed to me that she would return after a season and together we'd be instrumental in a revival that was to come to my area. Later, this revelation was confirmed in some detail through at least two additional witnesses. At this point I was engaged in an ongoing written correspondence with the gal, and things seemed to be heading in a hopeful direction.

However, trouble was at hand. It began with a most hopeful letter from the gal. She'd somehow gotten the impression that I was going to come to visit her, and additionally asked me to send her a few specific items via mail. At the time I was quite timid, and she lived very far from me in a foreign country, so I'd never seriously considered undertaking a visit, but I did go ahead and send her a package with the items she'd requested. A few weeks later, I learned from a mutual friend that my package had arrived but that it had been "sabotaged." In a panic fueled by the various stories of persecution I'd heard her tell in the past, I decided that it would be better for her if I stopped corresponding with her and wait for her to get back in touch with me when it was safe for her to do so.

From this point on, I began to wait, and wait, and wait. Since I had a "word" from God, or so I thought, I "knew" that everything would work out sooner or later. I was quite convinced that my eventual union with her was a done deal, and I acted accordingly. On one occasion, I snubbed another gal who was obviously attracted to me simply because God had told me I was to marry someone else! In spite of occasional doubts, I was determined to wait upon the Lord, so I did so for quite a few years.

While I waited, I heard nothing from the gal of my "word", but I did maintain occasional contact with the aforementioned mutual friend. After I'd waited for several years, I got a phone call from this friend. She told me that she'd heard from my prophetically intended. She'd mentioned me in such a way that indicated that she was angry with me, but yet she hadn't made it clear to our friend exactly why she was angry with me. Thinking that the way was now clear for me to get back in touch with her, I got her address from our friend and sent her a few letters, but received no reply. In my very last letter, I asked her forgiveness for any offense I may have caused, and explained that I wouldn't write any further unless she replied to me. She never did.

Obviously, this disappointment was one of the bitterest of my life. I had invested a lot of time in waiting for this dream to come to pass, but now I was finally waking up to the fact that I'd been deceived either by the devil or by my own imagination. What's more, the years I'd spent on waiting on this dream were spent on nothing. All that time, I made little or no effort to get acquainted with anyone else. Thus, this foolish dream is the #1 reason why I'm still single to this day.

However, God as always showed me much mercy even in the midst of such folly. For starters, He'd spared me from what would have been a very bad match. You see, this gal had a very strong, even overbearing personality, whereas my tendency at the time was to be weak and passive. Needless to say, such a combination would have been disastrous for the health of a long-term relationship. Also, God graciously kept me far from overt sexual immorality during this period, and has in fact preserved me to this day. Finally, He graciously used this disappointment to turn me away from vain dreams and towards the Scriptures. More than anything else that I experienced in charismania, it was this failed dream that led to my personal Reformation.

To this day, this great disappointment continues to have a major impact on my life. As I've already mentioned, it's the #1 reason why I've not yet married, because I spent my twenties waiting for a dream instead of searching for a wife, and didn't get around to searching with any earnestness until I reached my late thirties. The fact is that the vast majority of single gals are in their twenties, so on a number of occasions I've found that gals who are otherwise of good spiritual and moral quality are simply unsuitable for a guy of my age and maturity. To further complicate matters, since I gave up my dream so late, I've been learning how to play the "mating game" about twenty years later than is normal. Thus, to the younger set I'm too old, and to the older set I'm often thought of as awkward or unpolished. This is not to say that I've given up all hope of finding a suitable mate--with God all things are possible--but that these very real difficulties are constant reminders of the foolishness and folly of trusting a spurious "word of the Lord."

God has promised to work all things together for the good of His Elect. In spite of my ongoing difficulties, I can testify that He has done so in my life. In fact, the nature of my folly was such that it is a constant reminder of the danger that awaits me should I ever fall back into it again. Thus, it serves as a "check" against putting my trust in anything save the Scriptures. Moreover, it fuels my fervent desire to warn others against trusting any dream, vision, intuition, or "word" save the Scriptures alone. Although God has graciously guarded me from much harm, the consequences that remain for my charismatic folly are sufficient to keep me ever mindful of the vital importance of Sola Scriptura: the Scriptures alone!

Unusual healings

2005-10-12T12:31:00.000-05:00

As a charismatic, one of the things that excited me the most was the healing ministry. I often thrilled to hear stories of people who were miraculously healed through the ministry of this or that healing evangelist, so naturally I found myself desiring to be "used" in that manner. My success in this area was limited to a handful of apparent healings, but even this limited success was enough to affect my view of sickness and health for years to come.

Shortly after I started attending my first Pentecostal church (A/G), I was befriended by a single mom. She had an eleven-year-old daughter. For several months, this lady had me to her apartment for dinner on numerous occasions. She was a very sweet and kind person, but she was instrumental in turning me on to a number of false teachings and practices. One summer day, I was visiting and noticed that much of her daughter's legs were covered with bruises. Her mom explained that she'd fallen off her bicycle a while back and the bruises had been slow to heal. Afire with zeal for divine healing, I asked permission to lay hands on the girl's legs and pray for healing. I visited several times over the next few days, each time noticing a substantial improvement in the girl's bruising, until finally the bruising had entirely disappeared. The healing, although gradual, was sufficiently rapid that we all agreed that we had just seen a miraculous healing.

Needless to say, this incident was more than sufficient to encourage me to do more of the same kind of thing. Usually, the "results" my wishful thinking imagined were far better than the reality, but on at least one other occasion I received a better result. On that occasion, I was leading prayer in a small prayer circle during our church service. An older gentleman had asked that we pray for his grandson who'd been diagnosed with a very serious condition (I think it was spinal menningitis, but my memory is cloudy on that point). The boy wasn't physically present because he was in the hospital. In good charismatic style, I rebuked the disease and commanded it to leave in the name of Jesus. A week later, the gentleman got up to offer testimony. He shared the story of how his grandson had been airlifted to a major hospital in Chicago for more extensive treatment, but when he arrived, the doctors checked him out and said, "Why did you send this boy here? There's absolutely nothing wrong with him." I'm not aware of the boy's subsequent medical history, but at the time this alleged healing was considered to be one of the more major miracles that our church had seen in quite some time.

Although all of this seemed very exciting and encouraging at the time, it didn't have a good effect on me. Most critically, it didn't take long for me to adopt the "going to see the doctor is for the weak in faith" mentality of the faith teachers to whom I was listening. This didn't have a very good effect on my health. I even went so far as to put off visits to the dentist for several years. Why go to the doctor/dentist/whatever when I had the right to divine healing in the Atonement? Another bad fruit of my charismatic beliefs was a lack of compassion for the sick and suffering. All too often, I found myself looking down on the afflicted as being weak in faith, disregarding Christ's own teaching that the weak were the very people to whom I ought to minister. As in the case of the extraordinary provisions I shared the other day, the spiritual fruit of the alleged miracles of healing I'd seen turned out to be 100% rotten.

After leaving my last charismatic church, it took quite a number of years for me to reject this thinking and seek professional help for my physical problems. Although I regret my foolish presumption which caused all sorts of needless worry, expense, and discomfort, God in His mercy spared me from lasting consequences for my negligence. Although I wasn't in the greatest shape, say, six years ago, I've since become more diligent about diet and exercise, and I've visited the doctor for several (thankfully minor) maladies. Although I've adopted the practice of using ordinary means to tend to my physical health, I'm happy to report that I feel better today in my mid-forties than I felt as a twenty-something charismatic! However, I don't give myself or any doctor the glory for this improvement, because I recognize that every good and perfect gift comes from my Heavenly Father, who is the One who--whether through means or without means, whether in this life or in the life to come--heals all my diseases. At no point in my physical recovery has God intervened in a miraculous manner, but at every point His sovereign control has been evident. As I learn to trust God both in times of prosperity and times of affliction, I find that I grow far stronger in faith than I ever was as a "health and wealth" charismatic.

Extraordinary provisions

2005-10-10T12:00:00.000-05:00

In my charismatic salad days, I kept up with the TV ministries of many of the big-name preachers of the day. One of the things I most admired about their ministries was the stories they told about how God miraculously provided them with money or other material goods in a timely and precise manner. I longed to have such a thing happen to me, and eventually it did happen to me several times.

In one instance, a good friend of mine came over to my apartment. She was in tears on account of an bounced check and told me of how she needed a certain amount of money to balance her checking account. Rather than humbly seek God to ask her to meet my friend's need, I used my best charismatic style to rebuke the devil and decree that my friend's checking account be balanced. After "praying", my friend went back to her apartment (just a few minutes walk), only to come back again with good news. When she'd gotten to her apartment door, she found an envelope that someone had left there. Inside was enough cash to balance her checking account plus a little more.

Later that same year, I was scheduled to take a road trip during a long weekend holiday, but when the time for my vacation came around, I discovered that I had very little cash on hand. (I was rather poorly paid that year.) I didn't let that stop me, however. I emptied out my coin jar and counted out around $100, enough for gas and food for my "to" trip, but not enough to cover the trip back. Being a faith person, I set out for my trip anyway, trusting (or presuming) that I'd get the money to make the return trip. Upon my arrival at my friend's house, I got my answer: a check was lying on the bed. It was the refund for a deposit I'd made for a moving van several months before, and it was more than enough to pay for my return trip. Although it was money that was coming to me sooner or later, it certainly came to me at the perfect time.

At first glance, it might not be obvious what's wrong with these stories. After all, God does graciously provide for His people, and He sometimes does so in surprising ways. However, if you consider the tremendous amount of spiritual pride I carried in those days, not to mention the unscriptural manner in which I "prayed", I think there's quite another explanation for these occurences. Although I did hold gainful employment during this period and I was a fairly diligent worker, my overall attitude was one of laziness and entitlement. I did what I had to do to please men, but little employment during this period and I was a fairly diligent worker, my overall attitude was one of laziness and entitlement. I did what I had to do to please men, but little more. Moreover, I'd bought into the charismatic "health and wealth" teaching, so I believed that God had obliged Himself to provide everything I needed without my having to lift a finger. With these incidents, I didn't offer God humble thanks, but instead I rejoiced at the successful application I'd made of my faith. Moreover, they taught me that diligent hard work wasn't necessary for success: all I had to do was "name it and claim it."

Thus, the fruit of these extraordinary provisions, like that of all of my charismatic experiences, was rotten: pride and laziness. What's more, they contributed to my general drift away from Scripture reading and true prayer. My experiences were 100% real, but they were 100% rotten. The charismatic practices worked, but they ended up driving me further away from the Christ of the Scriptures.

Since those days, I've learned that God does bless His people, but He does so through ordinary means, especially hard work and diligent effort. Money no longer grows on trees for me, but yet on many occasions I'm blessed by an unexpected mercy from God's gracious hand. On such occasions, I find myself compelled to humble gratitude rather than arrogant boasting. As I strive to be more pleasing to God in my work, He in turn blesses me with greater favor with men. I'm now enjoying a period of prosperity, but I realize that I may one day have to endure a period of want. Whether I enjoy prosperity or suffer want, I pray that God will continue to give me the grace to trust Him to provide for me as I strive to obey His Word.

The fruit of Personal Experience

2005-10-07T22:52:00.000-05:00

It seems that with each new generation comes a new set of proverbs. With the day of "Poor Richard's Almanac" long past, it ought to come as no surprise that our present generation has invented its own repertoire of proverbs. To wit:

It doesn't matter what you do, so long as you get the job done.

If it works for you, great!

The ends justify the means.

Whatever gets you through the night is alright.

These proverbs, and others like them, well express the prevailing philosophy of today: pragmatism. No longer does it matter how one goes about pursuing a goal or tackling a problem. Instead, all that matters is the end result.

With all due respect to those who insist that the Charismatic Movement and its cousins (Classical Pentecostalism, Third Wave, etc.) are nothing less than an end-times outpouring of God's Holy Spirit, this supposed move of God is in practice the incarnation of pragmatism in nominally Christian garb. Once you get past the veneer of Scriptural prooftexts, mostly from Acts and 1 Corinthians 12 and 14, the authority on which Charismaticism is based is Personal Experience. Anyone who spends much time in Charismaticism has at least one dramatic experience to share. Although few charismatics would claim that every experience they've had was a certifiable encounter with God, most have at least one or two such experiences that, for them, are the preeminent reason why they hold their charismatic gifts and beliefs to be true.

In my days as a charismatic, I had more than a few experiences. They included, but were not limited to:

Dramatic healings, both rapid and gradual, in response to my prayer of faith.

Dreams and visions that came true in detail.

Words of knowledge and wisdom that were confirmed by the recepient.

A nighttime visitation from a demonic being.

Personal prophecies of things to come that were confirmed by at least two or three witnesses.

Extraordinary, timely provision of money and other material goods.

Although in each case I could point you to Scriptural texts that seemed to validate my experience, my faith in my baptism in the Holy Spirit was in reality grounded upon these special experiences. Together, they were the foundation of my faith. In those days, I read my Bible only rarely, except to open it randomly to find a "word from God." Why would I do otherwise? Why spend the time and effort in reading, much less studying, a 2,000 year old book when God Himself was so evidently speaking to me directly in so many ways?

Of all the charismatics I knew at that time, I had more reason than most to believe that God's hand was upon me in a special way. During the (seemingly) good times, the spiritual good times came often, and often came with great power. If anyone had been blessed with evidence for the truth of the perpetuity of the charismatic gifts, it was me.

But yet, after several years of such experiences, I'd left church entirely, and didn't return to church until several years more. By the time I returned to church, I'd given up on all of my dreams, visions, and gifts and had resolved to put my trust only in the written Word of God.

During my time away from church, I came to see the true fruit of my experiences. No, I didn't come to question their reality. Many of them were very, very real. In fact, I had witnesses present at the time of many of my experiences who could corroborate my account of them. They were not figments of my imagination.

I didn't give up on my charismatic experiences because they weren't real. Instead, I gave up on them because, as the passage of time proved, they had produced terrible fruit! This was my spiritual condition when I left the Charismatic Movement:

I had no true awareness of my sinful nature.

I hardly ever opened my Bible.

I prayed only to demand something from God.

I was bitter and resentful towards God and many of those whom I'd left behind in my various churches.

I stood as a false prophet, having repeatedly claimed, "Thus saith the Lord", when in fact the Lord had said no such thing.

Such was the fruit of my powerful spiritual gifts. I literally came within a hairs-breadth of apostasizing from the Christian faith, or else in fact I hadn't been in the faith at all. Far from being receiving blessings from God, I had instead heaped judgment on myself. This was the fruit of my very powerful Personal Experience. In contrast to the testimony of so many in Charismaticism, I found that my Personal Experience was based not on truth but on a lie: a lie that was often based on real, validated experience, but a lie nonetheless because its fruit was evil rather than good.

In the weeks to come, I hope to share about some of my experiences with Charismaticism in greater detail. By so doing, I hope to give testimony against the pragmatism that is behind the faith of many charismatics. Although it is only the Word of God as applied by the Holy Spirit that can truly change a man's heart, I hope it will nonetheless be profitable to expose the true nature of the real experiences that I'd once held so dear.

Weight training

2005-10-06T09:44:00.000-05:00

As I've written earlier, I've suffered some physical aches and pains over the last few years. A friend of mine was undoubtedly right when he assured me that my body would let me know it was getting older once I hit forty. These aches and pains motivated me to undertake some health-related changes, especially improvements in what I eat, as well as visit a few doctors. Although my improvement during the last five years has been noticable, it's also been slow and has been punctuated by a number of temporary setbacks.

Through all my trials, God has taught me many good and useful lessons. He's taught me patience and perseverence, and He's taught me how to fulfill my responsibilities when my strength is less than 100%. Situations that used to cause me a considerable amount of fear and anxiety don't faze me nearly so much now. All in all, I can see that God's strength has indeed been made perfect in my weakness (2 Cor. 12:9). Moreover, I have enjoyed many small mercies from the Lord throughout these trials. Just as He promised, He has given me the grace to endure them all.

As if this weren't enough, God has lately been showing me yet another mercy. Thanks to the advice of a couple of doctors combined with some insights I found on the Internet, I've found what appear to be lasting solutions to much of my main physical issue. This has resulted in a degree of physical strength and comfort that's greater than what I can remember even in my youth. Yes, in some ways I feel better today than I felt when I was in my early twenties.

This is not just a physical benefit. Thanks to my aforementioned training in coping with limited strength, I find that as my strength approaches 100% that I can do much more than ever. This includes greater physical stamina to be sure, but I also feel freer to reach out to those around me with love and boldness. It's even helped me to post more often to this blog. :-) Much like the runner who trains while wearing a heavy weight on his shoulders so he'll be strengthened to run all the faster on race day, I can see how my "weight training" these last few years has been sufficient to strengthen me for the challenges and opportunities I enjoy today and will enjoy tomorrow.

My Christian friend, if you find yourself undergoing various trials, don't be discouraged! As Scripture teaches and as I can now testify, God is refining you and training you for greater fruitfulness, both in this life and the life to come. In my present case, God has granted deliverance in this life, but sometime in the future (if the Lord tarries) He will have me undergo a trial from which deliverance will come only with death. In either case, He will keep His promise to deliver the righteous from every affliction.

A dedicated follower of fashion

2005-10-05T16:30:00.000-05:00

In my lifetime, I've backed some winners, that's for sure. Not. Take, for instance, my misadventures in the high technology field:

I purchased the very last new model of the IBM PS/2 before dropped the entire PS/2 line. Since the PS/2 was based on the MCA (Micro Channel Architecture) bus instead of the ISA (Industry Standard Architecture) bus, my investment in expansion cards was rendered worthless.

I jumped on the OS/2 bandwagon. Within two years, IBM had discontinued all attempts to market OS/2 as a Windows competitor. (Since then, I've jumped horses from OS/2 to a promising contender named Linux.)

I use a PalmOS-based PDA. Recently, Palm (the hardware vendor, not to be confused with PalmSource, the creator of PalmOS) announced its first Windows Mobile-based device. This has stirred up the "buzz" that PalmOS is dying.

Oh, well: at least I went with VHS instead of Beta. :-)

I'm sure I could think of other examples of my skill at picking high-tech bandwagons, but I'm sure you get the idea.

In a way, I suppose it's just as well. Perhaps my lack of prowess in following after what's new and exciting has been a factor in my growing interest in pursuing the tried and true. Whereas the staying power of a product or idea isn't always evident when it's new and fresh, the passage of time has a way of separating chaff from wheat. This may be why I find the average quality of the movies and music I enjoy from the 1930's and 1940's to be so much higher than that of what's more recent: the winnowing effect of time has already caused the dross from those years to be long forgotten, leaving only the good stuff to be enjoyed today. Likewise, in the realm of theology, wonderful works such as the writings of the great Reformers, the Puritans, and their successors have been remembered whereas works of lesser value have been forgotten.

Rather than be discouraged at my inability to keep up with leading edge technology and art, I find myself only growing in the conviction that life is far better lived on the trailing edge! Why mess around with stuff that will last no longer than today's fleeting fashions when there's stuff that's passed the test of time?

I think this is a lesson that certain segments of Evangelicalism would do well to learn. Especially within the charismatic and the seeker-sensitive movements, there seems to be an overarching love for novelty. Charismatics may call it "a fresh move of the Spirit", or a church-growth advocate may call it "what God is doing in the church today." During my Christian life, I've seen all sorts of things come and go: Promise Keepers, Prayer of Jabez, Toronto Blessing, Brownsville Outpouring, Passion of the Christ, Purpose-Driven Life, etc.. Without exception, these fads have passed and gone within five years or less. Some have brought greater numbers to the churches that sponsored them, but none of them have produced the truly life-changing results that they promised. Moreover, they have helped to encourage an ongoing trend within Evangelicalism away from God-centered expository preaching and towards man-centered hype and entertainment. All have tried in their way to meet man's felt needs, but none have truly confronted man's greatest need: for a Savior to deliver him from his well-deserved fate, eternal damnation.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that there's a degree of excitement to be enjoyed with jumping on a bandwagon, even when that bandwagon proves to go nowhere in particular. I don't regret my time as an OS/2 user, and I'll continue to enjoy my PalmOS PDA until it gives up the ghost and breathes its last digital breath. I suppose there's little harm suffered when I back the wrong horse in, say, the arts or high tech, but I would submit that the stakes are far higher when the Gospel is involved in the fad of one's choice!

Let me be perfectly blunt: God is not honored when His name is associated with fads and follies such as those I've named. He has ordained one and only one way for men to be saved: the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This Gospel and the Scriptures which infallibly and sufficiently reveal it are all that is necessary to work out God's plan for mankind. It is an affront to Almighty God to attach His Holy Name to a passing fancy, especially when we have the audacity to claim that such a mere fancy is what God is doing today. God saves sinners through one and only one means--by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone--and faith comes not by skits or movies or plans or programs but by hearing the Word of God.

It is a small thing if we buy the wrong type of computer or listen to the songs of a one hit wonder, but it's a terrible thing if we dare to supersede God's ordained means and methods with ones of our own devising. It's bad enough that our culture is in love with fads and fashions, but it's devastating when the church replaces the preaching of the Gospel with folly and nonsense. In the case of my foolish technology investments, I was merely out time and money, but in the case of the Gospel, men's souls are at stake. Therefore, I call on the church to stop following after fads and to return to the plain and unadorned preaching of the Gospel!

Thanks, guys (and gals)!

2005-10-04T12:06:00.000-05:00

Since starting this blog this past February, I've thought of myself as being a small, quiet voice in the blogsphere. Initially, I expected to get much of my audience from folks in my immediate area, but in God's Providence many have discovered this blog through other means: friends of friends, mailing lists, search engines, etc.. Although my readership is still fairly small, it is distributed across several different US states, as well as the occasional foreign visitor.

What amazes me the most about all this, however, is that so many of you have decided to make reading my various rants a regular part of your Internet diet. I find this to be quite humbling, as it implies that I have taken on the responsibility of sharing my thoughts and observations in a manner that will honor God and edify my readers.

So, thanks to one and all for visiting! Thanks especially for your encouraging and interesting comments. If you have opportunity, I'd be most grateful if you could remember me in your prayers and ask our Heavenly Father to give me wisdom to write whatever is most useful for my readers.

Thanks again,
Dave

God is His own interpreter

2005-10-03T13:42:00.000-05:00

Several weeks ago, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, I wrote:

In this kind of situation, it's inevitable that people will start to ask, "Why? Why New Orleans and the Gulf Coast?" Only God knows the full reason for His mighty act of destruction, but one thing is safe to say: He didn't unleash this storm where He did because the people who live there are any worse than the people who live anywhere else. The Scriptures are clear: all men bear the sinful nature and do the sinful deeds of their father Adam. By nature, those of us who are enjoying peace, prosperity, and sunshine in, say, the Midwestern US are just as evil as those who lived in the area of the recent disaster. Given the nature of mankind's rebellion against His rule, God would be perfectly just to wipe every one of us out. Thus, the question ought not be, "Why was God so severe against the Gulf Coast?" but rather "Why is God so merciful to those whom He spared such calamity?"

One reason why I wrote that article was in response to what I knew was coming from other voices: that Katrina was God's judgement against the sins of the people in the New Orleans area: gambling, drunkenness, and all-around debauchery. Well, here's a columnist in one of my local papers with her comments on one such voice:

Global warming is too logical an explanation for some people. Attributing such a catastrophe to atmospheric trends is unsatisfying to some hardcore religious cause-and-effect types. There are other reasons, they say, why New Orleans inherited the big wind.

An Alabama state senator, Republican Hank Erwin, wrote in a column he distributes to media outlets: "New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast have always been known for gambling, sin and wickedness. It is the kind of behavior that ultimately brings the judgment of God."

...

As for the good people who got hurt or killed, they were just in the way of the real targets, Erwin said.

It's not as if New Orleans hadn't been warned, he explained in his column, according to wire reports: "Warnings year after year by godly evangelists and preachers went unheeded."

In reply to Mr. Erwin's comments, I offer several of my own:

Are the sins of the people of New Orleans really so much worse than those of anyone else? True, not all cities are as notorious for certain sins as New Orleans, but does that make, say, Chicago more holy than New Orleans? As Scripture says, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), and all means every person who lives in New Orleans, Chicago, or anywhere else on this fallen world.

If God's reason for singling out New Orleans for destruction was anger at gambling, drunkenness, etc., then why did He cause Katrina to spare the French Quarter? Surely there's few neighborhoods in the US that symbolize debauchery more famously than the French Quarter, yet it rode out Katrina with little or no damage. If you're right about God's purposes, Mr. Erwin, wouldn't He have made certain to wipe out the French Quarter?

"Good people"? Where? The Bible tells us that "No one is good but God alone." (Matthew 19:17) If God spares a man calamity, it is never because of the man's goodness, but only because of His mercy.

God speaks through those means which He chooses: His Word, the Bible. Before the Bible was completed, He spoke through various prophets. These prophets were expected to be 100% accurate whenever they spoke in the name of God. If a prophet slipped up even once, he was to be stoned. Although capital punishment against false prophets was rescinded when the Mosaic judicial law was abolished, the principle behind the law still stands: God takes it very seriously when men claim to speak for Him or interpret His works of Providence.

With all due respect to Mr. Erwin and his "godly evangelists and preachers", they ought to stop all talk of God's purpose behind Katrina, Rita, or any other natural disaster. It is for God and God alone to interpret His works of Providence. The fact remains: all men, not just those harmed by Katrina, stand equal as sinners before a Holy God. Rather than vainly speculate as to God's reasons for unleashing such an awesome storm, we would do better to thank God that He has not (yet) chosen to unleash similar devastation on the rest of this judgment-deserving race which we call mankind?

Fad-free evangelism

2005-10-03T10:43:00.000-05:00

When I wrote the other day on The tyranny of the stronger, I neglected to mention one of the reasons why some Christians have gone in for body piercing, tattooing, etc.: by adopting the, er, cutting-edge customs of certain sub-groups, they claim that they will be in a better position to gain a hearing for the Gospel within those sub-groups. In other words, getting one's eyebrow pierced is now far more than a fashion statement: it's a witnessing tool. For Scriptural support, they refer to 1 Corinthians 9:22, wherein Paul writes, "I am made all things to all men, that I may by all means save some."

To the able arguments that have already been offered by Phil Johnson and Michael Spencer, I'd just like to comment that such drastic measures as patronizing the local tattoo parlor are hardly necessary to reach out to our lost neighbors. For one thing, fads and fashions are in constant flux, so our pierced missionary-wannabee is soon going to find himself without many pierced sinners to whom to be a witness. Besides, there are much easier ways to reach out to your neighbor. Granted, they're not nearly as visually dramatic as a pierced tongue, but they are tried and true. Above all, obey God's Law to love your neighbor as yourself. Treat that pierced, tattooed metalhead with kindness, gentleness, and respect. Try to overlook his outward appearance and grab hold of his heart. Be his friend, and speak with him accordingly. Perhaps he's adopted his peculiar appearance as a misguided defense mechanism for fending off people who don't truly care about him. If you'll be a true friend to him--remember that Jesus was known as a friend to sinners--I doubt that he'll mind your "straight" appearance.

A while back, I had the opportunity to converse with a young man in his early teens. He wasn't quite yet driving age, but yet his urge to ride some kind of motorized wheels was very strong, so he boasted about how he'd been riding a motorcycle around the country roads in his area. He was especially proud that the police hadn't caught him (yet). What's more, he boasted that just gotten himself a new tattoo. As he shared this intelligence with me, he kept talking about how cool these things were, so I figured I may as well reply in kind. I told him something along these lines. "So, you think that's cool! Any fool can get on a cycle and not get caught. Let me tell you what's cool. I've been driving over twenty years, and I've never been ticketed once. I obey the traffic laws, and I've not caused a single accident. Now, I think that's cool!" As I started to carry on in this manner, he did look at me rather strangely, but once I'd finished, he looked me in the eye and said, "You know what, I like you. You're different." I don't remember exactly how the rest of the conversation went, but I recall that it was friendly and respectful, albeit with noticably less boasting on the part of the young man. Although I'd never rode a 'cycle and had nary a tattoo, I'd approached him with respect, and quickly received his respect in turn.

My friend, there's just no need to make yourself into a "clone" of your neighbor to reach out to him. Just love him as yourself. Treat him with kindness and respect, and look beyond his outward appearance. There's no need to adopt today's fads and fashions to be an ambassador of Christ. Just love your neighbor, preach the Word, and trust God to do the rest.

The tyranny of the stronger

2005-09-29T10:51:00.000-05:00

Since coming to the Reformed faith, I've become a staunch defender of Christian liberty. In a nutshell, this crucial Biblical doctrine teaches us that (1) only the Law of God--the Scriptures--is to be binding on man's conscience and (2) all things which are not prohibited in God's Law, either explicitly or by good and necessary inference, and which do not lead you to commit deeds that are sin, are lawful. A right understanding of Christian liberty is essential in order to safeguard the sufficiency and completeness of God's Law, lest we either add to or take away from God's perfect moral Law.

The principle of Christian liberty has been especially important during my lifetime. Within evangelicalism, there has been a strong tendency towards adding laws to the Law of God. Who among us hasn't been warned against drinking this beverage or listening to that music by someone who warns us that by indulging we risk falling into sin? Now, Scripture does teach that the Christian ought never sin against his conscience, so certainly I ought to abstain from a thing if my conscience reproaches me for partaking of it, but not all Christians have a conscience that's as sensitive as mine: some have weaker consciences, whereas others have stronger. In his great exposition on Christian liberty (Romans 14), Paul warns believers against imposing their scruples on each other. The weak are not to cajole the strong to give up their liberty, but the strong are not to parade their liberty before the weak, lest they cause the weaker brother to stumble.

In my experience, the most common error regarding Christian liberty has been that of allowing the weaker brother to dictate the behavior of the stronger. Let's call this error the tyranny of the weaker. Let's say I enjoy a particular kind of music, a pleasure that isn't explicitly or implicitly forbidden in Scripture. Although I can enjoy it with a clear conscience before God, you feel that that type of music isn't proper for any Christian to listen to, and you tell me so. What should I do? Must I stop listening to this music? Yes and no. If my weaker brother is fellowshipping with me, I ought to respect his conscience and refrain from playing the music in question whenever he's present. It may also be wise for me to avoid discussing that music with him. Thus, I am free to enjoy my liberty but I avoid causing my brother offense. But what if he drops into my house suddenly and hears me playing the offensive music? Have I sinned? No, because I did not deliberately do so to offend him. Had I known that he was going to visit, I would have made certain to not play that music during his visit. Although some teach that the stronger brother, although he's technically free, ought to abstain at all times in order to avoid all possible offense of this type, I would argue that this is a foolish teaching because it turns Christian liberty into something that can be enjoyed only in theory but never in practice.

Although the tyranny of the weaker has long been the most common error regarding Christian liberty, I have lately been seeing rumblings of a new, perhaps even greater, danger: the tyranny of the stronger. In this error, the liberty of the believer of stronger conscience is of such great importance that it is to be defended even at the imminent risk of causing offense to those of weaker conscience. Although I have just argued that accidental offense is always possible and often unavoidable, the error I see lately seems to feature a tendency for the strong believer to parade his liberty in front of the weaker brother, in effect saying, "What I'm doing isn't prohibited by God, so I'm going to enjoy it whether you like it or not. What's more, I'm going to make sure that you know exactly what I'm doing." This hypothetical sentence is, I fear, all too suggestive of the cocky and self-centered attitude I'm seeing in some believers of stronger conscience.

When I first found my way to Reformed circles, I was rather surprised to learn of an interesting phenomenon that's sometimes called the "Spurgeon societies." In these little clubs, Reformed Christians--usually only men--get together and talk theology while they drink wine or other alcoholic beverages and smoke cigars. I believe that Spurgeon's name got tacked on to these groups on account of his well-known love of fine cigars. As a newly Reformed believer who'd come out of the tyranny of the weaker brother, this came as a small shock to me, but as I became better acquainted with the Bible's teaching on Christian liberty and observed the lifestyles of the men who participated in these groups, I came to accept this practice. I think the conduct of the participants in these groups played a large role in reconciling myself to it. Without exception, I noticed that these men took pains to enjoy their liberty quietly without the slightest hint of parading it in front of those who might stumble over it. Moreover, their way of life betrayed no sign of addiction to any of their pleasures, and they generally lived healthy lifestyles: proper diet and exercise, etc.. Their pleasure did not rule them, and they practiced it in such a way so as to not cause others offense. Now, I personally can't stand cigar smoke and I don't particularly enjoy most alcoholic beverages so I cannot imagine ever joining a "Spurgeon society", but I do enjoy other pleasures that might cause others to feel pangs of guilt. Although I doubt I'll ever join the Spurgeon guys, I must say that I respect what they do and that I've learned much from their example of how to go about enjoying Christian liberty in a proper, God-honoring manner.

In the recent movement towards the tyranny of the stronger, I've not seen such a pretty picture. Whereas my Spurgeon friends enjoy their liberty in a peaceful, quiet, and responsible manner, I'm learning of some Christians who will tell you all about the things that they feel free to swallow, inhale, wear, and pierce, and they will defend their right to do so with much vehemence. In some cases, especially regarding body piercing, tattooing, and clothing, they'll display their liberties for all the world to see: both stronger and weaker. Whereas I've never had occasion to watch my cigar-smoking friends enjoy their indulgence, the uber-liberated are happy to show me just how strong their consciences are, with little or no regard paid to how strong my conscience may be.

My friend, Christian liberty is a precious gift, one that ought to be preciously guarded against those who would seek to bind our consciences to any law save God's Law, but it ought not be exercised in a way that causes unnecessary or purposeful offense to those who possess weaker consciences. I am sincerely grieved to see the rising tyranny of the strong, and pray that God will grant His church a balanced Biblical understanding of how Christian liberty is to be enjoyed.

Unholy love songs

2005-09-27T13:38:00.000-05:00

At the university where I work, the new semester is underway, so the various student organizations have gotten busy promoting themselves and soliciting new members. Our many student Christian groups have gotten in the act. This week, one of these groups has a "praise band" playing in the main campus commons. Based on the brief snippet I heard as I was walking by, they sounded fairly competent. They were joined by a few guys and gals who waved large colorful banners as they danced to the music. All in all, it looked like a fairly well-planned operation, but yet the whole thing gave me the faintly queasy feeling in the tummy I often get from such demonstrations. The flags, the dancing, and the altar call they gave all contributed to this feeling, but above all it was the songs they were singing that bothered me.

Of the lyrics I heard, I can say one thing in the group's favor: they weren't ashamed to name the name of Jesus. Good for them! However praiseworthy their boldness might otherwise be, I must still give their performance a thumbs-down, because their songs fell into the same trap that's ensnared much of today's praise and worship music: they sing freely of love for Jesus, but yet they utterly fail to truly praise and worship Him.

In Scripture, the Psalms of David and others extoll the many perfections and attributes of God with perfect throughness and depth: His goodness, righteousness, omnipotence, holiness, and justice, etc.. With the onset of the great revival we call the Protestant Reformation, such hymn writers as Isaac Watts, John Newton, Charles Wesley, and William Cowper added many new songs to the church's repertoire which, although uninspired, often do an excellent job of exhorting the church to praise God in his fullness. Many of these hymns speak of the believer's love for God in terms of intimacy and endearment, to be sure, but they invariably make it clear that the God whom we worship, although very near to His Elect, yet remains holy, exalted, and very, very high above us.

The contrast between the God portrayed in the Psalms and in the great hymns with the God of much of today's contemporary worship music could hardly be greater. On the whole, the picture you get from this music is little better than a series of love songs to Jesus. In fact, it would take very little work to recast many of these lyrics into a secular love song. Don't get me wrong: I'm not condemning all secular love songs. Instead, I am expressing my deep concern with the manner with which a sizable portion of the church sings of Jesus as though He was little more than a lover or friend. To be sure, the sinner can know no better friend than Jesus, and surely the believer ought to love Christ with all his heart, but is our love for Christ to be expressed in the same manner we might express the love for a beloved human being? God forbid that it be so! I would go so far as to say that many of these love songs to Jesus so belittle and demean Him that they verge on blasphemy.

Although the believer enjoys a great and tender intimacy with God through Christ, he must always remember that His God and Savior is high and lifted up: Holy, Holy, Holy is He!!! When we forget God's holiness in our worship of Him, we fail to worship Him Biblically. Love songs can be proper when sung to a proper subject (especially one's husband or wife), but our God deserves a type of praise and adoration that is reserved for Him and Him alone. May the church come its senses and purge God-dishonoring "worship" from its midst!

Addictive faith

2005-09-24T15:29:00.000-05:00

For quite some time, I've had a policy regarding issues that make me fearful: I strive to educate myself on the subject. Time and time again, I've found that learning more about a subject helps me to understand it more and thus fear it less. For instance, when I first began to notice the growing prevalence of tattooing and body piercing, I took the time to read some books on the subject as well as lurk in an Internet group for piercing/tattooing fans. Good thing, too: most of the stores I patronize for CDs and DVDs are chock full of pierced-and-tattooed employees, so it's helpful to be able to make eye contact with such a guy without whincing in vicarious pain at his pierced lip or tongue. Besides, my education proved to be more than sufficient to erase any notion of modifying my own body from my mind. :-)

Another subject which I've researched is drug addiction. Frankly, I find the very idea of addiction to be pretty scary. Contrary to what you might think, drug addicts really aren't that different from non-addicts. The only thing that makes them different from me is that God has seen fit to mercifully guard me from falling into such bondage. Besides, I think I understand a bit of what it's like to be a drug addict, because I was once addicted myself: not to drug-induced highs but to "spiritual" highs. I was addicted to my religion: the Charismatic Movement.

My life as a religious addict began like that of many addicts: as a "chipper" or experimenter. I dabbled with speaking in tongues, faith healing, etc.. It all seemed rather strange and uncomfortable at first, but yet I felt myself drawn in to the life. It seemed to be somehow mysterious and powerful. As a shy, awkward young man, I felt quite helpless and adrift in the world, so the type of empowerment that was promised by the Charismatic "baptism in the Holy Spirit" was intriguing. Still, I wasn't 100% sure that this was the right way to go, so I sat astride the fence for a season.

As the weeks went by, I continued to experiment, first tentatively but later with increasing boldness. My first breakthrough: I spoke in tongues. I had the baptism of the Holy Spirit! Once I'd broken through that hurdle, the subsequent milestones came more and more quickly. Soon I was praying for the sick and speaking words of knowledge. Also, I was having dreams and visions of things to come, including a great revival in which I was going to be mightly used by God. Oh, the excitement I enjoyed during those times, and it seemed that just when I started to get hungry for a little more, more is what I got! By the time I began to be called out in revival services to receive prophecies that God was preparing me for a mighty work, I was hooked.

What a honeymoon it was! It was a lot like the "good times" that many junkies look back on with fondness long after the ravages of addiction have taken their toll. It was a time when my spiritual gifts all worked, all of my visions and dreams seemed to be on the verge of coming true, and all of my prayers seemed to be answered in record time. It all seemed wonderful, but for one problem: I wanted more, and once I got more, I wanted even more. I was told that this was a good thing--I just wanted more of God, after all--so I saw no harm in it. Oh, I heard the occasional criticism of Charismaticism, but I knew better than to listen to the warnings and discouraging words of the non-Spirit-filled. After all, my experience proved all of their well-meaning words in error. What did they know? They didn't even speak in tongues!

However, there was a dark cloud lurking within this silver lining, and it was growing and growing and growing. You see, I'd started to build up a "tolerance." I was no longer satisfied with the "highs" that had thrilled me before. I craved for more...much more. My Pentecostal church which had seemed so "on fire" at first began to seem dead and cold, so I began to attend revival services at other churches as well as home prayer meetings that featured the extra amount of prophesying that I'd come to desire. To my pleasure, my increased dosage worked for a time. Although I'd started to have doubts about my dreams, visions, and prophecies, I received some timely "confirming words" that temporarily revived my faith in them. For the time being, at least, I felt pretty good.

But yet, something was very wrong. Oh, I had my spiritual highs alright, but I was no longer reading my Bible, and I no longer cared much about Christ except to use His Name as a means to receive answers to my prayers or to rebuke the Devil. Far from loving Christ, I'd come to love me: my spiritual gifts and my spiritual "highs."

Needless to say, this situation couldn't last forever, and it didn't. I think the long death of my addictive faith began when I heard a series of sermons that proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the Charismatic teachings on which I'd based many of my practices was founded on heretical doctrines and plagarism. My pastor, himself a Pentecostal, did all too good of a job of exposing the lies of the extreme form of Charismaticism with which I'd cast my lot. Thus began my season of doubt.

Almost immediately, I realized that I'd lost my source of spiritual joy. The practices I'd once used had been proven to be a sham, so I knew that I could no longer rely on them, but as I had no solid foundation for my faith underlying those false practices and beliefs, I was left to doubt not only my spiritual gifts, but also Christ Himself. My withdrawal had begun. Although it was spiritual rather than physical, it yet showed many parallels with what I've read of the wrenching misery of the heroin addict as he is weaned off his once-beloved dope.

In my case, I found myself in hopelessness and despair. As far as I could tell, the heavens were as brass to me. It seemed as though God wasn't listening to my prayers at all. To make matters worse, I came to doubt not only the personal "words from God" that had come to nothing but also the Bible itself. I asked questions such as, "God, if you lied to me about that prophecy, how do I know that you're not lying to me in the Bible?" So it went, for year after year, at least five years in all, until at last the tide turned and I found mercy in the sight of God.

I think my recovery began with surrender. During my season of withdrawal, I'd clung tenaciously to the scraps of my precious spiritual gifts, including certain prophecies on which I'd pinned high hopes, but now I was whipped, so while praying one day, I told God that I was going to put my gifts and prophecies on the shelf and concentrate only on the Scriptures. In case there was any truth or value to what I was shelving, I told God that He was going to have to make that very clear to me, because otherwise I was going to have nothing more to do with that which had so far brought me only misery and despair. Yes, I finally saw the true nature of the fruit of my spiritual addiction: far from being good for my soul, it stank to high heaven. I'd had enough of it, and wanted nothing more than to get it out of my life.

Incidentally, I'd not yet made a formal change of my doctrinal views regarding the gifts of the Holy Spirit. At this point, I still allowed that there might be some true gifts in operation today, but on the other hand I was well aware that if there were such gifts, I had never seen them even once. I was not yet a cessationist, but I'd already come to the place where I denied the validity of all the gifts I'd seen exercised in the churches I'd attended. It wasn't until a couple of years later that I came to embrace the Reformed faith and the sufficiency of Scripture.

Through the wonder that is the Internet, I sometimes encounter Charismatics. How much they remind me of myself during my honeymoon days, when the excitement of my spiritual gifts was so strong! Although I take every opportunity to share this testimony with them, they are just as blind and deaf as I was. Their spiritual pride is still too strong for them to consider that their "walk with God" has degenerated to something that's little better than an addiction to allegedly spiritual highs. Sadly, it seems that no one sees the devastation and misery that awaits once the honeymoon is over. May God use my testimony as well as that of other ex-Charismatics to warn these poor souls and bring many to their senses before it's too late!

Insecure faith

2005-09-24T12:07:00.000-05:00

Back in my Charismatic days, I held very strong convictions. In particular, I was firmly convinced that God had repeatedly spoken to me in a personal, direct manner. I held this belief so strongly that anyone who dared to question it received a most vehement response from me. Had you encountered me in such a way, you would have no doubt been impressed by the great strength of my faith in God's movement in my life.

In more recent times, since giving up my old Charismatic beliefs, I continue to hold strong convictions (albeit not exactly the same ones). Much like my Charismatic days, I will respond if you raise objections to what I believe, but unlike those days, I will most likely respond in a substantially quieter and more thoughtful manner. This change has not come about because my convictions have weakened, but rather because they have become stronger as my knowledge of and confidence in God's Word has increased.

When I was young in the faith and steeped in Charismatic practice, much of my "faith" was based on experiences I'd had: prophecies, dreams, visions, still small voices, etc.: various types of what I thought to be direct "words" from God. Upon receiving such a "word", I'd first hold it with much confidence and enthusiasm, but inevitably the doubts would come: "What if this word isn't from God? Perhaps it's from my imagination, or it could be a deception from Satan." Try as I might, I could never manage to accept with 100% assurance any such "word" as being from God.

Thus, when a person would raise any type of question or concern about my latest "word", my already fragile faith would be shaken to the very core. I perceived that my most precious faith was under attack, and reacted by defending my precious "word" with much passion and vigor. At the time, I fancied that this proved the strength of my faith, but later reflection revealed that the very vehemence of my defense revealed a rather different state of the heart: doubt and uncertainty. Although I professed to hold to the "word of faith" teachings of Hagin and company, my faith was a sham, built upon a foundation no more stable than quicksand. The very vehemence of my protests against the attacks of my enemies merely confirmed the truth: that I had deep, unsettling doubts about the very "truth" that I professed to hold so dear.

Much has changed since those days. As I came to realize that my "words from God" had either failed to come to pass or had led me away from Christ and the Scriptures, I made the decision to put every one of them on the shelf and concentrate instead on what I could know for certain: the Scriptures. Since then, I've come to know the Scriptures much better. Questioners and doubters still come my way, but my old insecurities are little more than a fading memory. Far from being in doubt regarding my bedrock of hope and inspiration, I am at peace because I know exactly what God has said regarding Himself and my salvation. I have no more "words" from God, but I have His inerrent, inspired, sufficient Word: the Bible. Although I often find myself defending the Word with passion and vigor, I find that I do so from a position of confidence rather than insecurity. Unlike the old days, when I was tossed and turned with every wind of doctrine, and concentrated my efforts on defending myself from doubts and uncertainty, my faith in the Scriptures alone has freed me to defend the Gospel of Christ from its enemies.

My friend, in what do you put your faith? Do you put your faith in uncertain experiences or in certain truth? When your faith is under attack, do you respond defensively or offensively? If you often find yourself lashing out against your critics, I encourage you to examine your heart to see whether it may be fear, insecurity or doubt rather than strength of conviction that fuels your reaction. If so, I encourage you to lay aside uncertain "revelations" and begin to feed upon the true and trustworthy milk of the Scriptures.

The housefly and the scientist

2005-09-23T14:41:00.000-05:00

Although I've not been following the ID (Intelligent Design) vs. Evolution debate very closely, I've gotten the distinct impression that it's generating the expected amount of heat and light, and few if any minds are being changed. Let's face it: naturalism is so well-entrenched in the sciences that any theory that assumes any non-natural elements just isn't going to get a truly objective hearing.

As I see it, naturalistic science bears many of the marks of a religious system. In particular, it has a system of doctrine. Some doctrines are considered to be open for debate if not open disagreement, whereas other doctrines are held to be non-negotiable or, to put it another way, fundamental. The doctrine of naturalism is one of those fundamental doctrines, so fundamental that if you dare to deny it, you will be accused of not practicing true science. You will surely be branded as a scientific heretic!

By naturalism, I refer to the belief that the natural realm--matter, energy, space, etc.--is all that exists. In naturalism, if something exists, it will somehow be observable, or it must be possible to logically or mathematically deduce its existence from objects that are observable. Since all who hold to naturalism are human beings, it follows that whatever constitutes the natural realm is presently observable (or deducible) by humans or someday will be observable (or deducible).

If you think about it, this is a huge presupposition. The naturalist is invariably an evolutionist, so he would hold that man, although the highest of all known creatures, is a mere animal who evolved over many billions of years through the process of natural selection. Anyone who's familar with the animal kingdom would readily confess that a lower animal such, say, a housefly is very limited in its powers of observation and reasoning. As a lower animal, the housefly has utterly no hope of unlocking the secrets of the universe. Compared with the housefly, man is much, much more capable in every way. In his powers of observation and reasoning, man vastly outstrips the lowly insect, and is thus vastly more capable of unlocking the secrets of the universe. Indeed, it almost seems foolish to compare the two.

But yet, to the naturalistic thinker, man remains an animal. As such, man must surely have limits of his own. Indeed, man's powers of observation have been greatly enhanced through modern techology. Why, men have repeatedly sent space probes to visit comets, asteroids, and planets. Man's outreach to the universe has vastly increased since that apple struck Dr. Newton on his head, and the available data about our universe has grown exponentially. We've gone far beyond the once-amazing realizations that the earth is a globe that revolves around the sun, and now realize that even our galaxy is just one amongst countless other galaxies. All of this we have learned through man's increasing powers of observation.

But yet, the most brilliant scientist yet has much in common with the common housefly. Even with his amazing instruments and computers, he remains but a creature. Even with all that he can observe, both directly and indirectly, he remains limited, so limited, in fact, that he cannot even see his limitations. The housefly buzzing around my office has seen only a tiny fraction of the city in which I work, but as far as he is concerned, he's seen all that there is to see. Likewise, our scientist assumes that what he sees is all that there is to see, and if there's anything he can't see right now, scientific progress will eventually make it possible to see it.

All this our scientist assumes, but how does he know that his assumptions are any more valid than those of the housefly? How does he know that everything this _is_ can be, or will someday be, observable? After all, isn't man just a creature?

All of these assumptions and more must be accepted by those who accept the doctrine of naturalism, but yet man, being a mere creature, cannot get beyond the simple truth that he cannot and will not ever know or observe all things. If there is a transcendent, personal God who exists beyond time and space, man would of course never see him with his scientific instruments or deduce him with computerized calculations, but yet the believer in naturalism must assume that because God cannot be seen, that He does not exist. Our housefly no doubt believes that the earth is flat, a belief that we would rightly ridicule, but is man truly so far above the fly that he can get by with his presumption that what he sees is all that there is to know?

In today's world of scientific orthodoxy, naturalism is a fundamental doctrine, and evolution is hardly less fundamental, so much so that anyone who espouses a belief in beings or processes that are unobservable will be laughed out of the laboratory. The evolutionist recognizes that creationism and intelligent design deny the doctrine of naturalism, so he denounces them as heresies beneath contempt. He must do so, of course, because they deny the very doctrines on which his system of belief is founded.

On the other hand, the Christian holds to presuppositions of his own: preeminently, that God exists, and that the Bible is His Word. On these presuppositions the Christian builds a worldview that is diametrically opposed to that of naturalistic science. Of course, the Christian would not consider calling his presuppositional beliefs into question than would the naturalistic scientist. The two simply cannot come to agreement. Both cannot be right.

Thus, so long as naturalism prevails as the orthodox doctrine of the scientific community, the models of creationism and intelligent design will never be given serious consideration, and God will continue to be ignored and denied in the classroom and in the laboratory. But yet if there is a God--a God that cannot be wished out of existence by any presupposition--He must and will have His way, and if He is indeed Creator of all things, He will make this known to all creation in due time. Although I won't go far as to say that it's wrong for the church to strive to have creation or ID taught in the schools, I submit that it will be far more fruitful for the church to faithfully preach the Scriptures at every pulpit, proclaiming the Word of the God who is not only Creator but also Savior.

Love is free

2005-09-21T13:19:00.000-05:00

Since writing yesterday , I've had a further thought on the subject of the Law of love.

The Scriptures have a good deal to say about love, most famously in Paul's great chapter in 1 Corinthians 13. In Scripture, we learn that love is self-sacrificing and self-denying. It gives and does not demand to receive. The man who walks in love is content with what he has and thankful for what he is given.

In a sense, contentment with God's providence for your life is essential if you're going to be thankful for what God graciously gives you. If you are satisfied with the little that you have, you will be all the more thankful when God provides you with unexpected blessings just as He so often does. Conversely, if you demand and expect much from God and man, you're unlikely to be thankful for what you receive.

When you are accustomed, then, to other people living up to some man-made standard of behavior, whether that standard is based on local custom or on your own private notions, you may find yourself rather disappointed when others fail to attain to your standard. This should not be surprising, because in so doing you've added commandments and precepts to the perfect Law of God. Given that God's Law is in itself impossible for any man to perfectly obey, the addition of even more laws to it will only make perfect obedience even more impossible! What's more, you've robbed yourself and others in two important ways:

You've robbed yourself of the joy of unexpected blessings and kindnesses on account of your high expectations.
You've robbed others of the joy of freely giving to you, and forced them to do that which they may well have done willingly.

In my experience, extra-Biblical expectations and demands within a relationship are a certain way to rob both partners of the joy of giving. By forcing me to do this or that for you in order to stop you from complaining, you've robbed me of the joy of voluntarily striving to please you, and you've robbed yourself of the joy of receiving the often unexpected gifts I'd otherwise seek to bring you. When love is mixed with a demanding--that is, an discontent--heart, it becomes a joyless thing, but when it is allowed to give freely, it becomes a delight.

Beloved, let us not scold or upbraid one another when we are disappointed. Instead, let us be content with the little we have, that we may be free to receive even more with joy. Yes, love is a duty to both God and man, but it is a duty that ought to be fulfilled out of a free, willing heart.

Confessions of a Christian rebel

2005-09-20T21:38:00.000-05:00

If you've been around much at all, you know the type. Back in the 1950's, he would have looked a lot like James Dean: leather jacket, slicked-up hair, switchblade, the works. Yup, that's the type: the rebel. He's bad news, folks, so you better steer clear, unless his name happens to be Arthur Fonzerelli. :-) But fear not, gentle reader. Although I'm working up to make a confession, it's not a very shocking one. I hope.

You see, I too, "The (In)Scrutable One", am a rebel against society. Caring nothing for what society thinks of me, I submit to only one law, and refuse to bind my conscience to any other law, whether it comes by the word of man or angel. I own no switchblade or leather jacket--not even a motorcycle and I don't have enough hair to slick up, down, or sideways, but I am, my friend, a Christian rebel!

So just what is it that makes me such a menace to society? What is it about me that has made a growing number shrink back from me, fearing the lawlessness that I so boldly espouse? It is simply this: I am a Christian, Elect of God, and as such I am unwilling to bind my conscience to obey any God save God's Law.

What is God's Law? For starters, it's the Ten Commandments, but it's also every moral law found anywhere in Scripture, both Old and New Testaments. In fact, the Ten Commandments is a summary of the entirety of God's Law, and that Law may be further summarized in the Two Great Love Commandments: "you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength" and "you shall love your neighbor as yourself." As Christ said, in these two commandments are summarized all the Law and Prophets. Although as a Christian I am saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, without any work of the Law, I learn from Scripture that I am obliged to walk in love, and that I do so by obeying God's Commandments. Thus, the Law of God doesn't save me, but it does provide me with my sole and sufficient rule of life.

At this point, you may ask, "So what's so shocking or rebellious about that?" Nothing at all insofar as what the Scriptures teach, because my stand is simply that which is plainly taught in Scripture. However, I have sometimes found that my stand has provoked even people of good character to question my character, to think that I am some kind of rebel against society. But how could they think this? If you were to ask anyone who knows me well, they'd tell you that they find me to be a man of tender conscience, who diligently strives to avoid causing unnecessary offense who all with whom he comes in contact. By God's grace, I am normally a lamb, not a lion.

As I mentioned earlier, God's Law is summarized as love towards God and towards one's neighbor. It is God, not man, who obliges me to treat you in a loving manner. However, only some of the whys and wherefores of brotherly love are set forth in Scripture, and it is only the Scriptural commandments that ought to bind my conscience. All other commandments are at best applications of God's Law. As such, they do not directly bind my conscience. For instance, if God had explicitly commanded all men to maintain a pristine clean-shaven appearance, you could have justly and rightly taken me task for disobeying God's Law, but since He's made no such commandment, I am bound only to obey any such Scriptural commandments that address all aspects of my conduct. Regarding matters that aren't specifically addressed in Scripture, but which pertain to my loving relationship with you, I ought to strive to do what is pleasing to you to the extent that is permissible according to God's Law.

At this point, I would submit that clear and specific violations of God's Law ought to be treated as being far more severe than a violation of my brother's tastes, preferences, or scruples. Although you have every right to bring a matter to my attention when my behavior displeases you, and I ought to be willing to do whatever is in my power to please you so long as doing so doesn't compel me to disobey God's Law, it is unwarranted for you to treat such a matter as being of similar or equal gravity compared with a violation of Scriptural Law. In fact, when my brother or sister offends me regarding any matter that's not explicitly dealt with in Scripture, I ought to strive to address the issue with brotherly kindness and respect, giving every possible benefit of the doubt regarding motives.

The other day, I wrote about how I've often struggled with to be correctly understood in written communication. As I've thought about that issue, it's occurred to me that it is precisely the issue that I've addressed in this article that's caused a number of online misunderstandings. Since I'm a sometimes awkward bachelor, I do sometimes inadvertently cause offense regarding matters of social nicety, and when I do so I most certainly want to make matters right, but when this happens, I'd very much appreciate it if you'd keep in mind that I haven't broken God's Law, so it's really not appropriate for you to talk about how badly I've offended you. Instead, let me know I've displeased you, and I'll be happy to make it right.

So, why do I make such a big deal about this? If I'm going to submit to please you anyway, why make a fuss about it? Simply this: as a Reformed believer, I consider myself to be obliged to obey God in all things. I will allow only His Word to bind my conscience. Although I also submit to the laws of the land, I do so because the Scriptures command me to do so, but I will not obey any commandment of man that would compel me to do what God prohibits or not do what God commands. Thus, it is a matter of conscience for me that the only true law is God's Law.

Having said all that, I hope you can see that my "no law but God's Law" stand isn't really that rebellious after all, for instead of obliging me to obey all sorts of man-made laws (written and unwritten), it obliges me to obey a far higher Law, one that compels me to do right to and for you, both in deed and in attitude. Although my conscience demands that I reject obedience to the rules of men, God's perfect law of love compels me to go far beyond what man requires: to do what is right not out of fear of social reprisal, but in order to please and honor a holy God. This, my friend, is the nature of my rebellion.

Written (mis)communication

2005-09-16T09:08:00.000-05:00

For me, getting to know people is hard work. Like the seemingly aloof and proud Mr. Darcy in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, I am not blessed with the type of manners that easily recommend me to strangers, or to put it in the modern vernacular, I am a socially competent introvert. Although this is hard work for me, I can manage alright so long as I can have enough face-to-face time with the person. However, when my primary contact with a person is via the Internet--email, instant messaging, etc.--I have so far found the task of getting to know people to be nearly impossible.

At first glance, this is a rather strange problem. You'd think I have all sorts of advantages that would make the Internet a great communications vehicle for me. For one thing, I'm adept with computers and software, and for another, I'm blessed with an above-average ability to express myself in writing. In fact, I find that there are many thoughts that I can express far more easily in writing than by speaking.

So what's my problem? Why is it so difficult for me to express myself to others or for me to rightly judge others via the written word? Why do I have such difficulty with this whereas so many folks gladly tell of how they met their "special someone" online?

Part of the responsibility, I think, I must claim for myself. Whereas some people are gifted with personalities that are easily "read" even via written communication, my personality is such that I tend to project an Internet image that can seem quite different than what I'm really like. For instance, on this blog I boldly hold forth at length on many subjects, but in conversation I'm often content to sit and listen while others share their ideas. Now, the picture you may get of me from my writings on this blog do give you an accurate impression of what I'm thinking, but this picture is incomplete: there's a great deal about me--what I think, do, and feel--that isn't reflected in this blog, whether because it's difficult to express it in writing or simply because I haven't yet gotten around to writing about this or that. Perhaps I'm the type of person who's difficult to size up based upon a first or second impression. If so, this would help explain why it's been so very difficult for me to get to know people online.

As for the rest of the responsibility for my difficulty, I continue to be persuaded that there are fundamental limitations to email/IM/etc.--nay, the written word in general--that make it difficult to impossible to express many things. As such, these limitations hinder not only my efforts to reveal myself to others, but also the efforts of others to reveal themselves to me. With all due respect to stop-gaps such as emoticons, email offers no substitute for the cues of body language, tone of voice, etc., that are available in face-to-face conversation. Moreover, email provides no good means for interactive conversation. If I'm talking with you over lunch and I say something that strikes you as odd, you can ask me for clarification, which I would then willingly offer, and so forth, but if I write something in email that strikes you as odd, my words sit there on your computer's monitor as though they were set forth in granite for all time. You have all the time you wish to read and re-read my words and develop whatever interpretation seems most likely to you, but this liberty also affords you the potential to misinterpret what I've written, something that's exceedingly easy to do, especially when ours is a new acquaintance and you lack the necessary context information with which to understand my meaning. If you do encounter a passage that puzzles or mystifies you, you of course have the liberty to ask me for clarification, but once my reply arrives in your inbox, you are once again left to interpret or misinterpret my words.

To be honest, I think this problem with written communication is less severe for some folks than it is for me. As I suggest in the title of this blog, I can be a bit "inscrutable" in some ways, especially during the early stages of an acquaintance, whereas other folks put themselves across more readily via writing. In other words, they're easier to figure out compared to folks like me. Assuming that there's any truth to this observation, it may help explain why certain folks manage to start lasting, thriving relationships online whereas others (like me up to this point) have no success.

Given this seemingly insoluble problem with email and the old-fashioned letter, what is one to do when one can't visit or talk on the phone? Well, the Internet has given us a new tool: instant messaging. Now, at last, we have a means for using the written word as though we were having a face-to-face or telephone chat, right? In my experience, no. With the IM clients I've used, they provide the means for sending short messages just fine, but where they fall woefully short is in providing ways for the parties to keep in sync with each other. The client I've used most often does tell you when the other person is typing a message, but I find that this feature is less than accurate: sometimes my chat buddy is typing something more, but just as often he's waiting for me to say something (I suspect the "Joe is typing a message" feature can be fooled if Joe starts to type something then backspaces over it). Moreover, IM, like email, provides very poor tools for expressing emotion and inflection. With IM and email, there are precisely two tones of voice--"normally loud" and "VERY LOUD" (all caps denotes shouting)--and no good way to distinguish, for instance, an off-hand humorous comment from a statement you wish to be taken at face value. What with all these shortcomings, I have come to dislike IM even more strongly than email.

However, I have not come to bury the written word. A thousand times nay! Instead, I am firmly persuaded that written communication is unparalleled when it is used for the purposes for which it's suited. I think email is well-suited for business use and casual friendly banter, so long as both parties adopt the attitude of interpreting each other's words in the most positive light whenever possible, because if they have a misunderstanding via email, it's going to be very difficult to straighten it out without recourse to good old fashioned conversation. Also, I think the written word is a fine way for intimate acquaintances who are separated by distance to keep in touch. Although the same type of misunderstandings I've discussed earlier can arise for those who are close to each other, I think the risk is greatly reduced because in this case the parties have enough context with which to interpret what the other has written. For an example of this use of written communication, I recommend Ken Burns' 1990 documentary, The Civil War for its many quotes from personal letters of people of that time, especially the marvelous letter of soldier Sullivan Ballou to his wife.

So what of the plight of a Christian single such as myself? How am I to safely and wisely use the Internet to meet single Christian women? This is a matter that I'm still wrestling with, but at this
point I've settled on this procedure:

A new acquaintance that's carried on exclusively via email/chat/etc. is to be considered to be casual, period. Any thoughts that the relationship is anything but a casual friendship ought to be rejected.
Should the two parties start to think that they'd like to see about a more "serious" relationship, they ought to start talking on the phone at very least, and ideally start having regular face-to-face meetings. This is not to say that visits automatically make a relationship serious--it can be perfectly appropriate for casual online friends to meet face-to-face within certain bounds--but rather that a serious relationship will concentrate on face-to-face or verbal communication and downplay the use of email.
As the two parties become intimately acquainted with each other, learning more of each other's true character, they may feel free to use email/chat/etc. as a secondary means of communication.

I am hopeful that if I hold my use of the written word within these constraints that I will avoid, and help my new friends avoid, the common pitfall of written miscommunication and misunderstanding.

The forgotten sin

2005-09-12T13:47:00.000-05:00

Although I'm as culturally conservative as many of my evangelical brethren, there are some times that I believe that the Religious Right has really missed the boat. As you're no doubt aware, there are a handful of "hot-button" issues that generate a lot of allegedly righteous indignation. Nowadays, one of the biggest issues has to do with homosexual rights. Although this is a very important issue, I fear that it has been so strongly emphasized by some that other issues of even greater importance have taken a back seat.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm no social revisionist. Instead, I'm a Biblical literalist who accepts the Bible's teaching that homosexuality is sin and is in every situation a manifestation of the sin of fornication. But, I take issue with the prevailing view within the Religious Right that homosexuality is the most reprehensible form of fornication, which given the volume with which it's denounced it must be, and I would go so far as to say that if we are going to contend against our culture's love of sexual immorality, that there is an even worse form of fornication that we ought to denounce with even greater fervor.

As I see it, homosexuality as well as many of the various forms of hetrosexual promiscuity which occur outside the bounds of marriage are inherently hedonistic. Clearly, hedonism--the pursuit of selfish pleasure without heed to doing what is honoring and glorifying to God--is a grevious sin, but when neither of the parties involved in homosexual or hetrosexual hedonism are not involved in a covenant relationship, their sin is primarily harmful to two people. Such sin--indeed, all sin--is punishable by eternal damnation, but in this case only the consenting individuals are party to the sin. In other words, all parties involved are guilty and none are innocent.

Thus, we come to what I see as the more severe variety of sexual immorality. Although it is often winked at by our present wicked generation, it remains a sin that involves not only the consenting parties. It is the old-fashioned sin of adultery.

In my opinion, if there is a sexual sin the Church ought to cry out against the most loudly, it is adultery, for it involves not only rank hedonism but also the violation of a covenant relationship that one or more of the consenting parties had previously entered into before God and man: the covenant of marriage. Marriage is a most sacred covenant, for in it the husband and wife are to model the relationship of Christ with His church. It is so sacred a covenant that Christ recognized only one legitimate cause for dissolving that covenant: adultery. When a man and woman enter into an affair in which one or both of them are presently married, they have gone beyond rank hedonism: they have treated their existing covenant relationship(s) as a contemptible, unclean thing. They have called unclean what God calls clean.

Moreover, adultery is utter foolishness. If I were to enter into an affair with a married woman, I'd be the greatest of fools, because I would have deluded myself into thinking that a woman who was so willing to forsake her covenant husband would be faithful to me. Why, her very unfaithfulness ought to be enough to convince me that she is not a woman to be trusted! This is in itself sufficient reason to flee adultery.

As if this were not enough, there are all too often innocent parties who are severely harmed by the adulterous affair: the innocent spouses as well as the children. This is yet another evil that is found in adultery that's absent in pure sexual hedonism. Is it not understandable that a child whose parents divorced on account of the adultery of one or both parents would forever after have trouble believing in true sacrificial love? To such a child, "love" would very likely become the name for the lust that tore his mother and father apart.

These reasons why adultery is the wickedest of sexual sins are just the tip of the iceberg. Why is it, then, that the church is nearly silent about the subject compared to its vocal stand against homosexuality, abortion, and other sins? Countless professing Christian families and churches have been torn asunder by this evil, but yet it seems to not be worthy of any outcry.

Before I close, I feel that I ought to remind you that although the church ought to stand against the sin of its generation, it ought not do so only out of a desire to find fault. No, the church is to be a redemptive organization, with its goal being to provoke repentance. Adultery, homosexuality, and sexual promiscuity of all kinds are damnable sins worthy of loud condemnation from every Bible-preaching pulpit, but none of them are unforgivable. When the church speaks out against these sins--as it ought to do!--it must take care to remind our fallen generation that God has provided a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is well willing and able to forgive all manner of sin. When I am sick, my doctor needs to diagnose my disease in order to properly treat it. Likewise, this wicked generation is in need of godly rebuke in order that it might turn to Christ.

To the church, then, this is my call: be careful not to single out only certain sins for criticism, but be diligent to cry out against all manner of sin and ungodliness. As we do so, let's be careful to not forget about sins such as adultery, because they may be just as bad, if not worse, than the sins we preach against so loudly.

The gift that keeps on giving

2005-09-12T13:29:00.000-05:00

Well, the blessed neighborhood silence of which I so hopefully wrote recently didn't last quite as long as I'd hoped. Late Sunday afternoon, just as I was about to go back to church for our evening service, my neighbor started to play his electric guitar, and he was still at it until shortly after I got back home that evening. Although he was playing a little more quietly than before, I could still hear him. I found this to be disappointing, of course, but given my understanding of the depravity of man, I didn't take it as a great surprise.

At this point, I'm going to use a twofold approach to cope with this unwanted musical background. First, I'm going to reserve the right to pay return calls on my neighbor whenever he gets especially loud. Second, when his volume is annoying but not overwhelmingly so, I'm going to deliberately and cheerfully forgive him and use whatever means are within my power to mask his, er, music. What with my vast collection of CDs and DVDs, I'm certainly not lacking for means. :-)

Having said all that, I think I'm coming to realize that this may one of those afflictions which the Lord has seen fit to trouble me for at least a little while longer. As such, I'm going to have to see how I might profit from it. No, I'm not thinking about printing up tickets and charging admission for my neighbor's impromptu concerts. :-) Instead, with God's help I'm going to see if this situation might be useful in refining my character. On the off chance that I might be overly sensitive about such annoyances, it may be good for me to learn how to bear with it with graciousness and cheerfulness. Seeing as how God has had a good purpose for all my past afflictions, not to mention the troubles of all of His Elect throughout all time, I think I'm safe in assuming that He has a good purpose for this affliction, too.

As for what His precise reasons for this affliction might be, I have no idea, but I can certainly imagine lots of possible reasons, some rather fanciful. For instance, if God is one day pleased to give me not only a wife but also a broodful of leather-lunged little tykes, I might be glad that I started to learn how to manage with a little bit of noise today.

Sincerely yours,
The Golden-Eared One

:-)

Spiritual aches and pains

2005-09-07T21:56:00.000-05:00

A number of years ago, I went through a fairly lengthy period--perhaps a year or longer--in which I suffered from a rather painful problem: much of the skin on my fingers peeled off and took a long, long time to regrow. This may sound odd, but the cause for this malady wasn't rooted in any kind of physical illness. Instead, I found the key to the problem when I learned that such problems can be triggered by stress. My stress was on account of a difficult situation at work: a person who was the boss of a different group had been going around my boss and pressuring me and other members of my team to do things for her. Her behavior provoked a lot of bitterness and anger among many folks. Although I was a professing Christian by then, I was regrettably one of those people. Although I wasn't the type of person who acted out my anger, I was the type who let it seethe within my sinful heart, and my bitterness proved to be sufficient to cause my body a great deal of stress. Once by God's grace I got around to forgiving the difficult person, my problem quickly cleared up, and I've had no recurrence of the problem. In fact, my fingers and hands are in excellent shape!

More recently, I've been dealing with another physical problem. This time, my problem has to do with gastro-intestinal symptoms that often make me feel uncomfortable and occasionally make it impossible for me to eat certain foods or more than a small quantity of food. In God's mercy I've found some issues regarding what I eat and how I eat it that have brought me a measure of relief from my symptoms, but I still suffer to some degree. I recently saw a doctor to see if he could offer me any assistance, and he asked me an interesting question: "Are you under any stress?" When he asked me, I didn't think I was under any real stress other than over the physical malady that had brought me to his office, but afterwards it occurred to me that I presently have several people in my life towards whom I have persisted in holding a grudge. Although I've been outwardly polite and tolerant towards every one of them, I have held onto a bitter and resentful attitude towards them. Now that I've realized this, I've been seeking God's help in forgiving them and learning to treat them with neighborly love and grace. Hopefully as I learn to forgive those who offend me, God will also grant me a measure of relief from my physical affliction as well. Already I've noticed that my symptoms do seem to come and go with my "stress", so I'm optimistic that I will enjoy at least a measure of deliverance as God conforms me more to the image of Christ regarding these folks.

In view of these two situations, I can testify that excessive stress can indeed be a contributing factor in physical afflictions, and that at least some of this stress can come about as a result of sinful attitudes. Therefore, I thank God for allowing me to be thus afflicted, because by doing so He has made me aware of remaining sin that not only does harm to me and my neighbor but more importantly is dishonoring to God Himself. May God continue to sanctify me through whatever means are necessary to conform me to the image of Jesus Christ!

Sharing the gift of music

2005-09-06T17:33:00.000-05:00

Like every child of Adam, there's stuff I like, stuff I dislike, and stuff I really dislike. One of the things I like is good music of many different styles (classical, pop, country, bluegrass, blues, etc.). If you were to visit my digs and take a gander at my CD collection, you wouldn't doubt that I'm a music lover, but you might be surprised by how much of the time I spend with the music turned off. Although I enjoy music in certain situations, there are other situations, especially when I need to concentrate on a particular task, that I work best with a silent background. Now, I'm a single guy who has a house all to himself, so I'm usually in control of when the music is on and when it's off.

However, there are other situations when I'm not in control of the music. I lay much of the blame for these situations on the doorstep of the mad genius who invented the subwoofer. Why, oh why, do cars and SUVs need to have their cargo areas stuffed full of a speaker whose primary purpose seems to be to vibrate the neighborhood within a radius of at least a mile. I try to take good care of my hearing--I even wear ear protectors when I mow the lawn or whack the weeds--so for better or worse, I can hear both higher and lower frequencies quite well. I am reminded of my excellent hearing whenever one of these mobile monstrosities passes my car or my house.

At work, I sometimes run into a similar situation, although I can't think of any rational reason why there ought to be a problem. I work in Information Technology, so naturally everyone in my office has at least one PC, and every one of those speakers has a sound card with speakers attached. So far so good. It can be very useful to hear an alarm when new mail arrives or an appointment is approaching, and sometimes it's handy to be able to listen to the audio portion of an online technical seminar. On the other hand, it escapes me why a subwoofer is necessary for such work-related purposes. Answer: it isn't necessary, but it is nice, apparently, for non-work-related purposes such as entertaining oneself with background music, as some of my collegues sometimes have a notion to do. The resulting low-frequency barrage is rather similar to that I hear from the aforementioned buckets of four-wheeled bolts.

All this is bad enough, but some time after moving into my house, I discovered another possible source of uninvited bass, and in this case, midrange and treble: a neighbor who's a member of a rock band. He usually practices fairly quietly, but sometimes he gets the notion to crank up the volume a bit, the result is an ongoing stream of background, er, music for which I lack a remote volume control. Hmm, perhaps I should retract that last remark. Just recently, after stewing intermittently for several years about my neighbor's music, I walked over to his garage to inform him that I could hear his guitar playing in my house even though I had the doors and windows all closed. Any expectation I'd had of an argument was disappointed, because he readily volunteered to turn down his volume, and actually admitted that he didn't really need to have it turned up so loudly after all. Well, that was simple. Oh, the self-inflicted aggravation I could have avoided had I taken that walk years ago!

So, anyway, that's the "hate" side of my "love/hate" relationship with music. By the way, could you turn down your music? I'm trying to concentrate on writing a blog entry.

:-)

No excuse

2005-09-02T14:26:00.000-05:00

Although I love good, solid Biblical preaching, I must admit that I hate televangelists. Not all of them, mind you--I thank God for men such as R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur who preach the Word of God faithfully via radio, TV, and other means--but ever since I trusted Christ, it seems that a large percentage of the TV and radio preachers are at best hypocrites who fail to practice what they preach, or at worst preachers and teachers of outright falsehood and heresy. I am persuaded that televangelists such as Benny Hinn, Robert Schuller, and T. D. Jakes have done much to give people an excuse to reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

A lot of folks will tell you, "I'd never consider becoming a Christian because the church is so full of hypocrites." To a point, I can sympathize with such a sentiment. Hypocrisy is one of the most odious sins. What is more appalling than a man or woman who claims to be "holy" when in reality they are anything but holy! Who in his right mind would want to associate with such people?

On the other hand, however terrible the sin of hypocrisy may be, it is not the only sin that's appalling in the sight of God. God is altogether holy, meaning that He is perfectly pure and set apart from sinful, fallen humanity. On account of His perfect holiness, He hates sin in all its countless forms: not only sins such as hypocrisy or murder, but also "smaller" sins such as lying, cheating, and covetousness, as well as other sins that are often winked at nowadays, such as all manner of sexual immorality (both heterosexual and homosexual). For a summary of the sins God hates, check out the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20. As you read, note well that all of these commandments are to be obeyed out of love towards God and your neighbor. That is, you and I are not only to obey the letter of the law, but we must also obey it cheerfully and willingly, out of a sincere desire to please God alone.

If we were to think about God's Law honestly, we'd all have to admit that we don't come remotely close to obeying it. You see, it's not just the hypocrites and murderers who have a problem with God: we all do. Yes, every last man, woman, boy and girl who has ever lived since the fall of Adam, including Yours Truly, is a sinner in the sight of God. We are sinners by nature from birth, and thus we all eventually fall into a life of sin. This is not to say that we don't sometimes do some things that are good and right. We do indeed, but if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that we tend to do the right thing for selfish reasons: fear of punishment, for instance, or perhaps because it makes us feel good. In other words, even when our actions are right, our motives are wrong.

In spite of these facts, all of which can be readily confirmed by an honest reading of the Bible, many people continue to persist in believing the fantasy that because I'm not as bad as this or that person--e.g., "I've never murdered anyone"--that I am in good standing with God and that I need not fear his judgment. My friend, nothing could be farther from the truth, for God requires nothing less than absolute perfection from every one of us. That is, the only way God would let any one of us into Heaven is if we never sinned, whether in action or motive.

Lest you think that I write this as someone who's never sinned or thinks of himself as being better than other folks, I need to tell you that I am just as bad a sinner as anyone else. In fact, my besetting sin has been one of the worst of all: self-righteousness. Sadly, I spent many years of my life either disregarding God or thinking that if He existed that He would no doubt allow me into heaven because I was much more righteous than many of those who claim to be Christians. Thus, if I seem to point the finger at you, please don't be unduly offended, because I am also pointing my finger at myself. I, too, thought that being better than someone else, such as being less of a hypocrite than someone else, was enough to give me a clean slate.

So far, I suppose I've painted a rather bleak picture: all of us are sinners who fall woefully short of satisfying God's requirement of perfect obedience. Bleak indeed! In fact, I would argue that if we rightly understand our true standing before God, all of our pride would be stripped away from us and we'd be left despairing of any attempt to please God by doing good deeds.

So what then? God is holy, and I'm anything but, so what hope is there for me? It depends. On one hand, if I persist in trusting in my own personal goodness, I will face God's eternal wrath in the end, thus making my eventual, inevitable death the most fearful thing imaginable, but on the other hand, if I could find mercy in God's sight through an Advocate who did indeed live a perfect, sinless life and who died for sinners like you and me, then and only then could I enjoy peace with God and eternal life. Thank God that there is such an Advocate--the Lord Jesus Christ--and that all who forsake trusting in their own goodness, repent of their sins, and trust instead only in His perfect righteousness will escape God's righteous wrath and enjoy life forevermore.

My friend, I urge you to search the Scriptures for yourself and see whether indeed what I've written here is so. Whatever you do, don't let the hypocrisy of professing Christians such as the televangelists I mentioned earlier hinder you from turning to Christ. In the end, God will judge every man, woman, and child according to his or her own sins, and many will find that blaming the hypocrisy of others offers them no excuse and no protection from God's wrath. Therefore, if you have thus far trusted in your own goodness, I urge you and plead with you to turn to Christ!

Ten years ago

2005-09-01T14:14:00.000-05:00

Although my job doesn't involve much travel, I am sent to technical conventions and training classes from time to time. Ten years ago, my travels sent me to a tech conference in a major port city. The conference took place in a vast convention center. The accomodations were comfortable and the food was very good. During my attendance, I stayed at a very nice hotel just a few blocks away, and had the opportunity to walk along one of the city's main streets which ran on top of the course of an old canal. The street was named Canal Street, and the conference venue was the New Orleans Convention Center.

A few days ago, as no doubt the entire world knows by now, things changed dramatically in that area. Canal Street has turned back into a canal, with its many shops being ransacked by looters. The Convention Center has turned into a place where thousands of people, without proper food, drink, or medical care, are waiting desparately for evacuation. New Orleans as I knew it ten years ago is no more.

In the media's coverage of this terrible disaster, it gets one thing very right: Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath is an Act of God. Although man no doubt contributed to the disaster by building a city in an incredibly risky location, it was God and God alone who unleashed the storm.

In this kind of situation, it's inevitable that people will start to ask, "Why? Why New Orleans and the Gulf Coast?" Only God knows the full reason for His mighty act of destruction, but one thing is safe to say: He didn't unleash this storm where He did because the people who live there are any worse than the people who live anywhere else. The Scriptures are clear: all men bear the sinful nature and do the sinful deeds of their father Adam. By nature, those of us who are enjoying peace, prosperity, and sunshine in, say, the Midwestern US are just as evil as those who lived in the area of the recent disaster. Given the nature of mankind's rebellion against His rule, God would be perfectly just to wipe every one of us out. Thus, the question ought not be, "Why was God so severe against the Gulf Coast?" but rather "Why is God so merciful to those whom He spared such calamity?"

As the people of the devastated region recover from this terrible disaster, I pray that it will lead our entire nation to repent of its wickedness and cry out to God for mercy through His Son, Jesus Christ. God is the author of both sunshine and hurricanes, and it is to Him that we owe our obedience and worship.

The romance myth

2005-08-29T12:23:00.000-05:00

Since it seems as though everyone's recovering from this or that, I suppose it's time for Yours Truly to join the crowd. Yes, the (In)Scrutable One is a recovering romantic. I'm not alone, either. In fact, I've gotten the impression that a large majority of older singles are either recovering romantics or remain caught in the grip of romantic fantasy. To these folks, real life and the people all around us are a dull and boring alternative to the inner life of Technicolor make-believe.

Believe me, I know whereof I speak, because I'm one of 'em. For many years, I spurned and despised many of the single gals whom I met, that is to say those whom I had a reasonable opportunity to get to know. On the other hand, I always had time to daydream about this or that gal who was out of my reach. Perhaps she'd change her mind about me someday. All I had to do was be patient, and the hugs and kisses of my romantic dream would all come true.

It's taken a long time, but I think at last I'm coming out of my romantic slumber. Even the great old Hollywood romantic comedies, despite their many charms, provoke in me this reaction: "That's a nice dream, but it's not reality. That may be some kind of lust, but it's certainly not love."

I see now that romance is a myth. The kind of love that produces wonderful euphoric emotional rapture isn't love at all. For one thing, it's notoriously fickle. It comes and goes like a passing shower of rain. How many times have we heard an actress say, "I don't think I'm in love you any more. I just don't feel they way I once felt." Just as a rapturous moment of bliss was all it took to begin the romance, a realization that the bliss is long gone is all it takes to chuck the whole thing and file for divorce.

So is this love? Nope. Whatever it might be, it surely isn't love, at least not the kind of love that God reveals to us in the Scriptures. In the Gospels, we learn that "greater love has no man than this: than that he lay down his life for his friends." Elsewhere, we read that "love is patient, love is kind, love does not envy...does not seek her own, is not easily provoked, thinks no evil." Moreover, we see that love is not something that comes and goes with the fluctuations of one's emotions, but is rather a duty, one that is expressly commanded: "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and your neighbor as yourself." Husbands are commanded to love their wives, and wives their husbands. As a Christian, I'm actually commanded to love my enemy, the very last person whom I'd feel like loving.

Given this stark contrast between the true and false versions of love, is it any wonder that those such as I who have given ourselves over to the counterfeit have at first glance found the real thing to be something of a drag? After all, sacrifice and self-denial isn't very likely to bring one emotional bliss, and it's certainly not the stuff that makes for a box-office smash. To learn that love isn't an emotional high but is nothing more or less than hard work is like being on the receiving end of a faceful of cold water.

But yet, even in light of the Bible's exceedingly clear teaching on love, the myth of romance endures in the hearts of so many, in particular the single Christian. How single guys and gals desire to find that special someone who will set off emotional sparks! How we long to enjoy that "chemistry" that we believe will no doubt accompany our meeting with Mr. or Miss Right? If I meet Jane Doe and no fireworks go off, I'm strongly inclined to look elsewhere.

On the other hand, much of the stuff that feeds the fire of romance isn't all bad. For instance, it's not necessarily wrong to prefer the blond or brunette or the chubby or the skinny, nor is it inherently wrong to desire a partner who shares your interest in books or ballroom dancing. Personal tastes and preferences are good and right in their place. Besides, it's not wrong to desire to have good and pleasant feelings towards your spouse.

OK, so worldly romance is a myth, but does this mean that there's no such thing as godly romance? Why, the very same Book that commands spouses to love one another literally tells the husband to enjoy physical intimacy with his wife, and an entire book (Song of Solomon) uses a strong metaphor of romantic love to illustrate the love of Christ towards His church.

Therein, I think, lies the key to understanding true romance: it is a blessed manifestation of the affection between a husband and wife who have entered into a self-sacrificing, self-denying, Christ-honoring covenant relationship. Their love begins and ends with God's commandments, but yet in the midst of their duty-love towards one another they enjoy the tender affection that Hollywood and Harlequin romances promises but can never deliver. Moreover, because God always gives grace to those who strive to obey His commandments, the true romance is available to all couples who make obeying God their highest priority. What a delightful state of affairs this is, because in this type of relationship, God so often grants the emotional fulfillment and pleasure that the world promises, but yet builds it upon the bedrock of duty and committment. It is this type of love that will truly endure until "by death do us part", by God's wonderful grace.

Two ditches on the side of the road

2005-08-29T09:55:00.000-05:00

[from ExCharisma@yahoogroups.com]

Regarding the question, "Whom can we consider to be a Christian?", I think it would be useful to consider the analogy of a narrow country road with a ditch on either side. So long as you stay in between the ditches, you're on good, smooth pavement, but if you find your way into either ditch, you're looking at a serious accident. The ditch on the left is named "pietism" and the one on the right "latitudinarianism." These ditches are the danger ground, ready and waiting to trip up anyone who veers into them.

Since we're a support group for folks leaving the Charismatic movement, I suspect that pietism is going to sound rather familiar. As I understand it, the word "pietism" is most closely associated with a 18th or 19th century movement within the German Lutheran church that encouraged a strong emphasis on the Christian's personal spiritual life, or, to put it in the modern vernacular, "my personal relationship with Jesus Christ." As such, pietism encourages a move towards self-centered religion as well as a move away from engagement with the church. Sadly, modern evangelicalism has drunk deeply from the well of pietism: what's all-important is "me and Jesus", with my relationship with the church having little or no importance. Make no mistake: pietism is a great danger.

Our other ditch, with its peculiar name of latitudinarianism, may be unfamiliar to you. I've found a helpful introduction at this site:

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/latitudi.htm

Some excerpts from this page:

'This critical label became attached to a group of Anglican divines in the late seventeenth century whose thought displayed a high regard for the authority of reason and a tolerant, antidogmatic temper ("gentlemen of a wide swallow")...They reacted against the Calvinism of the Puritans and were broadly Arminian in outlook. They aligned themselves with progressive and liberal movements in the contemporary intellectual world...Their comprehensiveness allowed only a narrow core of fundamentals in religion. They resisted the Laudian or High Church insistence on conformity in nonessentials such as church order and liturgy...Above all they held that "true philosophy can never hurt sound divinity," which in practice normally meant harmonizing Scripture and the fathers with the light of reason. Theologically vague and spiritually insubstantial, their religion was strongly moralistic.'

In a sense, latitudinarianism is the polar opposite of pietism. Whereas pietism features a narrow focus on the individual, latitudinarianism features a broad, ecumenical view that's eager to welcome practically everyone into the church. So long as your denomination adheres to "a narrow core of fundamentals", the latitudinarian will be happy to greet you as a brother Christian. Whereas pietism is closed in on the individual and disinterested in the church, latitudinarianism tends to be exclusively interested in the broader church and disinterested in personal spirituality. The danger on this side of the road is that we are liable to be so open-minded about welcoming this or that person or church into the church that we come to care too little about the individual's right standing before God.

As I drive down our narrow country road, I have to take care to avoid both ditches, but since I drive on the right-hand (or, in the UK, left-hand) side of the road, one ditch is closer to me than the other. In modern evangelicalism, the closer ditch has undoubtedly been pietism. As you and I come out of Charismatic error, it is quite understandable that we will find ourselves coming to a higher view of the corporate church. Doing so will increase our distance from the pietistic error, but yet as we learn to place the church in higher esteem, we ought to take care that we exchange our pietism for latitudinarianism.

Indeed the Christian faith isn't just about "me and Jesus", but the fact of the matter is that the church is made up of many members, with each and every one of those members being an individual. Moreover, the invisible church--the bride of Christ, the true sheep, the circumcised in heart--is entirely made up of these individuals: the Elect.

In God's providence, the Elect are found in many sheepfolds: the Reformed, the Baptist, the Methodist, etc.. We often call these sheepfolds the "visible church." In some sheepfolds, the true Gospel is preached clearly, at some times more clearly than at other times, but in other sheepfolds it is very dimly preached, if at all. The light of Gospel truth was not always dim in these sheepfolds. In many cases, it took many, many centuries for the light to go out. It is often difficult, if not impossible, to identify the point in history at which the light went out in a particular sheepfold, but history is not our infallible guide. Our sole, sufficient guide for what consititutes the true Gospel or a healthy sheepfold is the same: the Scriptures. In a world of imperfect churches, the best we can do is to encourage one other to seek out those local sheepfolds where the Gospel light shines brightest.

As the Christian drives down the narrow road that is the Christian life, he does so both as an individual sheep--saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone--and as a member of the church. He must never think that he can go it alone without the church, but yet in the final analysis Christ saved and called him as an individual. A Christian ought to be a useful member of the church, but yet being a member of a church--even one which enjoys bright Gospel light--doesn't make one a Christian. Therefore, as we consider the question of whom we ought to consider to be a Christian and what is to be considered a Christian church, let's take care to avoid our two dangerous ditches. Let us neither define the Christian life too narrowly or too broadly.

Pat Robertson shoots from the hip (#1,731 in an ongoing series)

2005-08-23T18:32:00.000-05:00

In case you've been hiding underneath a rock or hibernating through the summer, you've no doubt heard a great deal of talk about the growing political activism within portions of Evangelicalism. However, we haven't heard much recently from one of the founders of what's been known as the Religious Right, Rev. Pat Robertson, so I suppose it was about time that one of his oh-so-fallible pronouncements would hit the headlines. This time, Robertson has gone so far as to suggest that the U.S. Government assassinate the leader of Venezuela. If Robertson's intention was to make a splash, he's certainly done so: the White House has rushed to distance itself from his remarks, and an ally of President Chavez has denounced him as a "fascist."

For some time now, I've been skeptical of the political activism that's been promoted by men with names such as Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, and Colson, and to be perfectly frank, episodes such as Robertson's latest outburst are just going to make the evangelical right look ridiculous, but the situation is far worse than that. When an individual who claims to be a Christian minister speaks out in such a manner--calling for the death of a political leader even though the Scriptures make it clear that it is God and God alone who raises up and tears down the powers that be, whereas Christians are to pray for those in authority however wicked them may be, not strive to tear them down--he gives the enemies of Christ abundant cause to blaspheme, not merely to ridicule the religious right, but also to deride the very name of Christ.

I pray that God will have mercy on Robertson, bring him to repentance, and provide him with the opportunity to make a public apology to all whom he has given offense. Although he has the right to air his disagreements with the actions of Chavez, he has no right to call for the man's death.

The other "C" word

2005-08-02T17:31:00.000-05:00

If I were putting together an alphabet book for Christian singles, there's no doubt that the word I'd list under "C" would be "contentment." In all the counsel I've received, this is the "C" word that comes up most frequently. However, I've lately realized that there's another "C" word that has played a major role in my singleness: complacency.

Although it's true that the primary reason why I've remained single so long is God's providence, one of the major secondary causes for this has been my complacency. By this I don't mean that I've been lacking in the desire to find a wife, but rather that up until the last few years I'd been satisfied to do little or nothing about pursuing what I desire, instead relying on friendships with women to satisfy some of my desire for companionship. In this manner, I (unconsciously) strived to enjoy some of the advantages of the married state without incurring the liability of committment or the risk of rejection.

During my season of complacency, God spared me from overt sexual immorality, and I managed to treat my friends with a degree of kindness and a giving spirit, but although I avoided blatant fleshly sin, I now see that it was God's sheer mercy that it was so. In fact, I had to bring many of these friendships to an end when it became evident that either my feelings or those of my friend were shifting from the agreed-upon "just friends" arrangement. It was wise that I backed out, for in each case to be more than friends would have been at best unwise or at worst adulterous, but this begs the question of whether I ought to have gone along with a "just friends" situation to begin with. Although I once thought that such friendships could be good and proper so long as both parties were in agreement regarding the relationship, I no longer think so, so for several years now it's been my practice to keep friendships with women on a very casual level unless we're actually dating/courting.

Although I'd long believed that my lack of success in finding a spouse was strictly on account of circumstances beyond my control, I now see that I am responsible for a number of lost opportunities (including a couple gals I rejected because I then believed that God had through a personal prophecy promised me someone even more wonderful), not to mention a lengthy period of total inaction. Moreover, I allowed sinful fear to hinder me from incurring the risk that my advances may be rejected rather than accepted. I am to blame for all this, not God, so I have sought His forgiveness and His grace. I have foresworn the idea of being "just friends" with any woman whether single or married, and I'll consider a close friendship only if she and I are agreed that we are willing to take the relationship to wherever the Lord may lead. If either she or I are unwilling to consider the possibility of marriage down the road, I'm not going to hang around her like I used to hang around my woman friends of the past. As of this writing, I'm still waiting to meet someone who's willing to pursue such a relationship, so I'm concentrating on hanging out with other Christian men.

Thus, my story is that of a guy who has in many ways seen great mercy from God in sparing me from sexual immorality, but who's come to regret the foolish way I used my time and opportunities for so many years. Nonetheless, I believe that I serve a merciful and gracious Lord, and thus remain confident that He will somehow work out all this, the good and bad, together for my ultimate good. Whether or not His plan will involve giving me the spouse I pined for so long but did so little to pursue I will leave up to His ultimate wisdom.

Drink diet soda, gain pounds?

2005-08-02T15:59:00.000-05:00

For me, one of the things I enjoy most about reading the news is seeing one of my pet theories confirmed. Today, it's my theory about diet soda. On the few occasions I've had a diet soda, I've noticed that it always made me feel more hungry, thus making me feel inclined to eat more, not less. On the other hand, if I drank a soda with real sugar, or better yet drank something that was naturally low in sugar, I felt "fuller" and less inclined to pig out on solid food. Apparently a study has confirmed my suspicion:

Drink More Diet Soda, Gain More Weight?

For the last few years, the (In)Scrutable One has drunk mostly water, milk, apple/cranberry/grape juice (preferably unsweetened), and unsweetened iced tea, and is happy to report that so far his caloric intake remains modest and his physique remains slender. His favorite "sweets" include dried plums and flavored oatmeal. Thus, he minimizes his intake of not only artificial sweeteners but also the real thing. Of course, skipping the coconut on his chocolate cake helps, too. :-)

Chocolate cake with a sprinkling of coconut

2005-07-28T15:36:00.000-05:00

As a young boy, I was a very picky eater. Today I'll eat most things that my stomach can handle, but back then I turned up my nose at all sorts of things, including many foods that I enjoy today. Being a semi-typical boy of my generation, I was more open-minded about desserts than vegetables, but even in this case I had a very strong dislike: coconut. I just couldn't stand coconut on anything. If my mom had wanted to prepare a dessert and make sure that I didn't take more than my share, all she had to do is sprinkle on a bit of coconut to reduce my usually ravenous appetite to virtually nothing. :-)

In much the same manner that a sprinkling of coconut could ruin an otherwise tasty dessert for me and many other folks, I've observed a similar phenomenon regarding how people judge other people. Appearance counts for a lot, and I don't just mean physical appearance: I'm talking about the stuff that you notice immediately upon meeting someone as well as during the very beginnings of the getting-acquainted phase. It seems that many people have a gift for sizing up a person very quickly. Some folks come across as nice, friendly, and refined, whereas others are a bit, er, prickly, rather like some desserts have a sprinkling of coconut (yuck!) whereas others have a slathering of chocolate frosting (hooray!!!).

Let's face it: first impressions are largely based on frosting or coconut, and often miss out on making anything like an accurate, balanced judgment of the person. This is quite understandable, because it takes time to get an accurate impression of anyone or anything, whether its a person or a slab of dessert. Much like that coconut might lie atop a marvelous dessert, that guy or gal might have a golden heart underneath that zit-ridden face or that portly profile. On the other hand, the smooth, user-friendly exterior of another guy or gal might hide a heart that's as cold as ice.

Yes, first impressions matter, but they so often mislead. Do we dare to trust them as much as we so often do, or should we heed the wisdom of Christ who told us to judge not by outward appearance, but to judge rather righteous judgment? (John 7:24)

My dear readers, I write this as a single guy who's been known to go about life sprinkled with a bit of coconut. Yes, I can be a bit awkward when I first meet a person, and I don't always get my hair trimmed as frequently as I ought, but I hope you won't hold those things against me. I suppose I'm one of those people who doesn't always make a strong, positive first impression, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who suffers such an affliction. My brother or sister, have you ever felt as though someone made a snap judgment about you? I'm sure all of us have suffered this, but yet we (including yours truly :-( ) are guilty of treating others just as we'd rather not have others treat us.

Brethren, let's not judge a dessert by its topping nor a book by its cover. Let's take the time to get to know one another's hearts!

P.S.: I have a tip to make eating a dessert more enjoyable: if you'll scrape off the coconut while no one's looking, the cake will taste 100% better. Trust me. :-)

Faith or Presumption?

2005-07-27T15:00:00.000-05:00

When I was a young Christian, I spent several years under the influence of the Word of Faith movement, which taught me that the atoning work of Jesus Christ had purchased divine healing for all my diseases, and that all I needed to do was to claim my healing and to believe that I was healed. Although the teachers I followed, primarily Kenneth Hagin, gave grudging permission to seek normal medical assistance, they allowed this only for those whose faith was too weak to receive supernatural healing. Since without faith it was impossible to please God and I certainly wished to please God, the appropriate course of action was obvious: don't see the doctor/dentist/whatever.

During this period, I heard a lot of sermons taken from the miracles of Christ. One of the most popular was that of the woman with the issue of blood, who only had to reach out and touch the hem of Jesus' garment in order to be made whole. In these sermons, a great deal was made of how she claimed and received her healing, but a small little detail of context was omitted that makes all the difference in understanding how this miracle brought such great glory to Christ, as well as shedding light on the difference between true faith and vain presumption that masquerades as faith.

OK, let's suppose this woman's story was a little bit different. Let's say that her condition was such that it was self-limiting (i.e., would go away on its own) or was readily treatable with the assistance of a competent physician. In such a case, what glory would Christ have received if He'd healed her supernaturally? Not a whole lot. If she'd told a person of her healing, they could have said "You just had a cold; you would have gotten over it in a few days anyway" or "Dr. So-and-So helped me get over the same thing by taking some medicine." Given that one of Christ's main purposes for His miracles was to confirm that He was who He claimed to be, such a low-rent miracle would have served only to cheapen His glory.

But that's not how the story turned out, because the woman in question had diligently sought all sorts of medical assistance prior to turning to Christ. She had exhausted all possible ordinary means, and came quite literally to the end of her rope. By doing so, she proved that her malady was one that was beyond the help of ordinary means, something that neither time nor medicine nor surgery could help. Thus, by seeking ordinary medical assistance prior to turning to Christ, she helped to magnify the miracle into one that brought great glory to Christ, and her doctors' vain efforts helped prove that her eventual healing was beyond the ability of man or nature.

Based on this observation, I'd like to make a simple application. If you are sick and in need of healing, do two things: (1) pray and trust God; and (2) seek all available types of medical assistance. Experience shows that in many cases, God will choose to heal you through perfectly ordinary means. In that case, you ought to glorify God for His mercy, for ultimately it is God, not your doctor, who heals all your diseases. Should He choose to heal you in an extraordinary manner, the ordinary assistance that fails you will only add to the glory He will receive through your deliverance and will make that deliverance all the sweeter.

Thus, there is no contradiction between true faith and seeking out ordinary medical assistance. Now that I realize this, I've resumed seeing the doctor or dentist when I need help, and I've taken care to improve the nutritional content of my diet. Although they've not done any miracles for me, I can say that through them God has given me many smaller mercies. Should the Lord one day be pleased to allow me to suffer much greater affliction, I will also seek ordinary assistance, but not without prayer, and will trust that God will heal me through one means or another, whether in this life or in the life to come, at which time complete eternal health will be granted to me in the form of a new, glorified body. This is the hope which I share with all those who trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation from sin.

Freed to give

2005-07-06T14:43:00.000-05:00

For most of my life, with half of that time spent as a professing Christian, I've been an unhappy single guy. There was nothing wrong with me that meeting Miss Right wouldn't cure! In the meantime, while I waited for her to come on the scene, there wasn't much point in undertaking much of anything. After all, I wasn't going to be single much longer. To tide me over, I hung out with a series of friends, many of them women. Although I think I was a good friend to each of them, it wasn't the greatest state of affairs. It was ironic that I wanted to marry so badly, but yet I was evidently unwilling to commit myself to anything beyond friendship.

Thus, when my last "buddy" went and found herself a husband, I was left largely high and dry insofar as companionship was concerned. I'd found a good church a few months before that, but I was new there and hadn't had time to make any close acquaintances. Besides, pretty much everyone there was married and had full schedules to boot. Although I'd shifted gears towards hanging out more with other guys, they were by and large too busy to hang out with me very much. (The fellowship I enjoy is very good indeed, but it mainly consists of the occasional Sunday lunch or evening dinner.) Since I was accustomed to being able to hang out and spend lots of time with this or that friend, this came as something of a culture shock to me.

In a sense, I'd left one peculiar situation only to enter yet another. I loved to give to people, to spend time with them, to encourage them, but now I was largely cut off from that. Given that so much of the present work of the church is to love our neighbors, especially our brothers and sisters in Christ, it was difficult to understand why God was providentally hindering me from getting the kind of companionship I needed so much.

Then, not all that long ago, God graciously allowed me to understand the issue at stake. The problem was with a word: needed. Yes, I'd been feeling as though, as a middle-aged single guy, I was missing something, and that I had to have that something before I was going to be whole. So what's wrong with that picture? Quite a lot. Although I wasn't wrong to desire or want companionship, whether through friendship or marriage, mine was not just a desire: it was a "need", a "need" which in my view my relationship with Christ was simply insufficient to satisfy. The bottom line: God had short-changed me, and the companionship of fellow sinners was the only way to make up the deficit. Thus, I'd made the good and right desire for companionship into an idol, a thing to be coveted.

So, what's to become of a guy like me? Well, not a lot of good if I'm left to my own devices, but I'm glad to report that God had other plans for me. In the course of time, He's taught me through the Scriptures with the aid of much trial and error that human companionship is good and right to want, but the only companionship I need is already mine if I have come to trust in Christ! In fact, I am already complete in Him by His grace, and have need of nothing else.

One thing I'm starting to realize about my past behavior is how much I'd put my trust in my friends. Often, when confronted with a difficult situation, I'd call a friend before I'd bother to call upon the Lord. Now, it's good and right to have a trusted friend with whom to talk, but it's not right if that relationship takes priority over your relationship with Christ, as was sadly all too commonly the case with me.

Up to this point, this year has proven to me my best year so far. After so many years wasted on desiring what I lacked and being unthankful for the much I had, I feel free. Rather than people being a means to ease my loneliness, I am free to love them as I ought. Although God has not yet seen fit to bring me Miss Right or even a close buddy with whom to just "hang out", I feel myself to be more free than ever to do what I ought to do towards those around me: give of myself. If this is the lesson that God would have me learn from this season of relative isolation, then I can say without equivocation that I am thankful that He's taken me through it.

Is God's blessing still with us?

2005-06-27T17:20:00.000-05:00

Lately, my daily Scripture reading has had me in the prophet Jeremiah. As I've read the lengthy prophecies regarding God's judgment on Israel, I've kept noticing how God tells Israel that He has withdrawn His blessing on account of their disobedience to His Word. In turn, this has led my thoughts back to the earlier history of Israel when the Lord would grant Israel victory in battle if it was faithful to Him, but if they were unfaithful and disobedient, He often left them to lose on the battlefield.

In the present day, the US has been waging a war against terror in Iraq and Afganistan. Although we don't yet know the final outcome of this war, the news these days seems to suggest that the efforts of the US military have not be as successful as we'd once hoped they would be. Compared with the victories we enjoyed in the latter days of WWII, the present war seems like a long, slow go.

Putting these thoughts together, it's occurred to me that it's possible that one reason why the US military doesn't seem to be all that successful right now may have to do with the spiritual condition of America. To put it frankly, the US is a whole is far from a God-fearing nation. If anything, we seem to be doing whatever we can to run away from God and His holy Law as quickly as we possibly can. We are certainly not obedient to Him! If so, then why should we expect His blessings? Isn't it only fair that He allow us to suffer failure and defeat from time to time? As I think about it, given the magnitude of our nation's wickedness, the wonder is that He hasn't turned His back on us entirely. I pray that God will yet have mercy on the US and grant us a willing heart to turn to Christ and submit to His holy rule.

Surprise, surprise!

2005-06-27T11:11:00.000-05:00

Come to think of it, one of the things I most enjoy doing is surprising people, and given my personality, I manage to do this from time to time. In person at least, I'm not the type of person who likes tooting my own horn or banging on my own drum. Instead, I prefer to let my gifts and talents become visible in the ordinary course of things. That's why it was nice lately when a few people noticed my singing voice and my city driving without my having first told them about my abilities.

This approach makes me a rather odd duck at my work place, the information technology group of a large public institution of higher education. All around me are people who don't hesitate to boast or brag about their knowledge. What's more, a group of them who share the office next door to mine are rather, er, gregarious in style and enjoy each other's company in a sometimes noisy manner. This is quite a contrast from my style, which tends towards the quiet and introspective. In a way it's understandable that people might come to the conclusion that I'm stuck up or anti-social, not realizing that I don't go for horseplay and that I prefer to interact with people in a reasonably mature manner.

Thus, I think I surprise my collegues a bit when they have occasion to work together with me on a project. Several have gone so far as to comment that they hadn't realized that I was such a nice guy. I'm sure I could make more of an impression if I carried on with the fun-loving crowd, but since I'd rather have the people of this world respect as opposed to like me, this is fine with me.

In Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, I recall that Mr. Darcy's housekeeper rather surprises Elizabeth Bennet and her aunt and uncle when she comments that although some people find him to be cold, it's just that he doesn't choose to prattle on as other young men. Although I enjoy it when people like me, I don't think it's honoring to God for me to make cultivating such admiration a priority. Instead, I'll continue to strive to model the character of Christ as God gives me grace to do so, expecting that in so doing God will in due time give me the connections and relationships that will best honor Him.

To tide you over...

2005-06-21T14:27:00.000-05:00

Greetings!

I've been quiet for a while, so I thought I ought to post something to let you know that I'm still alive and kicking, by the grace of God. Although I've had some topics swirling around my head, I'm not quite ready to write anything about them, so I'll just share a few mini-items:

I've been more of a nerd than usual lately. For one thing, I've just passed the tests for becoming a Certified Linux Professional. Woo-hoo! :-) For another, I've been using my spare time to work on a program to help solve acrostic puzzles. The need supplied by the program is very simple, but that hasn't stopped me from adding all sorts of cool features. Once I get further along with it, I may post some screenshots. Warning: this is a Linux/UNIX program and won't run on Windows unless you install a UNIX emulator such as Cygwin.
On the other hand, maybe I'm not that much of a nerd. Case in point: I've taken some of my income tax refund and invested in one of the most mundane gadgets imaginable: a refrigerator. Were a true geek, I would have invested in a new PC, but nnnooooo... :-)
My DVD viewing remains eclectic, albeit throughly rooted in the past. A few weeks ago, I picked up the first season of one of my childhood TV favorites, The Partridge Family. When I'm able to overlook the horribly bad lip-synching and miming that's done during the musical numbers, I see that I had pretty good taste as a kid: it was, after all, a fairly decent comedy, squeaky clean compared to what I see during my rare channel-surfing excursions. In one episode, the family attends church on Sunday(!), where they hear a folk singer leading the congregation in a fairly lightweight spiritual that actually names the name of Jesus. In today's God-free media world, this kind of thing wouldn't be done, but way back in 1970 it was still no big deal. How far we've come since then. Sigh.
I've been discovering lately that I have some unexpected talents. A couple of weeks ago, a friend at church gave me a complement on my singing voice and said that I'd helped him to stay on key. Given that he's a musician, that was quite a complement. I've been practicing in the shower ever since. :-) More recently, I took some of my family members on a day trip to downtown Chicago. They couldn't stop talking about how well I did driving in such stressful conditions. To put this in context, I live in a town of 21,000, work in another town of 35,000, and shop and worship in a city of 150,000, and generally enjoy far less stressful driving conditions than I endure in a city like Chicago.

So, what's in store for the days to come? Well, I've been thinking about subjects such as Christian liberty and the demise of the age-old pursuit of artistic and cultural beauty at the expense of the celebration of what is ugly and profane.

Thanks for visiting, and stay tuned!

The casual generation: it's time for a change!

2005-06-08T10:22:00.000-05:00

Confession time: I wasn't always the most obedient or cheerful son. I caused my parents more grief than I ought to have done. One situation that often provoked me to disobedience was getting "dressed up" for some special occasion. I'd gotten used to my standard uniform--jeans, T-shirts, etc.--and I just didn't care to wear anything else. This was back in the late sixties and early seventies, so history makes it clear I was not alone in my rebellion against old traditions.

Well, here we are in the early twenty-first century, and I must say that my generation's small rebellion has been a tremendous success. People hardly dress up for anything any more. I've even seen people wear blue jeans or shorts to weddings and funerals! Today's philosophy seems to be "All casual, all the time!"

As I've matured, I've come to differ somewhat with this once-revolutionary orthodoxy. No, I haven't gone back to Ward Cleaver--necktie for dinner at home and all that--but for me blue jeans are just for "dirty" outdoor activities such as hiking in the park or working in the yard. The rest of the time--work, church, shopping, relaxing around the house--I'm in a business casual mode. I've come to like this style for two main reasons: (1) I feel that it's more respectful to those around me and (2) it's still comfortable. For truly special occasions, of course, I'll dress up more.

So, I've not exactly gone back to the ways of my grandparents, but I must admit that I'm getting rather nostalgic for them. Judging by old photographs, movies, and the like, I've been thinking that the old "dress for the occasion" style had a lot going for it. For one thing, it helped to enhance the occasion, to make it more special. For another, dressing for the occasion was a way of demonstrating respect for the others who were present.

Today, we just throw on pretty much the same type of clothes every day for most every occasion. Frankly, that's boring, and it can show less respect for others than we ought. Doesn't it say something when we look the same when we entertain company as we do when we mow the lawn? I'm sure that we intend no disrespect by doing so. Nowadays, being casual is one way of being yourself: a common way of showing people that you're comfortable around them. Although it would be improper for me to judge anyone's motives but my own, I would like to pose a question: given that it sends a good message to tell your family/friends/etc. that you're comfortable around them, wouldn't it send a better message if you go to the trouble to look extra-nice when you host them or visit with them?

Please don't get me wrong. I'm the last person on earth who'd like to go back to stiff collars and corsets (except for the most special of occasions, perhaps :-) ). I value my comfort as much as anyone, and would hate to see the pendulum swing so far back in the direction of formality that I can't be comfortable. Instead, I think it would be beneficial if we could strive for a balance between comfort and style. Reserve the really casual garments for truly casual situations, wear "in-between" clothing for most day-to-day stuff, and have some more formal garments on hand for special occasions. Gentlemen might consider wearing khakis, dress slacks, and collared shirts, and ladies might consider wearing nice shirts/sweaters or casual skirts/dresses more frequently. (I in no way advocate that ladies wear only skirts--there are situations when nice pants can be more modest than a skirt or dress--but it would be nice to see more ladies wear nice slacks instead of blue jeans or sweats.) I think there's all sorts of ways we could upgrade our appearance without going back to the bad old days of uncomfortable clothing.

OK, that's enough pontificating for now, but I just had to get this off my chest. Frankly, I've grown weary of seeing jeans, T-shirts, sweatshirts, and sweat pants on both men and women almost all of the time. Please excuse the pun, but it's time for a change!

Not-too-formally yours,
The (In)scrutable One

Love: duty or pleasure?

2005-05-27T23:32:00.000-05:00

As a forty-something bachelor, I confess to having too much time on my hands. :-) That's one reason why I've taken the opportunity these last few years to get better acquainted with the performing arts. As I've mentioned in previous posts, this pursuit has led me to check out many of the classic films of years past, but it's also extended to more recent adaptations of literary works such as the novels of Jane Austen.

The last couple nights, I've been watching a mid-1980's version of the classic novel, Jane Eyre. Although I find that this great work of literature has much of importance to say to us, as a Bible-believing Christian I cannot subscribe to what seems to be its primary theme: that true love is based on passion that's sometimes so strong that it compels one to do what is sinful in the sight of God, thus making your passion to rule your life rather than God himself. Although in the character of Jane Eyre there is much that is commendable, she and Mr. Rochester erred in allowing their passions to rule them, especially in their hearts. On the other hand, Jane's cousin, St. John Rivers, a clergyman who felt called by God to become a missionary, saw marriage as a duty, an opportunity for service. He was in no way "in love" with Jane, but this didn't inhibit him from proposing marriage to her. In his zeal to do what is right, he'd lost sight of the reason why we ought to do what's right: out of love towards God and our neighbor.

I am persuaded that the Scriptures paint a picture of the marriage relationship that's rather unlike the two portraits painted by Miss Bronte so many years ago. According to the Bible, love is indeed a duty. In fact, the two greatest commandments are to love God and one's neighbor. A commandment tells us what we ought to do, and we are to obey regardless of whether we "feel like it" or not. However, it would be a gross distortion to paint this kind of love as cold and passionless. Instead, the kind of love we are to practice has everything to do with what is kind and compassionate. God would have us obey him, but with a cheerful and willing heart!

In Ephesians, Paul compares the husband/wife relationship with the relationship that exists between Christ and his Church. Don't tell me that the love of Christ for his Elect is cold or unfeeling! In fact, the very reason that he laid down his life for the sake of his people is his fervent, passionate love for them. It is this kind of love that ought to be found in every Christian home where a believing man and woman have become one flesh. Romantic feelings come and go, to be sure, but it is the husband's duty to his wife to love her at all times, even when he doesn't feel very romantic towards her. Not only is this good and right because it is God's command, but there's also a fringe benefit: as the husband strives to obey God's Word and love his wife as Christ loves his church, the "warm and fuzzy" feelings that all of us so covet will come in due course, perhaps not always as quickly as we'd like, but they come all the same. Since I'm not yet married, I must rely on the testimony of many of my godly married friends who unanimously attest that this is so.

On second thought, perhaps I'm being too hard on Miss Eyre. Perhaps she ought to have mastered her feelings better, submitting them to the will of God as revealed in the Scriptures, but she did at least do what was right in the outward sense--fleeing a bigamous relationship--and in the end, once her beloved was indeed free, she was quite willing to love him in spite of his many faults and shortcomings. Mr. Rochester was indeed no longer handsome and active in the end, but he had her heart all the same. May this be true for all of us who are presently married or who one day will marry!

Addiction to ungodliness

2005-05-18T14:31:00.000-05:00

If you pay any attention to the mainstream news media, you've no doubt heard the occasional reports of studies that have (allegedly) found a relationship between behavior and brain chemistry. In one recent report, we are told that the brains of women and homosexual men respond the same to the smell of a man's sweat. When these reports come out, it's common to read that the study's results suggest that the difference in brain chemistry may be a cause of the observed behavior.

However, let me suggest a different theory: rather than the brain's chemistry being the cause of the behavior, how about the reverse? Could it be that the brain's chemical balance changes as a result of behavior? With drug addiction, it's already known that the brain "rewires" itself in response to the incoming flood of chemicals--lest the brain be overwhelmed by a huge surfeit of this or that chemical--thus conditioning the brain to crave an ongoing supply of the chemical in order to feel normal.

Although it seems clear that drug addiction can cause changes in the operation of the brain--after all, drugs are themselves chemicals--the idea that there may be a cause-and-effect relationship between non-drug-related behavior and brain chemistry may seem less clear. It seems a stretch to compare homosexuality or other forms of sexual promiscuity with drug addiction, but think about it for a moment. Consider the common observation that homosexuals tend to persist in their sexual behavior. Very, very few homosexuals manage to change their behavior to conform to a heterosexual or celibate pattern. Also, what of those who practice heterosexual promiscuity? Isn't that lifestyle just as persistent as homosexuality? What of child molestors? Why do we force them to be registered for a lifetime even after they serve their sentences? How many, once they begin to practice any form of sexual promiscuity, ever manage to give it up?

In a nutshell, my observation is this: sexual promiscuity, whether homosexual or otherwise, not to mention all forms of what the Bible calls "sin", is just as addictive as drugs, if not more so. Also, it causes changes in the brain's chemical makeup in such a way as to reinforce the behavior and make it difficult to impossible to give it up. Rather than the brain's chemistry causing the behavior, the behavior causes the brain's chemistry to change, which in turn helps to perpetuate the behavior.

As support for my theory, I appeal to Romans 1. In this chapter, Paul explains how the wicked and ungodly choose their sinful behavior. In turn, God gives them over to their behavior, in effect saying, "If this is the way you choose to live, have at it!" In other words, God allows the behavior that began as a choice to become an all-consuming lifestyle. Additionally, consider how the whole of Scripture--preeminently Paul in Romans--demonstrates how the unregenerate man or woman is a slave to his sin.

Although science has done much good in studying the operation of the human body, in the process developing cures for many once-fatal sicknesses, I fear that by and large it fails to consider the very real effect that the depravity of the human heart has upon the physical body. We are not slaves to chemistry, but slaves to sin, and we drag our bodies into the muck and mire right along with our wicked hearts. Our only hope--and a blessed hope it is!--is that we find mercy before God through Christ's imputed righteousness, for it is only in Christ that we can be delivered from our slavery to sin and become the kind of slaves we ought to be: slaves to righteousness!