Category Archives: Christian Living

Belief about God, Christian Living, COVID, Gospel

Steady On, Christian

Leave a comment

The beauty of good doctrinal statements is that they pass the test of time. The Heidelberg Catechism, though written in 1563, still benefits the church today, touching us where our greatest needs are felt. For example, this 16th century catechism begins with this very relevant question and answer: 

What is your only comfort in life and death?

There is no more relevant question to be asked today. The world, strained by 18 months of COVID restrictions and new geopolitical unrest, is filled with anxiety and worry. But here followes the answer for the Christian: 

That I am not my own, but belong with body and soul, both in life and in death, to my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ. 

He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood, and has set me free from all the power of the devil. He also preserves me in such a way that without the will of my heavenly Father not a hair can fall from my head; indeed, all things must work together for my salvation. 

Therefore, by his Holy Spirit he also assures me of eternal life and makes me heartily willing and ready from now on to live for him.

Christian, as you struggle with the hystyria in the world over an uncooperative virus, remember: your comfort is found in your belonging to Christ. Hairs may fall from your head, but they will not do so apart from the will of your heavenly Father. It is He who loves you, not the CDC or anyone else. So be steady, find your comfort in Him, and then live for His glory.

Bible, Christian Living, church, Culture, Gospel, PCA General Assembly

Part 5 » An Appeal on Race in the Presbyterian Church in America

Leave a comment

“Therefore my appeal is that the PCA re-focus on the gospel ministry of the church and make that its declaration rather than repeatedly making statements on race and its related issues.”

Moving Past the Issue

This series began by addressing three diagnostic questions as to where the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) is in relation to racial sin. It is necessary to ask these due to considerable attention given to the issue of race in the denomination over the last number of years. These questions are:

  • Has the PCA made a clear and thorough declaration on the sin of racism?
  • Are there any new or extraordinary manifestation of this sin rearing its head in society or the PCA that would warrant additional teaching from God’s word?
  • Is the PCA neglecting shepherding of private or public unrepentant sins in this regard that should be addressed by church courts?

The first question is answered here; the second here; the third here. By way of summary, the PCA’s condemnation of racial sin is abundantly clear. There are no circumstances that justify revisiting previous statements. And as there are no appeals or complaints regarding racial sin moving up through the courts of the church, it is fair to assume that such sins are being effectively handled at a local level. For these reasons, the appeal of this series is that the PCA re-focus on the gospel ministry of the church and make that its declaration rather than repeatedly making statements on race and its related issues.

Other have spoken of the dangers of “mission creep” in the church. In other words, the church loses sight of its main gospel objective and thereby becomes ineffective. Is the focus on race “mission creep”? In the case of the PCA it certainly is. This sin has been clarified and condemned, and it is not controversial in the PCA. However, the PCA’s continued discussion on alleged acts of racism in or outside the church, outside of the actions of the discipline of the church, fosters an “us” and “them” mentality in the church based on race. Yet the church is one body (Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 12:20; Eph. 4:4; Col. 3:15).

At the last General Assembly (GA) there was talk of majority and minority cultures, designations of “you” and “us” along ethnic lines, and justifications for public repentance in the PCA based on news reports from secular outlets. The language of majority/minority culture is foreign to God’s word. The Bible does not recognize the validity of “you” and “us” statements of difference in the body of Christ. These statements are derived from the philosophy of man.

In Fault Lines, Voddie Baucham critiques the social justice movement, especially as it appears in the church. In it he quotes a definition of Critical Race Theory (CRT) from the pen of one of its proponents: “CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture.”[1] Those are exactly the sentiments communicated through the language of majority/minority culture, or the “you” and “us” statements made during floor debate. Intentional or not, these terms reflect CRT and imports them into the PCA.

The notions of majority and minority culture seem to be driving the distinctions drawn in the PCA. However, when the Bible deals with differences in the church, they are not based on ethnicity as much as covenantal standing: Jew and Gentile. Certainly, ethnicity cannot be separated from that discussion, but it is accidental. The biblical point is always the inclusion of gentiles into the family of Abraham. But, for example, discussing Asians as a minority culture in a mostly Caucasian denomination divides up the Gentiles. The PCA is populated, by and large, by Gentiles. There are Gentiles with a variety of skin colors, but the PCA is mostly Gentile. All of the Gentiles have been grafted into the family of Abraham, have become the spiritual Israel. In Scripture there is no talk of a majority vs. minority culture. There are only sons of Abraham by faith. To speak of majority and minority cultures in the church is to deny 1 Cor. 12:12-13: “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.” The PCA must stop speaking of and championing the different ethnic varieties of Gentiles in the body of Christ, and return to being ambassadors of the whole of the Bride of Christ. So how is that done?

Color Blindness

First, the PCA must become “color blind.” Martin Luther King Jr. famously said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Morgan Freeman (by no means a conservative, reformed theologian as far as I know) when asked about racial division in an interview with Mike Wallace stated the solution to racial difference was to stop talking about it. Wallace asked him, “How are we going to get rid of racism until…” Mr. Freeman cuts him off and says, “Stop talking about it. I’m going to stop calling you a white man, and I’m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman.”[2] In other words, treat each other as people. This sentiment is even more compelling for Christians who have a  theological reason for it. The church should treat anyone according to the biblical understanding of man as created in the image of God, no matter where he was born or what his status is (James 2:1-4). But I have been told that color blindness is not possible. I disagree. It is possible, and it should be pursued.

My father grew up in Charlotte, NC during the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s. He grew up with segregated water fountains. Fast forward to the 70’s when he moved his family to the Netherlands. Our family lived in a “diverse” neighborhood, and one of my friends was Jairaj. His skin was not pasty white like mine. In the course of our “friendship”, Jairaj stole every penny from my piggy bank. However, while walking me through this betrayal my father never once mentioned ethnicity. My father explained Jairaj was not to be trusted because he was a thief, and never mentioned that he was East Indian. His ethnicity had nothing to do with it. In one generation, and through the gospel, my father had learned to look at character and not color. That change transformed his family into a place where Christian friends from Australia, South Korea, Japan, Ghana, the Netherlands, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Trinidad and Tobago, South Africa,  Mexico and other places would regularly be welcomed. There was no discussion about majority or minority culture. Sure, there were some things they did that we thought was weird, just as some of the things we did seemed weird to them. Certainly there were cultural differences, but the thing that united was a common love for God in Christ and a desire to worship Him. That is where the PCA must land.

Living as One Body

Second, the PCA must intentionally and uncompromisingly live as one body. There are different members with different functions, but they make up one body. Unity is lived out through word and deed. That is the reason why the language of majority or minority cultures is so damaging. The task of the body of Christ is with one voice to bear witness to His works of creation and redemption. That work is accomplished through people fulfilling different tasks as hands and feet of the body. However, the discussion is not around what color the hands and feet may be. It is rather to mobilize all the different parts of the body to be faithful in carrying out the Great Commission of evangelizing and discipling.

At the 48th General Assembly, I spoke to a brother about overture 45, which sought the flourishing of Asian Americans. There was a significant difference in opinion about the value of that request from Metro Atlanta Presbytery. In the conversation he stressed the pain of a minority culture (in this case Asian Americans) living in a majority culture. At the time I didn’t have time to process through what he said, but the more I thought about it, the more the terminology bothered me.

The point is not that there is no pain in the Asian-American community. I would expect there is. The problem is the shift in discussing pain in terms of ethnicity rather than the sin and misery that is in the world through the fall. There should be no surprise that there is pain among Asian Americans, just as there is in black, white community, and Indian communities. All communities, also those marked by racial diversity, suffer pain because all communities are affected by sin. Sin causes pain and all face the pain of sin in their day because they live after the fall. The body of Christ is unified as it realizes that all have been rescued from eternal pain through the work of Christ as a substitute on the cross. And this truth must be championed.

Commitment to Truth

Lastly, the PCA must be committed to biblical truth as its unifying principle. Instead of making statements about the pain of one ethnic group over against another, the task of the church is to speak primarily of the singular solution to that pain: the Lord Jesus X. The world’s comfort from pain is found in Him. Unity is not found in easy-to-make declarations. They cost very little, especially when there is as much agreement on the topic as there is in the PCA. But sharing the gospel in the world, practicing hospitality generously, and encouraging each other toward love and good works in the church is the hard work of building unity and love in the church. The unity of the human race is based in its original creation (Genesis 1:28), and the Gospel is the message that restores the unity that has been lost by sin.[3]

So please, my brothers, let us be done with discussions on race at the General Assembly. If there are sins of that nature in our denomination, they should be addressed through formal process in the courts. The PCA cannot allow the hot topics of the world to become the cause for “mission creep.” Instead the PCA must re-focus on the gospel ministry of the church and make that its declaration rather than repeatedly making statements on race and its related issues.

It is my prayer this appeal will be received in the brotherly spirit in which it was written. It is meant to be an appeal. I pray that the Lord will use it for building the unity of His body.

Geoff Gleason is pastor of Cliffwood Presbyterian Church in Augusta, Georgia. His passion is to see the people of God grow in their faith, and those who are lost become numbered among the faithful. He has been married for 28 years and, usually, is the joyful father of 11 children ranging in age from 28 to 6, and two grandsons.

[1] Voddie Baucham, Fault Lines, (Salem Books, Washington, D.C.: 2021), p. xv.

[2] YouTube, Morgan Freeman on Black History Month, n.d. (accessed August 2, 2021), https://youtu.be/GeixtYS-P3s.

[3] Pastoral Letter on Racism, p. 6.

 

Bible, Christian Living, church, Gospel, PCA General Assembly, Race

Part 4 » An Appeal on Race in the Presbyterian Church in America

1 Comment

“Therefore my appeal is that the PCA re-focus on the gospel ministry of the church and make that its declaration rather than repeatedly making statements on race and its related issues.”

Are We Ignoring the Issue?

At the start of this series the target was set: to answer three questions to determine whether it is helpful and good for the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) to continue to focus on the issue of race. The questions are as follows:

    1. Whether the PCA has a clear and thorough declaration on the sin of racism;
    2. Whether there are any new or extraordinary manifestation of this sin rearing its head in society or the PCA that would warrant additional teaching from God’s word;
    3. Whether the PCA neglects shepherding of private or public unrepentant sins in this regard that should be addressed by church courts.

These three inquiries form the diagnostic questions the answers to which will inform the recommended responses and conclusions.  The first question was answered here. The second question here. To summarize, the PCA has made clear and thorough declarations on the sin of racism, and there are no extraordinary or new manifestations of this sin that would require additional responses from the PCA. The only question remaining is whether the PCA, as a denomination, is ignoring the theology it professes by failing to address racial sin among its members. Assuming that the assertion of this series regarding the PCA’s theology is correct, the PCA as a denomination has come to the point where that sin must and should be addressed through the process of church discipline, not via declaration. Church courts should at this point address any unrepentant sins that arise.

Unrepentant sins of racism manifested in churches should be addressed pastorally as any other unrepentant sin. If a sinner will not be corrected, the church should walk through the painful but necessary and good steps of church discipline. This process should not look like the current response in the world. The church’s correction may not be punitive or overly harsh. Accusations should be made only against a person who sins, and not anyone else. That is because church discipline is practiced for the spiritual protection of the sinner, the preservation of the purity of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, and for the glory of God.

Racial sin should not be permitted to take root in the church. To that end, congregants and elders must work to confront  and address it with individuals who continue to sin in this area without repentance. If the church does not act, pronouncements can be made ad nauseum without any effect. The church is purified from sin when it is not allowed to gain a foothold among God’s people. However, a continual restatement of well-established theological positions will only mean that sin will be highlighted and the more difficult part of shepherding under that truth will be ignored.

Implementing Significant Change

Making repeated pronouncement is actually easy and pretty cheap. It is much easier to point out the sins of grand-parents than it is to deal with the sins that plague the church today. In my experience, racism is not the primary ill that is plaguing the church. For the last twelve years I have been in the deep south of the US and have experienced one blatant instance of racial sin. The vast majority of PCA Christians love their neighbor regardless of ethnic background. During my time in Jackson, MS, I had the privilege of knowing a man who, as a white man, quit his job in order to be able to devote his time to disciple young boys who lived without a father. The vast majority of these children happened to be black. But he loved these children, and the whole congregation got behind him in support of it. However, it is possible that my experience does not reflect reality. It is possible that there are instances of racial sin in the PCA that I am missing. Perhaps racial sin is rampant in the PCA and I have simply missed it all. That does not appear to be the case, and this is why.

When a person engages in racial sin, those who observe it should first, in love, address it with the person one to one (Matthew 18:15-17). If that person refuses to listen, there should be another visit, this time with an additional witness. And finally, if the person remains defiant in their sin, the church is to get officially involved, with the possibility of censures should the need arise.

When a person observes sin and the church is unwilling to address it, the member has the right of complaint. A member who sees racial sin and whose elders are unwilling to address it may file a complaint against their elders, asking the next higher court to ensure sin is not allowed to remain unaddressed in the church. I am not aware of any cases involving racial sin being brought to the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC). That means either elders are neglecting their duty or racial sin is being properly addressed at the Session level. Now the former is possible, but the latter is more likely.

However, even if the former is taking place, the hard work the PCA must do is not issue another statement, or produce another theological summary on the sin of racism. It must do the hard work of shepherding and working through the process of discipline to stamp out this sin. If this sin is as widespread as some would try to convince that it is, there must be action taken to address specific instances. As Paul says, “Purge the evil person from among you.” (1 Cor. 5:13).

So the answer to the third diagnostic question, where the silence in the church courts makes it unlikely that there is a festering underbelly of racism in the PCA, further demands a move away from the PCA’s current practice of declaration. If there is racial sin the church is obligated to do the difficult work of shepherding. Declarations and letters are the wrong tool to address an on-going sin issue.

The PCA has plainly repudiated racial sin. There is no new seismic shift in society or church that would necessitate revisiting this issue. And there are no active cases of neglected discipline being circulated through the church courts, which is the only measure denominations have to see if sin is being addressed within its membership. So let us leave behind these requests for recognition based on ethnicity and find a better way.

The PCA must cease from importing the terminology of secular sociology when it comes to examining the body of Christ, His church. No more cheap declarations about how sorry we are for the sins of others. If there is sin among us (also racial sin) let us address it. If there is disunity among us, let us unite as brothers under Christ and through fellowship and true Christian love overcome it. But enough of dividing up a primarily gentile church into many different gentile groups (white gentiles, Asian gentiles, black gentiles, etc.). We, the PCA, are one body made up of many parts. There are hands and feet and mouths and eyes and hearts and all manner of different parts. The significance of those parts is not in their color, but rather in the fact that they are members of the body.

However, rather than leave this topic in the mire of generalities, the next installment will deal with some practical things that can be done to change the tone of the discourse in the PCA.

Geoff Gleason is pastor of Cliffwood Presbyterian Church in Augusta, Georgia. His passion is to see the people of God grow in their faith, and those who are lost become numbered among the faithful. He has been married for 28 years and, usually, is the joyful father of 11 children ranging in age from 28 to 6, and two grandsons.

Christian Living, Love for God, Uncategorized

True Christian Joy

Leave a comment

“Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice.”

Those words form part of the conclusion of Paul’s letter to the Philippians, and they have been quoted as the beginning of the Christian life ever since. Christian joy is a mark of the work of the Spirit in the believer, and manifests itself as a response to a saving knowledge of God and includes the following expressions: 

Contentment. When the work of the Lord and His salvation is the ultimate anchor of your joy, the circumstances you face, although possibly difficult, will not rob you of your joy. A grumbling spirit will be replaced by a contented one.

Worship. Joy is not something you can simply hold, turn over, and examine as if it were a math problem, or a philosophical notion. Joy overflows out of the heart into an expression. When joy is expressed to God it always takes the form of worship: proclaiming His goodness in the presence of the saints.

Selfless Service. Joy is not only expressed to God, but also to man. Our joy in the Lord is also seen in how we care for each other. We love God’s people because He loves God’s people. The care we show to each other is not primarily an activity of doing good things, but rather living out the joy we have in Christ.

I pray that our joy in the Lord would increase. That as we learn to love Him together, we would grow in our love for each other too. 

Bible, Children, Christian Living, Culture

The Christian and Profanity

Leave a comment

There is much discussion in the Christian world about liberty. This post is not concerned with civil liberties as such. The question is not whether society should, on the one hand, allow recreational drugs or prostitution or some other “victimless crime.” Neither is it investigating whether society should, on the other hand, mandate the use of masks or vaccinations. Perhaps another day. Rather it is dealing with the Christian’s liberty that is found in Christ.

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Galatians 5:1 (ESV).

One of the debates within Christian circles is to what extent our behavior is not restricted under Christ. There is a false defense of Christian liberty that claims a Christian is free to express himself according to his own desires, because Christ has paid for sin. That, of course is a gross generalization of a position people take. But it is a position that I have heard articulated and as expressed it is a mind-boggling denial of God’s wrath against sin and His hatred of it. God views sin with such anger that He sent His Son to die a horrific death on a cross to satisfy the guilt for the same. One of the areas where “trendy” Christians are seeking to carve out ungodly liberty is in the use of profanity and cursing. Is there a place for such speech in the Christian?

Christian liberty does not make room for disobedience to God’s word. The Westminster Confession of Faith says this about Christian liberty:

“They who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.” (WCF, Chapter 20.3)

The purpose of liberty is to serve God, being set apart by His word to reflect Him as His adopted children. Therefore what does the Lord say about speech? In Colossians Paul exhorts the one who is raised with Christ to set their minds on the things above. That means putting on righteousness, and putting off what is earthly (Col. 3:5). Included in that putting off is the putting away of “anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.” (Col. 3:8). In another place Paul gives similar instructions when he charges the Christian to “let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.” (Eph. 4:29). Obscenity and corrupting talk are out of place for the Christian. The Bible plainly says so. If you begin arguing at this point that your profanity is not “obscene” or that you are using it to build others up, I can not help you. You are committed to your disobedience. The statements from Scripture could not be clearer. In this case, the desire for nuance can only be taken as a desire for license.

Are there times when Paul uses strong language in his letters? Some people would argue he does as a justification for their own speech. Even if you make that argument, you cannot argue that he does so habitually. Maybe one or two places in all his written words can be used as potential examples (“rubbish” Phil. 3:8 or “emasculate” in Gal. 5:12). Moreover, the words he uses  are hardly the same as the adoption of the vulgar and crude language of society which resorts to the crassest expressions of bodily functions and sexual activity. Brothers and sisters, these things should not even be named among us (Eph. 5:11-12). Yes, it is true that Christ has come and fulfilled all the law for the Christian. And, yes, it is true that all the sins of all God’s people are forgiven in Christ. But Christ work on the cross in no way diminishes the holiness of God. It in no way reduces the call to be holy and He is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). It in no way permits a despising of Christ’s sacrifice by engaging in the wickedness of the world.

Here is the sad thing. Even the world knows that certain language should not be used in the presence of children. We have an organization that ensures language for movies is rated, and that words are edited out of TV shows. There is, even in the world, an acknowledgement that these words are inappropriate. How is it that the Christian who has the Spirit and the Word of God would so badly miss this point?

 

Christian Living, church, COVID

On Being too Fond of Life

Leave a comment

bell tower

“It is a pity that saints should be so fond of life as they often are: they ought to be always on good terms with death.” Thomas Boston, Human Nature in its Fourfold State

The quote above comes from Boston’s consideration of the difference between believers and unbelievers in facing death. His basic argument is that unbelievers die in a hopeless state, while Christians in a hopeful one. As a true puritan, he acknowledges at least ten different fears Christians may have in facing death, but in the quote above he returns to the reality that the Christian does not need to fear death, but in some sense should recognize it as his gateway into the eternal presence of God.

Why bring this up? Because it seems to me that the Christian church has, by and large, demonstrated that it is a little too fond of life in this world, and altogether too fearful of death. COVID has brought this fear to the surface, and since March 2020 it has begun to take over the spirit of the church. Now come the mandatory qualifiers. This article is not an indictment against any churches who have adjusted their services in the face of this disease. This article is not a denial that people have died of this dreadful disease or suffered other side-effects besides. This article is not an assertion that all Christians should respond to a difficult issue in the same way. But it is an appeal to the church that it consider what is most important.

I’m not wanting to over-simplify an issue, but it seems the general argument made for suspending in-person worship is that the physical health and safety of the people of the congregation will be preserved in this way. That was the motivation of our Session when we resorted to live-stream only for 5 weeks in early 2020. We wrestled with what COVID was and what impact it would have. However, is it right at this point to continue to make the same argument after a whole year of data?

However, the question is not primarily a pragmatic one. Rather it speaks to the very essence of the reason for existence for the Christian. The delight of the Christian is not found primarily in his physical health or in this life. It is in his reconciliation to God. Sin has separated us from Him, but Christ purchases reconciliation by His own blood. Therefore the Christian does not ever cease to glorify God and enjoy Him. He is joined to Christ. The apostle Paul writes of this union:

“Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?” (Romans 8:35)

These are all rhetorical questions. The obvious answer is that no one or nothing can separate you from Christ, His love, and the inheritance that comes with it. But that inheritance is not found in this world, but in heaven. Worship is that foretaste of heaven, and there are a variety of ways in which the Christian will arrive in heaven. Some will be martyred, others will die of natural causes. Some will be gathered into heaven at a young age, others having lived a full life. Some will die subject to horrible suffering, some will pass into glory in their sleep. The point is not that all die and so therefore hand yourself over to a fatalistic recklessness. It is not to forfeit any sense of prudence. Rather, it is “How is it that the church loves life on earth so much that it is willing to forfeit and limit the corporate worship of the saints for close to a year now?”

Some questions to consider in the church’s response to COVID:

  • If the church is not gathering for worship, where is the unbeliever to find the peace offered in the gospel that can give him rest in the face of the constant threat of death? How is he to find Christian fellowship as described in Acts 2:42?
  • If the north American church is faced with persecution sometime in the future, will there be courage among Christians to continue to worship the Lord? And if there are Christians who are willing to assume that risk, should they be permitted to worship or should the elders forbid them and remove the option?
  • The next time a missionary desires to be sent to a dangerous region that is hostile to the gospel, will it be consistent with current COVID policies for the church to let him go and voluntarily face that risk?
  • If the risks for COVID go away, are there other risks, perhaps not as common in the news cycle, that also can cause death (such as highway travel) which would need to be eliminated before the church is willing to re-open? Will we forbid our members from eating fried foods? In other words, if we are doing all we can to remove risk of contracting this disease, shouldn’t we do the same for all other diseases and dangers?

The point is not that all responses to COVID must be uniform. But, to forfeit the worship of the living God based on the data we have (taking the CDC’s data at face value) could easily lead to the conclusion that the saints are a little too fond of life, and are unwilling to risk letting it go. What do you love more? The worship of the Living God or physical life? It’s a serious question. And, as a follow up, if someone were to look at your life today, would they say the same? Whatever our response to COVID may be, let us remember what the chief end of man is: to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

Bible, Christian Living, church, Culture, Uncategorized

Civil Unrest and the Christian

Leave a comment

Wednesday at 3:18 p.m. I got a text from my younger brother “Did you see what’s happening in DC?” is all he wrote. We all know what was happening by now. A group of people stormed the Capitol, and we have all seen the videos. I have seen some responses from conservative Trump supporters who view this act as victory, and the violence justified. Ironically, these are often the same people who condemned the riots of the summer instigated by Antifa and/or Black Lives Matter. On the other end of the spectrum there has been outrage and condemnation for the occupation of the Capital. With just as much irony, many of these are the same people who ignored the riots of the summer and made accommodation because the anger of the protestors was somehow understandable.

The gamut of emotions in the world is also reflected among Christians. Some are outraged today, believing the election to be stolen and our republic to be in tatters. If that reflects your view, the denial of the courts to hear Trump’s cases of voter fraud are outrageous to you. Others, I think the majority, is horrified at the pictures of people occupying the very symbol of order and law, although there is a general uneasiness about how America’s politics is being conducted. Regardless of where you land, there seems to be a nervous churning in our nation. It is not my intention to solve those problems (as if I could). If possible, I would even like to conceal my own opinions on all that has transpired. This post is not meant to draw political conclusions, but rather to help the body of Christ to focus on a godly response to our current cultural climate.

Do not let current cultural outrage rob you of your peace in Christ. The Christian can be easily distracted from his main purpose: to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. The Christian is a subject of his heavenly king the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6). It is true that Christ at times lead to division. But the anger and outrage in those moments should belong to the world, not the Christian. In so many places the Christian is called to live at peace with his neighbor (Mark 9:50; John 14:27; 16:33; Acts 10:36; Rom. 1:7; 5:1; 14:17, 19; 15:13; 1 Cor. 14:33; 2 Cor. 13:11; Gal. 5:22; Col. 1:20; 1 Thes. 5:13; 2 Tim. 2:22; Heb. 12:14; James 3:18). 

There may be exceptional circumstances where violence is necessary, such as self-defense or just wars. But the Christian should never delight in it, nor should he choose it if he can avoid it. The Swiss Reformer Pierre Viret has written: “There is nothing which Christians ought to hold in greater horror than the taking up of arms…and that there is nothing in which Christians ought to be more hesitant to engage, nor which agrees less with their profession of faith.” If you are tempted to side with those who occupied the capital, please reflect on the texts above and ask yourself if your heart reflects the call of Scripture.

Do not allow the lies of the world to elevate people of bad character. It is intriguing to me that the people who are outraged over the events of January 6, 2021 had a much different reaction to the events of October 4, 2018. The result of that day was the same, but the cause was different. The former was perpetrated by conservatives. The latter by the Women’s March outraged over the nomination of now supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh. 

To rush to condemn an action out of political expediency is not praiseworthy. It is a violation of the 9thcommandment. It is the height of naivité to claim innocence in either of our political parties. God is a God of truth, and desires His people to live according to the truth (Ps. 51:6; 86:11; 119:160; Is. 45:19; Jer. 5:3; Zech. 8:16; John 8:32; 14:6; 15:26; 17:17; 1 Cor. 13:6; Eph, 4:15). And when someone makes a truthful statement for a selfish purpose, as a whole he breaks the 9th commandment. 

Neither political party in the USA can claim moral high ground at this point in our nation’s history. And for Democrats to feign outrage over the actions of a few Republican that lasted less than 3 hours seems like a violation of the 9th commandment in light of the summer-long riots of 2020 and their relative silence on those occasions. It is good to condemn violence and destruction, even when done by your political allies. But please do not allow the lies of the world to elevate men of poor character, just because they say true things when it serves them to gain an advantage over their political opponents.

Do not forget about the absolute sovereignty of God. To look at current events apart from God’s on-going governing of all his creation will cause despair. In all of our circumstances, God is exercising control over His creation. Hebrews 12:1-11 explains that control in the context of discipline. The circumstances faced in life can be painful and hard to bear. But the Christian should recognize them as God’s discipline. When God’s chastenings come, the Christian must not resist or fight as the world does. The Christian is called to rejoice and accept God’s work, and respond with peace. Your peace will disappear if you forget that God is good, that He is governing the world, and that political turmoil in the United States is not catching Him by surprise.

This post is not meant to solve all the controversy of our nation’s election debacle. In a sense it seems obvious that God’s judgment has already fallen on this land and we’re simply reaping what we have sown. But more than at any time in an already tumultuous twelve months the Christian must focus on God’s word and get his eyes off his emotions. Peace and stability are only found in by looking to Him. The Christian serves the Prince of Peace and as such his response to the circumstances of the world should reflect that.

Christian Living, church, Culture, Sanctification

COVID and the Church

Leave a comment

There is no shortage of opinions about how to respond to COVID-19. The debate that encapsulates just how polarizing this issue can be is the one surrounding the use of masks. Basically, there are two camps. Some think that all should be mandated to wear masks in an effort to halt the spread of the virus. Others think that the wearing of masks should be left to the individual because the virus will make its way through the population anyway. This article will not definitively solve this issue for you. The purpose of this article is to protect the unity of the church. COVID-19 will be a distant memory one day, and Christians will find themselves worshiping with that person with whom they disagree with so vehemently today. 

Amazingly, though positions on masks may be different, the sins by their proponents are often the same. First,Christians have not been careful to preserve the truth. It is asserted that those who do not wear masks are not loving their neighbors, or that those who are wearing masks are being fearful. These claims may be true, but most likely they are not. Each position is argued citing scientific studies to reinforce the position. Appeals are made to doctors, scientists, and government policies to bolster the preferred perspective. And none of those things make it clear that the motivation of our fellow man is lack of love or sinful fear. Rather than making statements that are likely not true, it is the joyful duty of the Christian to restrict his statements to things that are known to be true.

Consider the claim is that those not wearing masks are not loving their neighbors. The presence or absence of risk is not an indicator of the presence or absence of love. Our lives are filled with risk. I heard the other day of a 39 year-old mother who fell out of a golf cart while carrying a her baby. In an effort to protect the child, she did not brace herself and died as a result of her fall. Was it unloving of the driver to allow the woman to get into the cart knowing there is risk involved? Certainly not. To assert risk equals lack of love is simply not true and demonizes a Christian brother or sister with perfectly loving intentions. To equate the introduction of risk with lack of love is neither fair nor accurate. And we are charged as Christians to promote the truth in the ninth commandment (Exodus 20:16). 

The claim that those who wear masks are fearful. It is one thing to decide not to wear a mask. It is quite another to assert that those wearing a mask are motivated by fear. There are many reasons people may decide to wear a mask in response to COVID. It is not different than other areas of life. People watch their diet and exercise to promote good health. They wear seatbelts when driving. Smoke detectors are installed in homes. None of these are necessarily acts of fear. They are most often just attempts to be prudent. To assert wearing a mask equals fear is simply not true. And we are charged as Christians to promote the truth in the ninth commandment (Exodus 20:16).

Second, Christians have (again) proved themselves prone to pride. In the lack of charity on display between people, also believers, it is clear people have an unhealthy opinion of their own conclusions. The vast majority of folks are far from qualified to make a definitive statement of the benefits or draw-backs of wearing a mask. 99+% of people are just trying to make the best decision they can with their limited understanding. In Ephesians 4:2, Paul urges the Ephesian church to “walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” People are not “sheeple” if they wear a mask. They are not simple-minded dolts if they do not.

After COVID is over (and that will happen), churches everywhere will return to regular corporate worship. My plea today is that the church behave in such a way as to make that return easy, and free from bitterness and party-spirit. There is an oft-quoted phrase from church history that can and should be applied to the current situation: “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.” Masks are not the indicator of orthodoxy. Be charitable to your fellow-Christian. “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.” (Ephesians 4:32).

Bible, Christian Living, church, Culture

The Church and Culture

Leave a comment
Conflict

The church’s relationship to the culture is a tenuous one. Especially in these tumultuous times of COVID-19, quarantine protests, and Black Lives Matter, the church must use discernment regarding its relationship to the ideas put forward and accepted within its culture. Culture is defined by google as: “the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group.” That seems a fair definition. So how does the church interact with those customs, arts, institutions, and achievements?

The answer to that question will, of course, depend on the level of faithfulness to God’s word the culture displays. A society whose culture is righteous will require little oppostion from the church, but one whose foundation is the philosophy of man will frequently bump heads with the church. What today’s culture needs is not the affirmation of the church, but rather her calls for repentance.

The church seems to have lost its prophetic voice. Of course, that is not true of all churches. There are many faithful churches that boldly proclaim God’s word. But it seems to me there are more that are simply mimicking the words of the culture, and pushing the word of God aside. And therein is the problem. The authority of Scripture, based in the Lord who gives it, makes adherence to the teaching of the Bible the distinguishing mark of the Christian. And if culture is doing anything contrary to God’s word, it is neither safe nor wise for the church to adopt or associate with that thing. There must always be an obvious identity in the Christian: an identity defined by his relationship with Christ as defined in the Bible.

Today the more popular cultural voices are in opposition to God’s word. For example, the Black Lives Matter movement enjoys tremendous popularity, also within the church. And yet it stands diametrically opposed to the Lord. Its website proudly proclaims: “We affirm the lives of Black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, undocumented folks, folks with records, women, and all Black lives along the gender spectrum. Our network centers those who have been marginalized within Black liberation movements.” However, the seventh commandment forbids homosexuality, transgenderism, and gender confusion. It is an attack on the very character of God the Creator and defined as sin. Or in another place it states: “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.” But God charges parents to train up their children in the fear of His great name (Eph. 6:4). So there is irreconcilable divergence at the foundation of the Christian faith and the organization Black Lives Matter. The former flows from the Bible, the latter is foundationally opposed to Scripture.

Christian, how will people identify you? If someone does not know you, will they quickly discern that you are Christian from your social media posts, by your choice of words, by the decisions you make throughout the week? The reality is, the Christian cannot take on itself an identity that is partially rooted in the world. Consider these verses from the New Testament. Paul says, “Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.” (1 Corinthians 2:12, ESV). In another place the apostle says, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” And in yet another instance the apostle John states: “They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them.” (1 John 4:5). The point of those verses is all the same. The world does not have the same voice as the church, and the church should not copy it.

It is important to remember that very basic truth especially in our days. The Christian church must stand on the Bible if it is to maintain its witness at all. The world will not be content until the bride of Christ has become an adulterous wife. But I am afraid that in North America she is already well on her way.

Christian Living, Man, Sanctification

Is Privilege a Sin?

3 Comments

Probably like all of you, I have been trying to process through the recent events in our society. First there was all the upheaval because of COVID-19, and then all the civic unrest surrounding the death of George Floyd. People have reacted in different ways, some good, some evil. One thing that I have been considering in this spectrum of response is the apologies that are being made for privilege these days. To give the most gracious response to those who are doing so, I assume their intentions are good, but is apologizing for privilege, specifically white privilege, actually glorifying to God.

I want to state up front that I do not accept the blanket notion of white privilege as it is articulated today. Even on just an anecdotal level, to ascribe blanket privilege to one ethnic group seems to hopelessly over-simplify the complexities of a society made up of millions of intertwined lives. I am a middle-class white man. I am very sure that I have access to privileges that many, many millions of people of a variety of ethnic origins in our society do not enjoy. But there is also another side. I am also very sure that I do not have access to privileges that many millions of people enjoy. Many white, Asian, black, and Hispanic people have access to privileges that I do not.

Anecdotally I have experienced this myself. As a young man, I applied to teacher’s college when pursuing undergraduate studies. While applying for entry into the program, I was required to fill out forms (of course). On the cover page it stated explicitly that visible minorities and females would be given preferential treatment. In that program, I could be counted as being under-privileged. Minorities and women applied from a position of privilege. Again, this observation does not deny that there may be privileges I enjoy in another setting. I am simply making the point that to make a blanket statement on privilege of one ethnic group seems hopelessly over-simplified on its face. However, apologizing for privilege strikes me as problematic for a more significant reason: it is asking forgiveness for something God has not called a sin.

When I hear white Christians apologizing for their privilege, I want to ask them, “For which sin are you apologizing and seeking forgiveness?” Certainly, the Bible condemns showing favoritism (Jam. 2:1-7) and racism (Gal. 3:28), but privilege is not the same thing, and is not in and of itself sinful. In fact, God gives His people the fifth commandment to guide them in their various relationships, some in which they are privileged, and others not. The Westminster Shorter Catechism states, 

“The fifth commandment requireth the preserving the honor, and performing the duties, belonging to everyone in their several places and relations, as superiors, inferiors, or equals.” (Westminster Shorter Catechism #64). 

Sometimes people are in charge and enjoy certain privileges because of their position. Other times they are peers where the same rights are shared. More often than not, they report to others, living under their authority being deprived of privilege others have. In all of them, it is imperative to occupy those roles with dignity, respecting each other as made in the image of God. But it is also important to recognize God has not described these relationships as sinful by default. To apologize for having a privilege is to call sin what God has not called so.

As I’ve said, there are common-sense difficulties with the idea of blanket white privilege, so I want to leave that term aside. However, dealing generically with privilege, there is no doubt there are gradations of privilege in society. Privilege is morally neutral. Privilege can be held in a sinful way, or can be used to give God glory. Privilege in and of itself is not sin. To ask forgiveness for having it is contrary to the Bible which recognizes God’s providence, and His right to distribute His possessions and gifts throughout the world according to His own will. When these are used unjustly, the church should bring correction to her members. But when used for the glory of God, there is no cause to apologize, no matter which ethnic group you belong to. Within the church we are all God’s children, the body of Christ, and we are to work together in our different places and stations to give Him glory together. That is not the cause for division, but for praise.