MENU

Culture
Category

On August 14, 2013 By In Culture

How Should Pastors Teach on Sexual Issues?

Shepherd 5

I wrote previously about why a pastor has the authority and duty to teach on sexual sin and sexual holiness.  Now I want to explore how a pastor should do this. I do not have all the answers in this area. I have failed many times when discussing these matters. At times, I have said too much. At other times, I have said too little. So what I write below are some of the things I have learned in my first six years of ministry. I would encourage other pastors, former pastors, elders, and fathers to weigh in on how they handle sensitive matters like this. The post is longer than I would have liked. But the more I wrote the bigger the topic got. As with the previous post, there is a lot application to fathers (and mothers) as well.

  1. I preach about sexual matters from the pulpit, but in the pulpit I try to use words that edify the entire body.  In my church, we have lots of children who would not benefit from learning new words while in worship.  I use words like; sexual purity, the marriage bed, adultery, sodomy, fornication, and premarital sex. I try to avoid being too explicit while still being clear. Most adults and teenagers know what I am talking about. If fathers want to explain things further to their younger children they can. Sexual sins and the glory of the marriage bed should be preached on, but Sunday morning is not the place to shock people with “dirty” words or to discuss explicit sexual practices.
  2. I do almost all of my shepherding on sexual matters when I meet with couples and singles one on one. If I did not meet with people one on one, I am not sure how some of the more sensitive topics could be brought up. One on one shepherding is absolutely essential for sexual discipleship in our culture. I try to be involved in the lives of the sheep so that I might effectively address these issues.
  3. I guard my heart when talking about sexual matters. There can be a sinful desire to know more than is necessary to counsel the person or couple. Pastors and elders are not immune to lustful or prurient thoughts.
  4. I try not be shocked by sexual questions or sexual behavior. If someone says, “Pastor, Do you think it is okay to do…?” I do not say, “Oh my, how could you even think such a thing.” I try to show proper biblical seriousness about the matter without being too shocked or too indifferent.  Most of all I try to keep lines of communication open so that I can continue to disciple them.
  5. I try to avoid being obscene or pornographic when I talk to people. This is difficult to do with so many people having exposure to pornography. There are things I have discussed with people that I never dreamed I would be talking about as a pastor. But still I strive for biblical dignity in my conversation. Sometimes there is  the need for an explicit conversation, but often that is not the case.
  6. I try to have a proper balance of internal and external advice.  I counsel the person or couple on how their heart should approach sexual matters. What is going on inside must be addressed. But I also give practical steps to avoid sexual sin. Things like memorize scripture, avoid the computer when no one is around,  stop getting cable, learn to be more patient in bed, dress in some nice lingerie, sleep with your husband before he goes on a trip are helpful practical suggestions.  These are not a substitute for addressing the heart, but rather work in conjunction with addressing the heart.
  7. I use premarital counseling and counseling in the months following the wedding for frank discussion of sexual matters.  In premarital counseling the sexual history of the couple should be discussed.  How much detail needs to be gone into will be up to the pastor’s wisdom.  Premarital counseling is also a good time to address common sexual practices that are sinful and to exalt the virtues and freedom of the marriage bed. I try not to cause the couple to stumble. Engaged couples are already thinking about sex. I do not want to encourage lustful thoughts. In the months after marriage I meet regularly with the couple to talk about many things, including sexual matters. I continue to ask questions about sexual habits and problems as I meet with couples in the church. But premarital counseling and counseling early in marriage is fertile ground for discussing this.
  8. I do not settle for vague answers when it comes to sin or problems. For example, if a young man says to me he struggles with lust I begin to ask more questions. How often? Is this once a week, once a day? Is this hard core porn or the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue? If a husband expresses concern that his wife’s sex drive has dwindled I ask more questions. What do you mean by dwindled? Were you having sex daily and now it is once a week? Or has it been two months since your last love making session? Is he being a jerk in the bedroom or out of it and therefore his wife has no physical affection for him? Is the wife refusing to have sex unless she is ovulating? I also know that sin tends to come in clusters. If he is watching porn then he no doubt lacks discipline in other areas. If the wife is prudish then I know she is being disrespectful in other areas as well.  I am not encouraging unnecessary nosiness. Sometimes couples/singles are doing fine sexually. They do not need to be badgered. But my congregation knows that sexual matters are on the table whenever I meet with them.
  9. One of the more tricky problems in sexual counseling is how to deal with women. I have had very little experience with this so I am not going to say much. A woman who has a husband who refuses to address sexual problems in the marriage should confide in an older, mature, trustworthy woman who can help. She and that older woman also may want to approach the elders for help. If a single girl cannot approach her mom or dad about sexual problems she should do the same thing.  Also having my wife sit in on the premarital counseling sessions about sex was very helpful for the bride-to-be.
  10. One last point about sexual matters in the home. One thing that has surprised me is the number of young people from “good” homes who know very little about sex, its God-given purposes, and the dangers of immorality. I know one young lady who thought that the only sexual sin was actual intercourse while everything else was okay. Many young men have not been taught about the dangers of masturbation even if they know what it is. Many young ladies believe that the marriage bed will have this warm, fuzzy glow just like in all those romantic movies.  Christian fathers and mothers need to regularly address a broad range of sexual issues as their children get older so the children understand what is right, what is wrong, and what to expect. Teenage children should be comfortable asking mom and dad, “What is…?”  Fathers should pry into their sons lives to see what they are thinking and what they are struggling with. They should pray to the Lord that he will help them see if their children are hiding something. All of this must be done with wisdom. Children are not all the same. Some can handle more than others. But the parents need to create an environment where sex is an open subject. It should not dominate the home life, but it also should not be relegated to a one time talk when they hit puberty.

<>как раскрутить в googleкорпоративный создание

Read more

On August 13, 2013 By In Culture, Theology

If you want to be an unbeliever at least don’t be an idiot about it: Reza Aslan and the parameters of historical Jesus theories

zealotThis is not a book review because I have not yet read Reza Aslan’s Zealot. Allan Nadler is no inerrentist, but he shows quite well many of Aslan’s intellectual shortcomings–though I might quibble with Nadler later on. What I want to do in this post is equip people, whether Christians or unbelievers, on how to talk and think about “the historical Jesus” so they aren’t taken in by pretenders by Aslan.

The basic historical question about Jesus is this:

WHY DO WE REMEMBER HIM?

That question can be asked in many different ways, but the bottom line is, even if he was only a genius at PR, or even if only he had some highly influential follower who promoted him, something has to explain the fact that, out of all the people who lived in Palestine at that time, his name is known to us.

When people do historical research, they don’t want to conclude that something “just happened.” They want to provide intellectually satisfying explanations. So any theory of how Jesus arose in history has to meet that challenge. Otherwise, it only amounts to the guess that Jesus somehow got lucky.

Furthermore, when people research a historical figure who stirred up followers and/or enemies in his own time period, we need to understand what those people found so compelling or challenging. Jesus, as a Palestinian Jew, had a message and/or did things to which his contemporary fellow Jews responded.

This means, for example, that we can be pretty sure Jesus did not preach generic abstract lectures about peace and love. He was not a roving hippy (though some have tried to import the alleged role of “Cynic” from the Greek world into Palestine in order to get him as close as possible). He wasn’t a roving systematic theologian either. If he had gone around the country declaring himself “the Second Person of the Trinity” the only fact that would be explained in the Gospels would be his family’s conviction that he was insane. But crowds do not gather to hear incomprehensible word strings. I fully believe Jesus is God incarnate, and that Trinitarian theology is the only way to integrate the truths of Scripture, including Jesus’ words in the Gospel. But we need to distinguish between our overarching views and what Jesus was dealing with in his own context.

Christians are quite capable of tracking context in some cases, but they have trained themselves to be comfortable with inconsistency. When a Roman Catholic appeals to John 6, the average Protestant suddenly becomes almost a source critic. But yet that same Protestant will tell us that Jesus, when he met Nicodemus (John 3), had a prepared lecture on monergism and the ordo salutis that he had to deliver (and that it had nothing to do with the immediate context of John baptizing a new Israel).

How did Jesus’ contemporaries see him? What did Jesus claim about himself that made him both a celebrity and an enemy? Nadler rather disappointed me at one point:

Depicting the religious mood of first-century Palestine early on in the book, Aslan asserts that there were “countless messianic pretenders” among the Jews (there were no more than an eminently countable half-dozen).

In the context of Aslan’s other exaggerations, this one seems relatively modest. And further, I’m not sure that we can know that the ones we counted are the only one’s who arose. Didn’t Jesus himself tell us there were many more pretenders coming?

Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand. So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. (Matthew 24:23-26, ESV/ Mark 13:21-22/ Luke 17:23)

Unhappily, the vast majority of the people today who regard Jesus as God incarnate and the savior of the world have been trained to read these words and apply them to some mythical future “end times” scenario, rather than acknowledge the plain context that Jesus was warning of messianic movements that he expected to tempt his own disciples. So the fact that Jesus himself classified himself as one of many messianic claimants (albeit, the only genuine one) is completely overlooked.

But we can also see another example of how Jesus was classified by his contemporaries:

When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them. But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while. And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men. For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!” So they took his advice, and when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. (Acts 5:33-40, ESV)

So, there you have it. If Jesus’ followers are declaring him to be the Christ/Messiah, then of course he is to be classified with other insurrectionist leaders who fought the Romans.

If this sounds obtuse to you, be assured it is at the heart of debates over the historical Jesus. There is a whole publishing industry dedicated to the proposition that Jesus never declared himself to be the Messiah–that such a title was fraudulently given to him after he was gone from the scene. Here, the Christian belief in Jesus’ uniqueness actually provides cover for an otherwise ludicrous form of unbelief. Because Jesus is so unique, it is hard to think of the most obvious response: Why wouldn’t Jesus claim to be the Messiah at a time when it was being done by popular leaders in Palestine so often?

But that is the proper response. Jesus is not unique because he claimed to be Christ in that place and that period of history. He is unique because, as N. T. Wright points out, he retained loyalty after being killed. For all other Messianic claimants, being killed ended the movement because it demonstrated that the claimant was not only wrong, but that he was a pretender and thus worthy of condemnation.

So as much as it pains me to say it of a pretender like Reza Aslan, why is he not given more credit for presenting us a Jesus who was both Jewish and Messianic? He has at least popularized a book that fights against many others that are just as unbelieving–that want to make Jesus into a modern pacifist and guru. Thus I find Nadler’s response quite frustrating:

Aslan is, to be sure, a gifted writer. The book’s Prologue is both titillating and bizarre. Entitled “A Different Sort of Sacrifice” it opens with a breezy depiction of the rites of the Jerusalem Temple, but very quickly descends to its ominously dark denouement: the assassination of the High Priest, Jonathan ben Ananus, on the Day of Atonement, 56 C.E., more than two decades after Jesus’s death:

The assassin elbows through the crowd, pushing close enough to Jonathan to reach out an invisible hand, to grasp the sacred vestments, to pull him away from the Temple guards and hold him in place just for an instant, long enough to unsheathe a short dagger and slide it across his throat. A different sort of sacrifice.

There follows a vivid narration of the political tumult that had gripped Roman-occupied Palestine during the mid-first century, which Aslan employs to great effect in introducing readers to the bands of Jewish zealots who wreaked terror and havoc throughout Judea for almost a century. It seems like an odd way to open a book about the historical Jesus, who was crucified long before the Zealot party ever came into existence, until one catches on to what Aslan is attempting. The Prologue effectively associates Jesus, albeit as precursor, with that chillingly bloody murder by one of the many anonymous Jewish Zealots of first-century Palestine.

To address the obvious problem that the Jesus depicted in Christian Scriptures is the antithesis of a zealously political, let alone ignorant and illiterate, peasant rebel and bandit, Aslan deploys a rich arsenal of insults to dismiss any New Testament narrative that runs counter to his image of Jesus as a guerilla leader, who gathered and led a “corps” of fellow “bandits” through the back roads of the Galilee on their way to mount a surprise insurrection against Rome and its Priestly lackeys in Jerusalem. Any Gospel verse that might complicate, let alone undermine, Aslan’s amazing account, he insolently dismisses as “ridiculous,” “absurd,” “preposterous,” “fanciful,” “fictional,” “fabulous concoction,” or just “patently impossible.”

Let me start with what Nadler gets right. Any attempt to explain Jesus that leaves no explanation for the vast majority of the Gospels is doomed as a coherent theory. It ends up relying on “luck” as to why we remember Jesus. Jesus was just one of those defeated Christs, like Theudas or Judas the Galilean. So why is his name any more well-known than theirs? There is no explanation.

But Nadler does more. He gives the reader the unavoidable impression that Jonathan ben Ananus’ assassination has nothing to do with Jesus or the Gospels. And that is just crazy talk.

It doesn’t matter if “The Zealots” ™ didn’t exist as an official party during Jesus’ lifetime. The name wasn’t chosen at random. It had meaning and continuity with other “freedom fighter” groups. The Gospels all speak of the zealots and specifically contrast Jesus with them at the hour of his trial. Two decades before Jonathan ben Ananus there was his spiritual forefather:

After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him. But you have a custom that I should release one man for you at the Passover. So do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?” They cried out again, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a robber. (John 18:38-40, ESV)

I include this account because it designates Barabbas by the same word used for the two men crucified on either side of Jesus, as I’m sure Aslan made a great deal about (and as he should!). Barabbas’ behavior, however, was not simply what we American English speakers think of as robbery

But they all cried out together, “Away with this man, and release to us Barabbas”—a man who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection started in the city and for murder. Pilate addressed them once more, desiring to release Jesus, but they kept shouting, “Crucify, crucify him!” A third time he said to them, “Why, what evil has he done? I have found in him no guilt deserving death. I will therefore punish and release him.” But they were urgent, demanding with loud cries that he should be crucified. And their voices prevailed. So Pilate decided that their demand should be granted. He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, for whom they asked, but he delivered Jesus over to their will. (Luke 23:18-25, ESV)

So according to the Gospels, Jesus was a Messiah who didn’t measure up to what the people wanted. Jesus talked of the coming Kingdom, and the people were interested because they wanted the kingdom. But they eventually decided he wouldn’t get them where they wanted to go. He didn’t really have what it would take to bring in the kingdom, but Barabbas did.

Jesus not only is contrasted to Barabbas, but Luke’s Gospel (really all the gospels) show Jesus addressing the fate of Israel that will come about by future versions of Barabbas. Indeed, the very next scene in Luke after Barabbas is presented tells us of Jesus prophesying men like Jonathan ben Ananus

And there followed him a great multitude of the people and of women who were mourning and lamenting for him. But turning to them Jesus said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us,’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’ For if they do these things when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?” (Luke 23:27-31, ESV)

Jesus was being sent to his death as an insurrectionist while he is innocent of the charge. He is the green tree. But once these women’s children grow up and another crop of hatred is sown, in the resulting bloodshed there will be thousands of crosses outside a besieged Jerusalem.

Of course, many scholars don’t believe in any of this. They want the gospels written late enough to explain Jesus’ prophecies as after the fact revisionism. This is not without historical problems. Acts seems clearly written before AD 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem, yet it also seems clearly to have been written by Luke after he wrote his Gospel. Of course, there is another escape hatch for the person who wants an explanation that doesn’t involve Jesus being a supernatural prophet (or more): Perhaps it didn’t take prophetic insight to see where Israel was headed if it pursued the way of zealotry and rejected the way of peace. While I think that falls short of whom Jesus was and is, Jesus himself gives testimony that it didn’t take a weatherman to see which way the wind was blowing:

He also said to the crowds, “When you see a cloud rising in the west, you say at once, ‘A shower is coming.’ And so it happens. And when you see the south wind blowing, you say, ‘There will be scorching heat,’ and it happens. You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to interpret the present time? And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right? As you go with your accuser before the magistrate, make an effort to settle with him on the way, lest he drag you to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the officer, and the officer put you in prison. I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the very last penny.”

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

And he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. And he said to the vinedresser, ‘Look, for three years now I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down. Why should it use up the ground?’ And he answered him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and put on manure. Then if it should bear fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.’” (Luke 12.54-13.9)

Jesus said his hearers themselves should know what was coming if they did not change their ways. The Galileans slaughtered by Roman troops were only a foretaste of more of the same unless Israel stopped pursuing the Kingdom of God in Barabbas ways. More people in Jerusalem would be crushed under falling bricks if Israel did not repent. Jesus didn’t claim prophetic insight for seeing what was going to happen. He claimed to be a prophet when he told the Israelites that this fate was not glorious martyrdom for faithfulness to the Torah but rather God’s wrath on a nation of law-breaking terrorists.

Again, there are unbelieving scholars who read much of this and are not convinced to acknowledge that Jesus Is Lord. I’m not claiming I have proven it from what I have said in this post, either. But they have acknowledged more that Aslan was willing to acknowledge because they know that a historical explanation for Jesus has to account for why he is not forgotten like all the other Messiahs of his day.

Why does Aslan find his portrayal so satisfying? I don’t know. Since I am a believer I am sure he would discount my feelings on the matter. But I think there are plenty of non-christians, if they have any knowledge of the primary source documents, who would agree with me. It seems to me that Jesus’ popularity and then sudden unpopularity is quite credible and ought to be part of any account worth considering for the historical Jesus. So how can Aslan so readily discount it, along with most of the other information?

A theory comes to my mind that I am almost ashamed of. I don’t believe that all modern followers of Islam are terrorists, jihadist, or sharia advocates. Nothing about Aslan’s public life makes me think of him as some faithful follower of Mohammad. He just seems like some modern guy who identifies with Islam the same way a secular, atheist Jew identifies with Judaism. Maybe I’m wrong. And maybe what I see is just a secular game against Christians. Rather than a “self-justification” it is just another condemnation of alleged hypocrisy.

But whatever his motives, Aslan has decided to treat it as self-evident that Jesus was a terrorist. All other evidence just gets thrown out as self-evident “nonsense.” At this point, it seems far easier to explain Aslan’s intellectual decisions on the basis of modern politics rather than on the basis of the actual data from the first century.

What bothers me the most is how easily the entire public has been played. Hatred of Fox News combined with a sneering confidence in one’s own sophistication opens oneself up to believe anything that John Stewart of Bill Maher jokes about.

In case some things I wanted to make sure readers took away got lost in my verbiage about Aslan, let me end with an articulation of the basic questions of the historical Jesus (almost all of which I am badly remembering from the work of N. T. Wright).  Just remember two basic points.

  • Jesus needs to be both comprehensible and crucifiable within his own historical context (Aslan in this case leaves him half-crucifiable, but no explanation for any of the records about how he was rejected by the majority of his own generation)
  • We have two historical entities, First Century Judaism and First Century Christianity. Jesus is arrived at as the middle term who realistically fits in Judaism (which Aslan did) and then believably starts or at least causes Christianity (which Aslan left completely mysterious).

The historical Jesus is a fascinating pursuit for believer and unbeliever alike. Don’t be an idiot about it.

I’m not referring to Aslan of course. I’m referring to the people who were taken in by the Fox News fiasco.<>mobi onlineподдержка ов россия

Read more

On August 12, 2013 By In Culture, Worship

Should a Pastor Teach Frankly About Sexual Issues?

I often address sexual sin in my writing, preaching, and counseling. When I do this I try to address it in a frank manner. Is this really necessary? As a pastor, do I need to address things like masturbation and dressing up in the bedroom?  I think this is an important question. Our world is drowning in sexual imagery and language. I can go to any “normal” news page, such as Fox News or CNN and find articles about sexual issues that range from the funny to the profane. Shows on television are frankly sexual, often involving sodomy, fornication, etc. Nudity on television has gone up dramatically over the last ten years. Even if I avoid the internet and TV there are the magazines at Wal-Mart and college girls all over town with far too little clothing or clothing that draws attention to their bodies. (One advantage of living in the North is that winter brings a reprieve to this.)  Does a pastor need to add to this? Is it really his job to deal with these types of problems in a forthright, frank manner? Maybe he should just tell his congregation about Christ and let them apply Christ to their sexual lives?

I believe a pastor must address these issues if he is to be faithful to Christ and his blood-bought Church. He must do it correctly, but it must be done. Today, I want to give reasons why a pastor must address these issues. Later in the week, I will talk about how these issues are to be addressed. We must lay a solid foundation of why a pastor can speak on these things before we get to the how he should speak on them. Throughout this paper I use the word “teach” a lot. Do not assume that I mean only public teaching. By teaching I mean a combination of public and private ministry of the Word. Let me state what used to be obvious, Christian fathers have a great obligation in this area as well. One reason there is so much sexual sin and brokenness in the church is because fathers fail to do their job to teach their sons and daughters in both word and deed about these issues. Here are the reasons why a pastor has the authority and the duty to teach on sexual holiness in a frank manner.

Pulpit 2

  1. The Bible addresses almost every conceivable sexual act. Incest, rape, bestiality, lust, prostitution, adultery, fornication, sodomy, etc. are all mentioned in the Bible (See Leviticus 18). On the positive side you have the Song of Solomon, Proverbs 5:15-23, and I Corinthians 7:1-5. Of course, it is not done in a pornographic way, but these issues are addressed. If the teaching is handled correctly, which  is not easy, there is no reason to be squeamish about discussing them.
  2. Sexual sins are a major part of the Biblical teaching on sin. Here is a list of some of those sins: Lamech’s numerous wives in Genesis 4, attempted sodomite rape in Genesis 19, incest in Genesis 19,  the sexual sin of Israel in Numbers 25, Samson and the prostitute in Judges 16, the rape of the Levite’s concubine in Judges 19, David’s sin with Bathsheba in II Samuel 11-12, Jesus’ teaching on lust in Matthew 5:27-30, Paul’s discussion of sleeping with a prostitute in I Corinthians 6:12-20, and the mention of a “Jezebel” who seduces men to sexual immorality in Revelation 2:20. And I could mention dozens of other passages. Sexual sin and sexual righteousness is not a blip on the Bible’s radar. They are a central theme in the Scriptures.
  3. Based on 1 and 2 above I would argue that it is impossible for a pastor to be faithful to the Scriptures if he does not address various sexual practices and how to approach them biblically.  Of course, he does not have to do this in every sermon. But it should be a regular part of his private and public ministry.
  4. Our cultural context demands a frank discussion of sexual issues. This is one shift from previous generations. We must learn to live in the generation that exists, not the one we wish existed. A pastor in previous generations did not have congregants (men and women) who had watched hundreds of hours of pornography prior to marriage. He did not have congregants whose views of sex, marriage, and love had been shaped by romantic comedies. He probably did not have women who had used sex toys during their college years. He probably did not have men who had experimented with homosexuality. Of course, there has always been sexual sin. But sexual sin has grown more prevalent over the last several decades, especially with the internet, where one can view pornography, find willing sexual partners, and read all about the sex lives of celebrities.  Add into this mix sexual education at the public school, the failure of Christian parents to faithfully teach their children about sexual holiness, and the failure of churches to teach on these matters and the pastor will find that most men and women coming into  his church bring a dump truck full of sexual baggage that they do not know what to do with. A pastor cannot just ignore this baggage. His job is to make disciples.  Sexual holiness is a major part of that discipleship process.
  5. But should a pastor discuss sexual practices not explicitly addressed in the Bible? I mentioned two of those earlier in the post, masturbation and dressing up. Masturbation is never mentioned explicitly in the Bible. Women dressing up as cheerleaders to arouse their husbands is not mentioned either. So does a pastor just ignore these practices?  Can he just assume that people will get this right without any explicit teaching on the matter? The answer is no. Basic teaching on sexual matters and the Gospel will cure a lot of ills. But the pastor is there to shepherd the people. This means he needs to have an answer when someone asks, “Can I dress my wife up as a maid and not be sinning?” That means in private he needs to be able to ask questions that are awkward. Or when he finds out that a young man is masturbating he needs to be able to counsel that man biblically.  The Bible touches every area of our lives. We do not have a verse for every area, but the principles laid out in God’s Word can and must be applied to all areas. So yes, if there are common sexual practices that he finds members are engaged in, even if they are not addressed explicitly in the Scriptures, he should address them.
  6. If the pastor does not address this issue, who will? If the pastor is not clear on these issues who will be? If the pastor will not ask the uncomfortable questions who will? Most of us come from homes where sexual holiness was rarely addressed in any detail. How many of us haven’t look at porn? How many of us had sex before we were married? How many were sexually abused? How many women have had abortions?  We could go on and on. Pastors, we must address these things. No one else will. If we do not address them we will be held accountable for letting the wolves eat the sheep (Ezekiel 34).

Wolf 2

In summary, the Bible gives the pastor the authority and duty to address sexual sin and sexual holiness. Issues directly addressed in the Bible should be taught on, but also common sexual issues not directly addressed should be taught on using Biblical principles. In our current cultural climate a pastor should expect that addressing the past and present sexual sins of his congregation will be a regular part of his counseling, teaching, and preaching load. He should be prepared to shepherd men, women, and couples through these problems.

There are a lot of potential dangers when addressing these matters. For example, can I address these matters honestly without being crass or violating Ephesians 5:3-4? When and where should a pastor address sexual issues? How can they be addressed without causing a man struggling with lust to stumble? How should women be counseled on these matters? I will address some of these issues in another post. It is a thorny path one must walk down to disciple the congregation in sexual matters. But a man who is committed to Scripture and loves his flock has no choice.<>сео копирайтинг ценыпоисковая оптимизация а дешево

Read more

On August 6, 2013 By In Culture, Pro-Life

How Greenspan And Bernanke Are Ending Civilization As We Know It

Greenspan managed to get away with a low-interest boom in the nineties, thanks to the rise of cheap imports from overseas markets. China both kept their prices low and bought US treasuries so that government debt could increase with little consequence in popular perception.

The Fed’s low interest rates and the resulting cheap money fueled bubbles during the Clinton and Bush (the younger) years. When the NASDAQ crash occurred, we had an opportunity to suffer through a recession and reset the economy. Bush, however, probably believed he would never be a two-term president under such conditions. And it is easy to see the lure, since he would probably lose to a candidate who would pressure the Federal Reserve to inflate another bubble. So why take the thankless job of Martyr? Part of the answer is: So you don’t go down in history as the single president who destroyed the American economy, and so discredited the Republican brand, that the very worse possible successor to your stimulus precedents could win the office.

Remember: Bush picked Ben Bernanke to be the next Chairman of the Federal Reserve because he pretended that we were not facing a dangerous housing bubble. Since Bush, Mr. Hope and Change kept Bernanke in power where he has doubled down on the toxic stupidity that has degraded the economy further since the day he (Bernanke) stepped into office.

This brief history of recent events is commonly recited to explain why we are now poor, broke, underwater with debt, and/or unemployed. Everyone wants recovery. But I am rehearsing this recent history to make another point: we are headed into a far worse economic situation in the long term because of this recession and “slow recovery” so that, even if we had a fantastic recovery tomorrow, we will still suffer more economic pain in the future.

The engine of recovery and of real economic growth in general, is people working. And, while we were already headed toward problems, this recession has come at the worst cultural time. It is going to be much worse.

It is happening in several different ways at once. One area I have already written about is student debt combined with post graduate un- or underemployment. Couples are indefinitely delaying children because they don’t see how they can make it on their income with their expenses—a major expense being student debt.

For readers who have been taught the overpopulation myth, the impending disaster may be hidden from their view. But unless something changes dramatically, America’s de facto one-child “policy” is going to bring economic stagnation. (This is especially true in countries that provide for the aged by a pension system that requires more working young people than retirees.) Economic bubbles are misallocated investments and resources. …[D]uring a recession and anemic ‘recovery,’ in a culture when it is easier than ever to not get married and not have children, a further and more massive misallocation is easily made. A demographic winter gets arranged in order to pay bills. Present indebtedness leads to less people in the future.

Mish (who I think is the best Austrian economics blogger dealing with contemporary trends) touched on another aspect of this issue with his post, “Bernanke wants 2% inflation in a deflationary world. Who pays the price?” He points to a PEW study that provides this graphic:

Pew Living at Home2

So as married 31-year-olds reach their thirty-second birthdays, not enough younger people are getting married to replace them. And we can guess their probably not breeding either.

The reason they are not marrying isn’t too hard to figure out. Young women are rarely willing to move into the guy’s parent’s basement. And they are probably even less likely to want to bring a crib into the room.

Pew Living at Home1

Mish writes:

Bernanke wants 2% inflation in a deflationary world. Wages have not kept up with inflation as Fed policies exacerbate the trends. The result is apparent. Everyone pays the price, but especially young adults who cannot afford to get married, and they certainly cannot afford a house. The Fed wants home prices up to help out the banks, but what about the new household formation? And what about student loans and the ability to pay those loans back? And think about how cheap money allows corporations to borrow money for next to nothing to buy technology to replace humans with hardware and software robots.

This effect on young adults is far more perverse than the consequences of their absence from marriage, parenthood, or the workforce. The most toxic consequence is that they get used to it.

There are parents who will actually defend their child basement dweller as someone who ought to not enter the workforce. But the damage is not limited to that extreme. The time to begin life as an adult should not be delayed.  As I argue here, much of Obama’s “economic” speeches seem to be designed to entice us all to be satisfied with a basement, subsidized, existence.

time child free lifePeople who can’t live without the protection of authority figures, and who can never get married or form a household, are increasingly the future of America. Even those who do have some sort of role in the productive economy are being urged to see children as a problem they can do without. Of course, I actually agree that couples should be politically free to breed or not, but you know how that works out—with the non-parents turning into busybodies lording it over parents and telling them how to raise their children. This also often happens with the elective single-child parents over against the multi-breeders. That aspect of the future will also be ugly since it will amplify some ugly features of the present. This recession has hit us at a time when the culture is most inclined to decide that babies are a dispensable luxury, and when the resulting political environment will make it harder to parent children if you love lots of them.

All of this promises a future of economic decline, and probably far worse things. Human beings are being trained for domestic captivity without any real means to pay for the costs of the zoo.<> полный аудит а

Read more

On August 1, 2013 By In Culture, Politics, Theology

A Life of Plunder: The First Temptation of Foolishness

wal-martProverb begins with a promise of, and praise for, the value of wisdom. Verse 7 warns that fools despise it and/or being instructed in it.

But the first warning Proverbs gives of a specific sin seemed, at first, counter-intuitive to me:

Hear, my son, your father’s instruction,
and forsake not your mother’s teaching,
for they are a graceful garland for your head
and pendants for your neck.

My son, if sinners entice you,
do not consent.
If they say, “Come with us, let us lie in wait for blood;
let us ambush the innocent without reason;
like Sheol let us swallow them alive,
and whole, like those who go down to the pit;
we shall find all precious goods,
we shall fill our houses with plunder;
throw in your lot among us;
we will all have one purse”—
my son, do not walk in the way with them;
hold back your foot from their paths,
for their feet run to evil,
and they make haste to shed blood.
For in vain is a net spread
in the sight of any bird,
but these men lie in wait for their own blood;
they set an ambush for their own lives.
Such are the ways of everyone who is greedy for unjust gain;
it takes away the life of its possessors. (Proverbs 1:8-19, ESV)

Why is this temptation the first concern of wisdom”

After the Fall, as we find it recorded in Genesis 3, the first big sin was brother murdering brother–the sin of Cain against Abel. One might be inclined, at first glance to associate this story with Solomon’s warning to resist the lure, “let us ambush the innocent without reason.” But I don’t think that hold’s up. Here “without reason” isn’t referring to the motivations of a psychotic thrill killer (though there is a hint in much of Proverbs that this way of life leads to an addictive thrill), but it means simply unjustly–that is, “without cause.”

Cain was motivated by resentment due to God’s approval of Abel. That is not the temptation here in Proverbs 1. Rather, the bloodshed is a means to an end. The temptation here is for a life of plunder, a shortcut to wealth:

we shall find all precious goods,
we shall fill our houses with plunder;
throw in your lot among us;
we will all have one purse…

Such are the ways of everyone who is greedy for unjust gain.

So of all the sins that could possibly head the list in Proverbs, why does Solomon start with the temptation to join a gang and acquire loot? Why is a life of plunder the first temptation?

A general observation: From my reading in Proverbs, I think the main concern is how people drift into sin–how they start down a wrong path. If so, it is not surprising that Cain’s sin wouldn’t be the forefront. His hatred of Abel, who had done him no harm at all, and from whose death he gained nothing, seems to go far beyond what we have here in the beginning of Proverbs.

If my instinct is right to look back at the first stories of Genesis as the background to Biblical wisdom (stories that include a contrast between God’s way and humanity’s way to “become wise”) perhaps we should go back earlier than the story of Cain and Abel. Rather than looking for a negative example of embracing a life of plunder, we might look for a corresponding positive command.

The first recorded command in the Bible is to embrace a life of productivity:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Genesis 1:26-28, ESV)

So what are the alternatives. If you don’t want to take dominion over world, you survive and attempt to thrive by taking dominion over people. If you don’t live by being fruitful, you find those who have done so and cut them off, stealing the fruits of their life and labors.

Notice how rejecting God’s ways are parasitic. Someone has to work the land and produce good things by labor and exchange. Without such people, human life is impossible. But some find it tempting to let others do the work, and then take a shortcut by using violence to plunder such people.

One implication of all this which I believe Proverbs repeatedly addresses, is that it is not enough to repudiate plunder. Knowing you should not steal or rob is insufficient. You have to embrace as best you can a life of work and savings and investment. Otherwise, you will always find yourself tempted to resort to the other means of acquisition. In fact, by failing to work, you’ve taken the first step toward theft.

I can’t help but think of the national media campaigns against Wal-mart and McDonald’s for the crime of not handing over more cash to their employees. I’ve written several times about this recently:

One way to teach plunder is to rationalize it as if it was owed. While people who have truly wrecked the economy (a crime perpetrated by as many Republicans as anyone else, by the way) are only given a passing glance, or even treated as saviors, companies who have no control over the economy, and who depend on the will of consumers to live, are used as scapegoats.

If laws are passed to match these impulses, we can say of the reduced employment and/or string of bankruptcies that result: “these men lie in wait for their own blood; they set an ambush for their own lives.”<>регистрация а googleтехническая поддержка а в контакте

Read more

On August 1, 2013 By In Culture

The Lure of the Cool

“There is a…kind of temptation, which, I fear has not passed from me. Can it ever pass from me in all this life? It is the desire to be feared and loved by other men. Saint Augustine

Cool 2

We all want to be in the “in” crowd or as C.S. Lewis called it “The Inner Circle.” We have a desire to be in that circle of men who are accepted and adored.  Christians are not immune to this. In fact, I would argue that the desire to be cool drives more men to leave Christ than almost anything else in our age.

And so it is not surprising that Paul Raushenbush, the senior religion editor at the Huffington Post, wants Christianity to be cool. In this article he declares that to his great delight Christianity has once again become cool. How did this marvelous transfer from the kingdom of uncool to the kingdom of cool take place? The Pope declared that he would not judge gays and Desmond Tutu declared that he would rather go to Hell than go to a Heaven with a homophobic God. For Raushenbush it has been a good week for Christianity. Finally, after years of bondage to fundamentalism (aka, the Bible), we can move on and make Jesus, God, and the Bible into our own cool image. Let me point you to a few things of note. (By the way, Al Mohler disputes that the Pope meant what the media and Raushenbush thought he meant.)

First, Raushenbush states very clearly what uncool Christianity is: women are not equal, haters of science, degrading to the LGBT community, suspicious of other faiths, and pro-military. In order for Christians to be cool again they must do the following: deny the Biblical roles of men and women, accept evolution as fact, accept climate change as fact, accept the LGBT without calling them to repent and change, and accept people of other faiths as good, spiritual, ethical people who are all on the stairway to Heaven.  These things are battle lines.  Here is where the world is attacking. So many Christians, especially pastors and seminary professors, want to fight other battles. Why? They are cowards and like Raushenbush they do not want to be thought of as uncool, backwards, fundamentalist, or traditional. If we refuse to speak out on these points we have run from the battle. Now of course, we can do this badly and in an unbiblical manner. Our desire should be to fight the battle in a way that pleases our Lord. But we must fight. And I would take a man who fights badly over a man who doesn’t fight at all.

Second, do not read the words through your own eyes. Read them through their eyes. Many Christians will say, “Well I would not want to go to a Heaven where God hates gays either.” But this is not what they are saying. When Desmond Tutu says, “homophobic” he does not mean hatred of gays, which most Christians in our day oppose. He means any refutation of sodomite lifestyles is unacceptable. When they say, “climate control” they do not mean “godly stewardship.” They mean population control through birth control and abortion. They mean refusing to take dominion. They mean hatred of God’s established order. They mean a  pseudo-pantheism. Notice how his article ends. He invites his gay friends to a disco mass at his church. He notes how they enjoyed it and felt comfortable.  Then he says they may never go to church again.  “I don’t need them to become Christians.” In other words, he rejects everything Christianity is. He rejects Jesus, mercy, grace, Hell, judgment, the Trinity, and everything in between. When they talk about sodomy, climate control, etc. this is what they mean. Even the “pro-military” swipe, which I have some sympathy with, must be taken in context. Raushenbush does not mean what I mean when we talk about American foreign policy. The author establishes meaning, not the reader.

Third, men who teach these things are wolves. We do not like to say this. We waver. We shuffle our feet and look at the floor. We slink towards dialogue and compromise.  But make no mistake. Men who long to be cool and yet still be Christian are hirelings.  Men like Raushenbush, Tutu, Jim Wallis, Rob Bell, are butchers not shepherds. They hate the sheep, which Christ purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28) All around them sheep are bleeding and dying at their hands. One day they will be held accountable for the slaughter. The men who refuse to confront them will also be held accountable. (Ezekiel 34)

Napoleon Dynamite

Finally, guard your own heart. Raushenbush is a lost fool bound for an eternity in darkness if he doesn’t repent. It is easy to say, “That will never  be me.” But Saint Augustine understood the draw. He knew that his heart could easily be led astray by the desire to please men, the desire to be cool and powerful.  The world seduces us with her images of cool, young, sexy people. Our hearts tell us we can follow Jesus and be one of the in crowd. I can follow Jesus and not deny myself . I can follow Jesus and still love the world and the things of the world. I can follow Jesus and still be hip. I can follow Jesus and still be adored by the secular scientific community. I can follow Jesus and not be thought of as bigot or homophobe or hater of women. Brothers and sisters, it is not true.  Paul became like scum and refuse. (I Corinthians 4:13)  Jesus himself became a man of no reputation. He was despised, afflicted, and not esteemed. (Isaiah 53:3) Our father in the faith, Moses, left the glories of Egypt to suffer affliction with the people of God and live with the reproach of Christ. (Hebrews 11:26) Let us guard our hearts for the lure to be counted among the cool does not just sit in Mr. Raushenbush’s heart. It sits in ours.<>проверить популярность а

Read more

On July 31, 2013 By In Culture

My Mower, My Nemesis: A Tragic Poem for Guys

Every hero has his nemesis, a villain still unbeaten

As Batman has his Joker, (both Christian Bale and Michael Keaton.)

Superman, Lex Luthor; Spiderman, the Goblin Green

I even have a nemesis, mine’s a Craftsman lawn machine.

 

It was given to me free of charge, by a friend I had befriended

All the belts and pulleys broken, needing only to be mended.

But with it came a caveat; a warning from my friend

Lest blessing turn into a curse and friendship quickly end.

 

He said he’d fixed this hunk-a-junk, time and time again

And he wondered if his gift to me might be some kind of sin.

I assured him that was not the case, for I knew how to mechanic

His gift, it was a blessing, not even mildly satanic.

 

I told him I would show this old lawnmower who was boss

But he knew full well his loss was gain, and that my gain was loss.

So with a prayer and blessing, he watched me drive away

“God grant you peace through trying times”–last thing I heard him say.

 

I got it home and jumped right in–pulled pulleys, belts, and springs

I ordered new ones on the web and I fixed everything.

I cranked her up and mowed the grass for most of that first summer

But when the drive belt snapped in two, it all became a bummer.

 

Long story short—it’s been the case for most of these three seasons

One thing fixed, another breaks, and I’ll never know the reasons.

And then one time the deck broke off—had to weld it back together

Wished grass would cease to grow so fast, I prayed for drier weather.

 

Wish I could say, “It works right now,” but right now it is broken

“God grant you peace through trying times”—no truer words were spoken.

So if you have the income of a famous movie actor,

I’ve got a pit to throw it in– my Craftsman garden tractor.

 

And when this mower finally dies, I won’t lose a moment’s sleep

Perhaps I’ll buy a zero-turn, or perhaps I’ll buy some sheep.

They’ll safely graze; they’ll eat my grass until they’ve had their fill

And if they become my nemesis, I can throw them on the grill.

rack of lamb

Read more

On July 29, 2013 By In Culture, Politics, Pro-Life

It Is Time For Christians To Recognize The Evil Empire

mordor is DCI’ve written some posts opposing US military intervention. This post has almost nothing to do with that topic.

The Eastern European Pro-Life Virus

Here is a story from Macedonia that was published earlier this month:

“A ‘virus’ of restrictive abortion legislation is spreading from Eastern Europe, health experts and rights campaigners have said, amid Church pressure and misguided government attempts to stop falling birth rates. Just weeks ago a new law was introduced in Macedonia tightening up relatively liberal abortion legislation which had been followed for more than 40 years. And last month, Lithuanian lawmakers gave initial approval to some of strictest abortion legislation in the world. Tighter abortion laws are also being considered in Russia and the Ukraine while the Georgian parliament is expected to debate abortion laws after the country’s Orthodox Church made calls in May for it to be banned. Critics say that some governments appear to be moving towards introducing total bans on the procedure. Bojan Jovanovski, executive director of the Health Education and Research Association (HERA) in Macedonia, told IPS: ‘What has happened here is not unique and is happening in a lot of countries, spreading like a virus from Eastern Europe westwards… What this law here will do in the short term is it will make it harder for women to get an abortion, because of the bureaucracy and hurdles they will face. This will possibly lead to them undergoing illegal abortions and the problems that brings with it. But its wider meaning is that it is a step towards more restrictive measures and, ultimately, a ban on abortions.’ In recent years Eastern Europe has witnessed a push, in many cases driven by socially dominant Churches, to reinforce or tighten abortion legislation and deter access to them.”

This is amazing news. If Russia was to truly stop most abortions in that country, it would have immense demographic consequences—arguably extremely positive consequences—for that country. As one via the United Nations as our proxy:

“Amid a surge of anti-gay violence and repression in several countries, the United Nations’ human rights office on Friday launched its first global outreach campaign to promote tolerance and greater equality for lesbians, gays, transgender people and bisexuals. Called Free & Equal, it’s an unprecedented effort by the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights to change public attitudes around the world on issues that have bitterly divided the U.N.’s own member states. The multi-pronged campaign — announced at a news conference in Cape Town, South Africa — will include videos and public-service announcements distributed through social media, a new website, a series of fact sheets, and engagement by celebrities well-known in different regions of the world. ‘Changing attitudes is never easy… It begins with often difficult conversations,” said Navi Pillay, the high commissioner for human rights. “And that is what we want to do with this campaign. Free & Equal will inspire millions of conversations among people around the world and across the ideological spectrum.’… According to the human rights office, at least 76 countries still criminalize consensual, same-sex relationships, and discrimination against LGBT people is widespread in many other nations. Less than half of the U.N.’s 193 member states have gone on record in support of gay rights and in opposition to laws criminalizing homosexuality. In March 2011, for example, only 85 states signed a joint statement at the Human Rights Council expressing their concern at violence and human rights violations against LGBT people. Radcliffe said funding for Free & Equal is being provided by outside contributors, and is not reliant on U.N. funds, thus skirting any possible opposition from U.N. members who oppose gay-rights activism.”

So, at the same time the so-called US Department of Justice has used its resources to force a California school district to “accommodate” a girl who calls herself a boy—by, among other things, allowing her to use the boy’s restroom—the American elite (perhaps with some Western European help—is financing a propaganda war on what remnants of Biblical sexual ethics exist around the world.

The Russian Resistance

And as far as the US establishment is concerned, Russia is the big “bad guy.”

“Putin has embraced the Russian Orthodox Church, and his government has introduced various social programs to promote young couples having more children. Putin has also pushed through another law banning gay foreign couples from adopting Russian children. All U.S. adoptions of Russian children have since been banned. In response, the U.S. state department issued a travel warning for homosexuals in Russia. ‘Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is widespread in Russia, as harassment, threats, and acts of violence have been targeted at LGBT individuals. Government officials have been known to make derogatory comments about LGBT persons,’ the warning said.”

Americans and others are pushing back however they can. Boycotting vodka (I’d be amazed if local Russian consumers cannot make up for the slack) and threatening to boycott the winter Olympics. Ad Age reported,

“Led by President Vladimir Putin, Russia has taken a host of actions of late, including passing one measure that bans ‘propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations.’ The controversy could cause headaches for U.S. corporations linked to the 2014 Winter Olympics that will be hosted in Sochi, Russia. In a column in the New York Times this week, actor and playwright Harvey Fierstein called on the U.S. Olympic Committee to demand retraction of Russia’s laws ‘under the threat of boycott.’”

Who Is The Evil Empire Now?

There are lots of reasons to doubt Putin’s character. It is easy for me to wish death upon him just for the Smolensk Crash, apart from all his other alleged sins or crimes. But it is naive to think that a good person could gain the reins of power in almost any current government, not least that of the United States of America.

As a public figure, Putin is leading Christian resistance to the United State’s ruling class’ hard push for sexual perversity–for a pagan planet. If he improves Russia’s horrible abortion ethic, and does so as part of a general Eastern European revival of a pro-life practice, then speculations about his personal character are beside the point. Russia becomes a new Constantinople working to hold back the hordes of infidels howling to conquer them.

There may be good reason to expect Christendom to revive south of the equator. Perhaps Russia’s prominence will be temporary. But even so, I think that temporary protection would be important and helpful.

American Evangelicals need to pray for it. With Christianity spreading in China, the whole world may change in ways we can’t easily envision. Think of China and Russia giving aid and support to Kenya in resisting Obama’s culture war.

So stop calling Russia Red. Practice a new phrase: Holy Russia.

And whether or not that happens, be sure of one thing. The United States is the Evil Empire. We Christians are the enslaved masses that Sam and Frodo saw as they approached the Dark Tower. Our taxes (which, lest anyone misunderstand me, God says we should pay) are supporting the Eye.

We live in Mordor.<>cms 1с битрикс

Read more

On July 25, 2013 By In Culture

Are You Planning on Yelling at Your Children Today?

Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.  Galatians 6:1

In his sermon series entitled, Loving Little Ones, Douglas Wilson makes application of this passage from the larger church body to the specific microcosm of the Christian home. In our homes we have leaders and followers, teachers and learners, older, wiser ones and younger, foolish ones; everyone in both categories being brothers and sisters in Christ. Pastor Wilson pointed out that in our homes we tend to leave the “ye who are spiritual” part out of the verse. We assume that folks “at church” need to remember this verse whenever they may be admonishing, exhorting, rebuking, or correcting us, but when we get home, this verse does not apply when we are correcting our children. In the church, folks need to remember the “spirit of gentleness” part; especially when they are correcting us.  If they don’t, we get to turn things back around, make an accusation at them, and then completely ignore whatever they were trying to say to us. At home, we pretend like we are the “ye who are spiritual” ones by default, therefore “spiritualness” gets defined by however we are doing things at the moment.

Brothers, these things ought not be so. If we are at home and an offense is committed by one of our wee ones, and then we fly off the handle, then at that moment, there are zero spiritual people in that room. There is no one in that room fit to restore anyone that has been caught in a transgression, because both people in that room are in the middle of a transgression. We need to be restored before we are biblically fit to do any restoring.

In Toby Sumpter’s ruminations about the Newtown shootings last year, he made a point that I won’t soon forget. He said,

We snapped at (our children) in anger, in frustration. They were whining in the backseat of the car, they were embarrassing us in front of our friends. And so we pulled a 9mm semi-automatic and shot them with words and looks and our tone of voice.

Our unbridled wrath is the same as murder. It kills our neighbor, and it does not restore our children. It does not “teach them a lesson” in the way that we may be hoping. It teaches them lies about God. We call Him “father,” and rightly so, but when was the last time He snapped at you?  When was the last time He got that serious look on his face, wagged His finger, and scolded you until you learned your lesson? He is long-suffering toward usward, not willing that any should perish, but all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

The God of heaven and earth is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Do we get to set that list aside until we’ve raised our children? If we do then we’ll be raising them into the same moral relativism that we ourselves are practicing. Not to mention that we’ll look just as stupid as the parent in Wal-Mart, leaning down into the face of their child, chewing them out publicly, because they won’t biblically discipline them privately. We don’t get a pass on looking stupid just because we’re Christians.

In Galatians 5, the chapter preceding Galatians 6 if you haven’t been counting, Paul gives us some very practical lists,

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

We have probably abstained from orgies and sorcery our entire lives, and drunkenness for most of our lives, but what about fits of anger? When the lamp gets knocked off the table and shatters, or the rebellious little pill says, “no”, or the teenager asks, “why” again today, we must remember that parents who habitually practice “fits of anger” will not inherit the Kingdom of God. And remember, on the contrary, that “those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”

Christ not only says, “Mine,” over every square inch of creation geographically. He also says, “Mine,” over every word that we speak to our children today and over every disciplinary action that must take place. So, unless the house is on fire, don’t yell at your children today. Or tomorrow. Or ever.

Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.  Galatians 6:1<>game_free play java game free анализ а проверка тиц

Read more

On July 23, 2013 By In Culture

The Twitter Pope

popebanner1“The pope is not the head of the Church, but he is that Antichrist.” It is with that flowery language that the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith describes the highest office of the Roman Church. a As a Protestant who cares deeply about preserving some level of catholicity with my Roman Catholic brothers, I take exception to that clause as does the congregation in which I serve. There are theological reasons to believe the early Reformers were a bit too quick on their assumption, however, it is no small thing to consider that were we in their circumstances that proposition would not look as foreign to 21st century Reformed Protestants.

If the papal office were the Antichrist it is safe to assume that the world is still not under his spell. If Twitter is any indication, the pope has a long way before reaching Bieber-esque popularity. b

Indulgences from Twitter

The Guardian summarizes:

In its latest attempt to keep up with the times, the Vatican has married one of its oldest traditions to the world of social media by offering “indulgences” to followers of Pope Francis‘ tweets.

The indulgences are granted to those who cannot attend the Catholic World Youth Day, in Rio de Janeiro, a week-long event starting on the 22nd of  July. But it’s not as easy as you think:

A senior Vatican official warned web-surfing Catholics that indulgences still required a dose of old-fashioned faith, and that paradise was not just a few mouse clicks away. c

It’s not simply about following the pope’s Twitter account, it’s about praying and accompanying the week-long youth event in Rio. So there are a few qualifications that would keep us from overly trivializing the actions from the Vatican.

New Times, New Methods

This social awareness of the Roman church is a result of a global decline in membership. Pope Benedict XVI stepped down in a time of tremendous turmoil as the well-publicized sex-abuse scandal resulted in an increasing distrust of Roman Catholic leadership. Overall, Roman Catholic churches in America have lost 5 percent of their membership during the last decade, and the decline would have been much steeper still if not for the offsetting impact of Roman Catholic immigrants from Latin America. d These drastic measures taken by the Roman church are a sign that new times require new methods, and that entails seeking new followers.

Pope Francis may prove to be the right man for the right time. He has re-energized the Roman Catholic faith in a short period of time more so than did Benedict in his entire papacy. Francis, who has been referred to as an “unconventional pope,” has shown himself to be savvy politician. He shakes hands and kisses babies with tremendous ease. Gone is the day of the inaccessible Holy Father. Francis cracks jokes and delivers unscripted remarks, much to the occasional dismay of staffers scrambling to keep up. e He knows that his church is overwhelmed with bad PR and he appears to have a clear, albeit unconventional plan to rescue her from  herself. His success is likely to turn the negative perception of the papacy.

“Like a spiritual rock star, he routinely packs St. Peter’s Square for his weekly appearance to bless the faithful. Hundreds of thousands of devotees, perhaps millions, are expected to turn out to see Francis, the first Latin American pontiff, during his trip to Brazil, the world’s most populous Roman Catholic nation.” f This is the new face of Roman Catholicism in the world. The pope may be far from dominating the Twittersphere, but for the catholic youth indulging in the pope’s latest tweet may be the quickest way to improving the church’s reputation.<>продвижение ов яндекс и google

  1. WCF, XXV.6  (back)
  2. Justin Bieber has the largest twitter following in the world with over 42 million  (back)
  3. Ibid.  (back)
  4. Pope Bedict and the Decline of American Catholicism  (back)
  5. Pope Francis the Unconventional  (back)
  6. Ibid.  (back)

Read more