I wonder, if we viewed “happiness” as the ancients did, would the “problem” of evil and suffering be such a problem? In fact, I think I agree with Peter Kreeft when he says — or perhaps repeats — that suffering isn’t a problem, it’s a mystery (Making Sense of Suffering). It is a mystery because we encroach on our own data–we commit evil even while studying it. By studying evil, we are in some ways studying ourselves. And yet in seeing evil so clearly in the world, we refuse to see it in ourselves. We are “black and white”; more “good” than “evil,” and so that makes us good. Or we are more “evil” than “good,” and that makes us a victim. We blame God for the evil men do, and we exalt men for their criticisms of God (“Not I,” says the Christian). We haven’t learned Job’s lesson. We ask God “why” and demand an answer, when we’ve already been told “no”. I suspect we couldn’t comprehend the answer, for it seems to involve the words “because I love you, I let you suffer”. It’s a mystery. And happiness, what if we stopped viewing it as a feeling, a sense of “I feel good”. What if happiness meant “goodness,” and to say one was happy is to say one is living or has lived a good, noble and virtuous life. Perhaps we would conclude that not all suffering is evil, or bad, and may be necessary for living this good, noble and virtuous life. Perhaps suffering is a fire that refines character, or which shows mans need of God. I’m inclined to ask, did the ancients see clearer than us? With their little knowledge — or so we seem to think — but much wisdom? We have equated knowledge and wisdom, sufficed one (knowledge) for the other (wisdom). And yet in doing so we’ve undone ourselves. We are a civilization with no answers (or attempts at answers) to the great questions. We are, for the most part, apathetic. We’re rich, and it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 19:24). Well, we’re rich, we complain we aren’t, but who cares.
Post Series: The Bible and Homosexuality
Part 1: Genesis 19:1–11
Part 2: Leviticus 18:22
Part 3: Leviticus 20:13
Part 4: Romans 1:26–27
Part 5: 1 Corinthians 6:9–10
Part 6: 1 Timothy 1:9–10
Part 7: Jude 1:7Conclusion
It is claimed that : “Nowhere in scripture is homosexuality listed as the sin which condemned Sodom”
Genesis 19 1:11
1Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.
2And he said, “Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant’s house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way.” They said however, “No, but we shall spend the night in the square.“
3Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.
4Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;
5and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.“
6But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him,
7and said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.
8“Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.“
9But they said, “Stand aside.” Furthermore, they said, “This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them.” So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door.
10But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door.
11They struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway.
This “exposition” will probably contain what many would consider to be superfluous bits of information. I don’t do this as an attempt to show off how much I know–I don’t really know all that much. I do it, rather, as a means of showing that there are a number of ways to look at a text and arrive at similar conclusions, even if the methods of the argument differ. Very simply, I find this information fascinating and that’s why I’m sharing it. Now with that said, I’ll also provide an outline at the beginning as a means of quickly summarizing the form this post will eventually take. You will have to excuse this outline, I’m not all that great at organizing them. I’m sure you’ll still find it useful, though. Oh, and one other thing, you may have also noticed that the sidebar is missing when you click this post. That’s not a mistake. I sacrificed the sidebar so as to keep this from being a post you scroll more than read.
read more…
Pages: 179
Publisher: Crossway
Year: 2007
Editors: John Piper & Justin Taylor
Authors: David Wells, Voddie Baucham Jr., John Piper, D.A. Carson, Tim Keller, Mark Driscoll
——————————————————————-
I’m really not sure what to think of this book. I think it’s because I was expecting something other than what I found; something with a bit more postmodernism in it. What I was expecting when I bought this book was a collection of essays that all dealt, specifically, with some facet of postmodernism, I suppose as a presentation and refutation of sorts. That’s not exactly what this book is at all, as I understand it, though I’m not sure if that’s my own fault, having read a number of books on the subject prior to reading this. That said, this book is good for what it is, though it’s perhaps more apparent in this book, than in others of similar format, that the essays are of varying quality compared to each other.
Some very recognizable names have submitted essays for this collection–John Piper, D.A. Carson, Mark Driscoll, et al. According to the introduction:
“The chapters in this volume [grew] out of a conference convened in Minneapolis in the fall of 2006 to explore the supremacy of Christ in a postmodern world… Whether addressing culture, truth, joy, love, the gospel, or the church, each seeks to sharpen our thinking and motivate our ministry by considering how each of these intersects with the truth of Christ in our contemporary world”
The authors present essays which deal with a wide variety of topics: joy, love, truth, the gospel. And for the most part, they all succeed at their tasks. Some essays seem really short, and I think it’s because the author has tried to cover too much information in so little space. Mark Driscoll’s essay is an example of this, though the advice he offers is invaluable. Other essays seem more like sermons, such as John Piper’s. The remainder of the essays are, all in all, good and profitable. At the end of the book there is a round table discussion between the authors, and here postmodernism is given more of a treatment, but again, nothing as in depth as I would have liked, or was expecting.
All of that said, this is a book which is intended for Christians, and can be used to broaden our knowledge of how society is changing and where it’s going, how people think (their worldview) and how to best evangelize those around us. If you’re looking at this book because of your interest in postmodernism, don’t expect to find much of a discussion outside of some very general interactions with postmodern, such as the denial of absolute truth, our entrapment by language and the unknowableness of reality. However, if you’re looking at this book because you want to learn how to engage with an ever changing society, and don’t really care for an in-depth discussion of postmodernism, this is a good choice and worth the hour or two of reading time.
An interesting interview I first heard of on Justin Taylor’s blog. This interview is described as, “RC Sproul sits down with Stephen Meyer, author of the book, “Signature in the Cell”, and they discuss philosophy, evolution, education, Intelligent Design, and more.” Enjoy.
Seriously, it’s really good. Listen. Now!
Sin, a lot of us really don’t take it seriously, and when we do, we have very little idea with what to do about it, especially when it concerns the sin of another (you’ll quickly hear, “who am I to judge!”). What started out as a post on resolving conflicts has turned into a post on dealing with the presence of sin in the church, in the life of a believer. Scripture is clear, and as such, I think very offensive to quite a few. This is just something of a brief look how to deal with sin, and we’ll do so by focusing on Matthew 18:15–19.
How to deal with sin: Matthew 18:15–19
15“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.“
16“But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.“
17“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.“
18“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.“
19“Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.”
I don’t think there’s anything here that requires a massive amount of explanation, but a few points of interest.
15 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.”
An interesting thing to notice is the beginning of v.15, “If your brother sins…” You’ll notice that it doesn’t say “if your brother sins against you,” but simply, “if your brother sins”. As Philip Schaff says of this, “Our Lord warns us not to neglect one another’s sins, not by searching out what to find fault with, but by looking out for what to amend”. This is not something to be pointed out in anger, but with gentleness, as we’re commanded in 1 Timothy 5:1–2, “Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.” In other words, we are to show the love of Christ even in correction and reproach, and it is unacceptable to do otherwise (further guidelines can be found in Leviticus 19:16–18).
Sin is not a private matter — though in approaching another about sin, it is initially a private meeting — it is a community matter. The idea that one has “private sins” is a construct of our individualistic, Western society. This is plainly untrue. As we are all the body of Christ, if there is sin in some member of us, we are all affected (infected?). And, as the text continues, if our brother listens, we have “won [a]’ brother” in two ways: we have restored that brothers relationship with us (and the church body), and with God.
16“But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.”
If for some reason, however, our brother does not listen to us, we are commanded (you’ll notice that we aren’t asked) to bring “one or two more” to hear a recounting of the story. This is, more or less, simply a step to establish a reporting of the facts, though resolution is to be desired. This is necessary because of v. 17:
17“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”
So now not only has our brother refused to listen to private counsel, he has refused to listen to others — presumably objective observers — to look into the situation. And, as a result, the offense (sin) must be dealt with in public (church here means “assembly”). It should be noted, however, that this “public hearing” is done by those who are spiritually mature, not just “anybody” (as per Galatians 6:1, “Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted.”).If our brother still doesn’t listen? Then we are to consider him as a “Gentile and a tax collector,” in other words, we’re not to associate with them any longer. Further, we’re too continue to love them and call them to reconciliation with God.
This teaching is difficult for many, for it ends with expulsion from the church. But, as Scripture says, if you sin, deal with it. If you don’t, deal with it. If you still refuse to, you must deal with it or be ejected from the community of believers.
Ouch.
Hopefully (some time) today… or tomorrow… I’ll be doing some maintenance, so hopefully little to no downtime is experienced. Just a heads up.
Edit** Maintenance finished 
I spend a considerable amount of time on message boards, one Christian message board in particular. And, as a result, I’ve really begun to consider how grace manifests itself — and is demonstrated in — the life of a believer, by which I mean actions. The reason, you see, is because there is an awful lot of arguing (many times over nothing), to the extent that I wouldn’t know that the people I am with refer to themselves as Christians (the “relationship” kind, not the “religious kind”), had this particular board not be overtly Christian. As a result, I want to briefly consider how grace manifests itself in the life of a believer, and I believe it manifests itself in a number of very obvious, and some not so obvious, ways.
Grace is demonstrated in a change of attitude and action
In Galatians 5 Paul compares the deeds of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit (an interesting comparison, deeds with fruit, but anyway). So what exactly are the deeds of the flesh, and the fruit of the Spirit? In v.19–21 Paul tells us that the deeds of the flesh are, “immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these”. I think if we’re entirely honest with ourselves, this list pegs a few of our “problems”. And if it does, then by the grace of God I pray you’re removing these things from your life. But what of the fruits of the spirit? In v. 20 and 21 Paul tells us the fruit of the Spirit is, “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control”. If we are in Christ, then we have crucified the desires of the flesh (v. 24) and should be replacing those things with the fruit of the Spirit in our lives.
Specifically, Grace is demonstrated in how we act towards others
One of the hardest commandments in the bible is the second greatest commandment, “love your neighbour as yourself”. Equally hard is the commandment found in Ephesians 4:32, “be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.” If we are operating under the flesh, this is impossible (don’t believe me? Read again the deeds of the flesh). Thus, if we’re to be kind to one another, render-hearted and forgiving just as God as forgiven us (which is where this command becomes impossible), we must be operating under the fruit of the Spirit. Remember 1 Peter 3:15? I had it quoted to me a few days ago, “always be ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you”. Notice what it’s missing? First, it’s missing the beginning, “but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts”. Second, it’s missing its conclusion, “yet with gentleness and reverence”. You see, it’s easy to give an answer. It’s hard to give that answer with gentleness and reverence, with Christ sanctified as Lord in our hearts.
And, for my forum friends, grace is knowing when to stop, “But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless” (Titus 3:9).
Grace is a transformation and renewing of our minds
Romans 12:2 says, “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.” As it says elsewhere, in Christ we are new creations. No longer of the world, but of the Spirit. To be of the Spirit also means that Christ has and is transforming our minds. The result? We don’t act like the world, we operate according to the fruits of the Spirit.
Summary
In short, grace is demonstrated in the life of a believer through a change of attitude, from jealousy, strife and anger to love, joy and peace. As a result, grace manifests through our actions towards others. We’re to be kind to one another, tender-hearted and ready to forgive. We also know when enough is enough and do not engage in foolish and unprofitable arguments. Lastly, this is all possible only through a transformation of our minds and lives by Christ. When we operate in grace, we display the glory of God.
Or for that matter, do bad people go to heaven? In both cases I believe the answer is a clear no. And I think the reason this question comes up often, and is equally as misunderstood, is because we tend to think that actions define character — which to an extent is true — but that this is it. I’m sure this belief arises from the popular notion that people are inherently neither ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ but through the choices we make lean to one side or the other. Of course, the caveat would be added that no person is completely good or completely bad. People are something of a “gray area,” where as long as one set of actions outweighs the others, we are identified as ‘good’ or ‘bad’.
That’s the problem.
I once heard an illustration comparing Billy Graham and Hitler, it goes something like this. If God’s standard for being considered righteous and “making it” to heaven is a 20 on a checklist (and only a 20) of items, our most righteous person — in this instance, Billy Graham — would score, at most, a 19, whereas our most unrighteous person in this instance, Hitler — would score a 1. Now whether you’ve scored a 1, a 7, a 14 or a 19 is secondary to this fact: you haven’t scored a 20. You may be more or less righteous in comparison to another person, but when compared to God’s standard, you’re still unrighteous. That’s the point Isaiah is making when he compares our good works to “filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6), or to make his point the way he would–used menstrual rags.
Because when it comes to being good or bad it is not only our actions that define us, our essence has its part to play. We are “basically” sinners (ever wonder why its so easy to see the bad in others, but not in ourselves?). It’s this sin, independent of any of our actions, which separates us from God and makes it impossible to be righteous on our own. Consider, good people don’t do bad things, and bad people don’t do good things. The only way we can be righteous is by following Jesus.
So do good people go to hell? No, bad unrighteous people who perform good actions go to Hell. And bad people don’t go to heaven, those who follow Jesus do, even if on occasion they perform bad actions.
In other words, we are defined by our essence, not our function.
The following is a modified version of a previously written essay.
Ivan begins by quoting the second greatest commandment: “love your neighbor as yourself“1. He admits to Alyosha (his brother) that, “I never could understand how it’s possible to love one’s neighbors,“2 though he can understand the admiration of one’s neighbour. Ivan creates a distinction here between admiration of one’s neighbour, and truly loving one’s neighbour as oneself. It is possible, says Ivan, to “love one’s neighbour abstractly, and even occasionally from a distance, but hardly ever close up“3. I suspect the simple reason for this is because, as Ivan says, “he is another and not me“4. As I understand Ivan, he is saying that people do not love that which they do not identify with. Further, they do not love that which they find undesirable, and they do not love that which they find offensive. They may profess love, perhaps out of a feeling of religious obligation, or guilt. But, suspects Ivan, it is more likely admiration. By admiration Ivan most probably means a sense of wonderment. We see the suffering of another (from afar) and create a fiction regarding the circumstances of their suffering. We imagine their suffering to be akin to how we would suffer. Their circumstances to be akin to the circumstances we would suffer in. Their responses would be our responses. Through admiration we turn the suffering of another into our own monstrous day dream. We make their reality a fiction of our imagination, and, in response, profess to love them, when in fact the opposite is true. We are probably the furthest away from loving them as we could possibly be. Not only because we’re making a day dream out of their circumstances, but because of the very fact of how we profess to love them–from afar.
It is easy to admire a man from a distance because therein it’s possible to project ourselves onto and in place of him. Perhaps, to go another step further, we pity and set ourselves above he who is suffering. For not only do we imagine his circumstances and his reactions, we imagine that this is how he ought to react, to react any other way is not good enough. We judge him to be suffering in a poor way, to where we might get away with denying he is suffering at all. Admiration may turn to conceit, “oh, he’s not really suffering. I’ve suffered through worse!” whereas love would turn to nothing but greater love. In reality, we are only loving a projection of ourselves, or perhaps we are loving a fiction, where at the center we find ourselves, though not suffering.
Try to love a man up close, says Ivan, and we’ll discover that “as soon as he shows his face–love vanishes“5. Up close we face the humanity of another, all they possess and all that we find undesirable about them. We find that their features are repulsive, their mannerisms annoying, their conduct, appalling. We discover that their suffering is not as we think it should be. We happen upon the circumstances of their suffering, alien to our own and beyond our willingness to identify. We judge their reactions as, again, insufficient. We realization that our admiration of their suffering was little more than a fictitious day-dream, an intellectualization and belittlement of another. Paradoxically, we despise them for this, “Well, had he been suffering ‘this way’ or ‘that way,’ I might have understood!” Love vanishes because of our inability or unwillingness to identify with him. We are called to love him in spite of himself, and in spite of ourselves. But we cannot identify with him, so that his suffering is beyond the love we might give him.
Is Christ’s love for people truly a miracle, now impossible, on earth?
There’s been a lot of renewed discussion (read: debate) over what the Bible says concerning homosexuality, especially where the “clobber verses” (listed below) are concerned. As it’s beginning to come up time and time again, I figured I would examine the clobber verses, both views for and against, and see if we, or I, can conclude where exactly the bible stands in regard to this issue (however obvious it may be for some on both sides). I’ll probably get one post in this series written every week, but we’ll see for sure what happens.
So then, this just serves as the (very) brief introduction.
Post Series: The Bible and Homosexuality
Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: Genesis 19:1–11
Part 3: Leviticus 18:22
Part 4: Leviticus 20:13
Part 5: Romans 1:26–27
Part 6: 1 Corinthians 6:9–10
Part 7: 1 Timothy 1:9–10
Part 8: Jude 1:7Conclusion
**Disclaimer: I want to make clear that the express purpose of this series is the examination and explanation of a religious text (in this case, the Christian bible). The promotion of hate towards any group (identifiable or otherwise) is a gross abuse of this material and is against the intentions and purposes of its author.