blog is out of order

I am going to put the blog on hold for a while. I have some issues to address in my life that are a higher priority right now.

emergent delusion

I just read what seems to me like a good analysis of McLaren's A Generous Orthodoxy, characterizing it as "a religion of perpetual doubt" and tying it in with Francis Schaeffer's teaching on what he termed "the line of despair." I haven't read A Generous Orthodoxy, but I am certainly on the same page as the author of this critique in regard to the nature of truth and such, so my guess is my take would be similar to his.

Emergent Delusion - A Critique of Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy
PDF version

God gave government for one reason: justice

I got a thank you letter from Stand to Reason today, a ministry I support monthly. The letter partly ties in with the principles I was discussing in my Steve Camp posts:

If the recent cultural clash over the fate of Terri Schiavo teaches us anything, it's that there is a difference between law and power on the one hand, and morality on the other. God gave government for one reason: justice, "for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right" (1 Peter 2:13-14). From God's perspective, then, law stand upon the necessary foundation of morality. The power entrusted to governments through law should be wielded to secure justice, not individual self-interest. This runs counter to the popular canard that morality can never be legislated. Morality is the only thing that can be legislated. Law not based on morality is despotism and tyranny.

What happens, then, when laws meant to secure justice are no longer moored to a moral foundation? What happens when morality turns out to be nothing in particular? What happens to law when morals dissolve into relativism? Not only is relativism a challenge to culture, it's a challenge to Christianity.

Please read May's Solid Ground carefully. It will give you the tools necessary to understand the moral underpinnings of law so that you can make sense both of justice and the cross of Jesus Christ.

punting to mystery

I thought this was great the other day. It's from Primitive thoughts of a Christian philosopher (or at least a modest philosopher -- I think he's very good).

Punting to mystery

I'm bothered by how often Christians punt to "mystery" when they can't resolve a contradiction in their own worldview. They do it so often, it's tempting to think "mystery" is just a synonym for "contradiction."

If there is a contradiction in our own worldview, then let's just be honest and say our worldview is false. If we have good reason to think that some apparent contradiction has a resolution that we just don't know about, then we should say what that reason is. Only then are we justified in calling it a mystery.

If we punt to "mystery" every time somebody brings up a contradiction we can't solve, then we are in no position to criticize other worldviews just because they contain contradictions. If punting to mystery is a legitimate way for us to avoid solving a difficulty in our own worldview, then what are we going to say to others who punt to mystery when they can't answer our arguments against their worldview? Let's be consistent and hold our own worldview to the same standards of logic we hold other worldviews to.

His follow up entry, The mystery of the incarnation is also worth reading.

I read a good book by R.C. Sproul a while back called Not a Chance. He had a good section in it on the difference between mysteries and contradictions. I don't recall the details, but I'll look it up and write on it at another time. (I did. See here.)

The fill-in pastor at the church I attend is a retired pastor, and he's great. But he does make this error of telling people that things are "a mystery" and "a contradiction," and that some things in the faith "aren't logical," but we still know they're true "by faith." It's just terrible, because some people listening (besides me) are going to recognize the fallacy of that, and think that, to be a Christian, you have to put reason (proper thinking) aside.

God weighs in on the topic of justice

In the book of Isaiah, God says, "Let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows Me."

This idea isn't one that would strike most Christians as unusual. But it might surprise them what God wants them to understand about Himself:

But let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight," declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 9:24)

The part about kindness and righteousness rings familiar. But isn't it interesting that sandwiched in between them is the idea that God exercises justice? And it's justice, not specifically in His heavenly kingdom, but here on earth. God says He delights in this.

These days in America's churches, God's justice doesn't come up a lot in conversation. It doesn't come up a lot in teaching. In fact, I bet if a poll were taken, justice wouldn't make it in the top 40 of popular Christian topics. Yet, in this passage at least, God placed it in His top three. (When was the last time you saw a Christian book on the topic?)

I once visited a Reformed church where the pastor was doing a sermon series on God's attributes. I asked him if he was going to cover justice, and he gave me a puzzled look. "I don't think so. . . Boy, that would be a tough one."

About the only time I hear the topic of justice come up in Christian circles is when the Gospel is presented and it's explained why Christ had to die for us. And it's almost like "just-ness" is God's single negative, preventing Him from accepting us just as we are.

If our understanding of justice stopped there, it wouldn't surprise me if even Christians had a discomfort with this attribute which God says He loves, delights in, and thinks we should boast in the knowledge of.

Let's consider some strong words from Jesus in Matthew 23:

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, `If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?"

"How will you escape being condemned to hell?" Not the kind of rhetorical question one wants to hear coming from the mouth of God's Son! It goes without saying that we would do well to avoid what the Pharisees were guilty of.

But what often goes unnoticed is that, it's not just sins of commission that Jesus was angry about. There are also sins of omission, or neglect. Jesus calls these sins "the more important matters of the law." What may be surprising to some, (and most certainly missed by most), is that the first of these is justice.


I sometimes wonder if for many Christians, the idea of sin is the breaking of a law, or a rule -- that a person becomes guilty of breaking the rule, needs forgiveness, and that's the extent of sin's significance.

For me, it might not have been until I really gained an accurate assessment of what abortion is that I began to understand that a culture where injustice runs amok not only represents broken rules, personal guilt, and the need for forgiveness, but also carcasses of children in trash dumpsters. The victims are tangible. And suddenly justice doesn't seem so out of place in between kindness and righteousness.

When I hear some Christians belittle attempts by other Christians to facilitate the restoration of justice in our land, characterizing their attempts as "strong arming politicians to create legislation that moralizes our land" (link), I have to wonder if maybe they've never gotten past the idea of sin as merely broken rules. When you see the victims, I think you begin to understand God's passion for justice. And arguments like Steve Camp's begin to sound a lot like the men who objected to Jesus healing on the Sabbath. "And how shameful for them to hold a political rally with prostitutes and tax collectors! . . . I mean, Catholics."

I've assembled a page of Bible passages that relate in some way to the topic of justice and responding to injustice. I hope you'll take a few minutes to read them and contemplate the content and intensity of God's sensibilities on the topic. And consider what sort of response we should have to injustice.

"The LORD looked and was displeased that there was no justice. He saw that there was no one, He was appalled that there was no one to intervene." (Isaiah 59:15-16)

Q&A on Steve Camp discussion

These are answers to a comment on the last post. I'm happy to have the opportunity to clarify my points.

Q: If Isaiah is to the community of God to clean house in the community of God, then what application does that have for a secular government? It has tons for the Church within the Church, but where do you see God telling Israel to clean someone else's "house."

A: Since when is America someone else's house? That sounds a little bit like the excuse given in Proverbs 24:11-12:

Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, "But we knew nothing about this," does not He who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not He who guards your life know it? Will He not repay each person according to what he has done?

In other words, God is not fooled. If we knew about it but did nothing, God knows. I don't think He's going to want to hear, "Well, it was someone else's house."

This is not a crusade for sanctification via legislation. (Don't get sucked into media spin... or even Steve Camp's spin, where he talks of a so-called attempt to "moralize our land.") This is caring about the welfare of our communities and caring that justice is done. Translated: People are being abused by those in power. God cares about it, and we should, too.

As far as the issue of secular government verses Israel, here's a thought: The book of Isaiah, as well as the other OT prophets, tell us how God views injustice in a nation. I have no reason to believe God’s character has changed in that respect.

Do we suppose God will give America, or any other nation, a pass because they have disclaimed association with Him? Wasn't Nineveh in line for judgment? Snubbing their noses at God never got Israel off the hook. In reality, Israel was frequently not any more faithful to God than contemporary America.

Q: I'm not sure why you think consistency in the doctrine of sovereignty means we don't do anything?

A: I don't. But I do think consistency to Steve Camp's argument means we don't do anything.

I believe God is sovereign. But I don't claim to know His sovereign will -- none of us do. Steve Camp says the Supreme Court does what God wants, but for that matter, so does Dobson. Where does that get us? It doesn't tell us anything about whether the political activism in question is right or wrong.

Q: That sounds more like fatalism than Biblical sovereignty where we are commanded to obey and love God by doing (but we are not commanded to alter the history as God has decided it).

A: I agree. How is Steve Camp's argument not fatalism? If I understand him right, he basically says, vote, write letters, participate a little, and then pray. God will take care of the rest, and we can be happy with that.

Well, there is more you can do. Dobson and others do more. I do more. Would anyone dare make a parallel argument regarding Christian missions? "We have lots of missionaries. No need to do any more. Now it's up to God. His will will be sovereignly done anyway."

As for altering history as God has decided it, if God has decided it, then we can't alter it, can we? If we influence a change, then I guess God wanted a change to be made. The thing is, often times faithful people are the means God uses to work in this world. The fact that God is ultimately in charge is no justification for inactivity.

Q: These two work together, not against each other, but once again, this is in-house. I don't judge an unbelieving homosexual, but one who claimed to be a Christian I would, so that is the difference.

A: Yes, I agree with you. But the issue being discussed relates to civil judges. It's their job before God, and the public, to judge. They aren't supposed to let any kind of criminal off the hook, Christian or otherwise. So this particular discussion isn't "in house," in my mind.

Remember what Justice Sunday was about: getting judges that follow the law. That's not radical. That's not disrespectful of anybody. That's not a cause Christians need to be ashamed of. And that's not an exclusively Christian cause. (In fact, part of Steve Camp's concern is that it's not only Christians that are backing this.)

Q: Let me ask you this. How does the Biblical distinctions between the kingdom(s) of the world and the Kingdom of God fit into this?

A: I don't know that it does. If anything, it's a distinction between different realms of God's creative order.

The government is one of God's institution, like the church and the family. The Bible calls the ruling magistrates "ministers." Their realm of responsibility is civil and criminal law. They can be negligent in that responsibility as much as any of us can be negligent in any of our responsibilities. A father can be a blessing to his family, or he can be a curse. A pastor can faithfully relay what God has said, or he can deceive. Why should we think it doesn't please God for Christians to be wholeheartedly involved in all three of these institutions? (Let's see, what men of God were ministers in government service? David, Joseph, Daniel, Moses, Joshua, Solomon...)

In my post tomorrow, I will list a number of Bible passages that have led me to the conclusion that justice is really important in God's economy. A lot of it is from the Old Testament. But remember, the OT was "the Bible" of the early church. We can learn a lot from it.

my exchange with Steve Camp

I sent a comment to former CCM artist Steve Camp on his website, and he actually e-mailed me to ask me to explain myself. (Very cool!) (Also see the entry on this blog: My Rebuttal to Steve Camp.)

Mr. Camp and I have been going back and forth a little, and his latest response referred me to an essay he's written entitled, "God Directs the Heart of the King." I'd encourage you to read it, and then consider my response to him:

Steve,

In regard to your points, I see a number of problems with the reasoning in your "God Directs the Heart of the King" article:

Now I'm going to do what Francis Schaeffer called "taking the roof off." Applying your logic with consistency, there is no reason for us to vote or doing any of the other things you encourage us to do. For no matter what the election outcome, God will direct things.

In fact, since we also know from Scripture that God determines the times and places in which we shall all live, it also follows that there is no reason for us to try and save another person's life, including the guy mugged in the Good Samaritan parable -- for it is God who determines when we shall all die. And why feed the hungry? They will die when God wants them to. And why criticize the Pope, for "there is no authority except from God"? God gives leaders in the church certain authority. The Pope is corrupt [Camp and I are Protestants], sure, but he's got authority. And he's no more corrupt than emperor Nero. God could remove the Pope if he wanted to. It's not our place to intervene.

Let me offer a position I think is a little more Biblically balanced: Authority is delegated by God. There is a responsibility that comes with that. The one in authority is not authorized to go against the will of the one granting that authority -- in this case, God. He is obligated to be a faithful steward with the authority he has been given. (Think of the parable of the talents.)

Let's take an example: I am the head of my household. I have been granted certain authority over my wife and my children. That does not mean I am authorized to be evil in the execution of that and go against God's revealed will. The same is true of a pastor or a king.

God's will is not that authorities be wicked. For instance, it was not God's will that certain Jewish leaders command the early Christians to refrain from preaching the Gospel as is recorded in the book of Acts. (Would it be God's will that the Great Commission be both obeyed and disobeyed?) Because these leaders were violating God's will, the Christians were free to disobey them and "obey God rather than man."

Steve, I know you know this (Isaiah 1), because I've heard you sing it. But consider the parts in bold that you didn't sing:

"So when you spread out your hands in prayer,
I will hide My eyes from you;
Yes, even though you multiply prayers,
I will not listen
Your hands are covered with blood.
Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean;
Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight
Cease to do evil,
Learn to do good;
Seek justice,
Reprove the ruthless,
Defend the orphan,
Plead for the widow.
...
Your rulers are rebels
And companions of thieves;
Everyone loves a bribe
And chases after rewards
They do not defend the orphan,
Nor does the widow's plea come before them."

Does it sound to you like these judges and rulers were doing God's will? Does it sound to you like these people could, as you say, "rest in the truth that God is sovereign"? By no means! God was telling them, You have no excuse! Clean house, or I will clean it for you!

This is the mandate by which something like Justice Sunday occurs. Steve, these are commands from God. We are commanded to reprove the ruthless. How exactly does one do that in our particular society without becoming a political activist? And how does one do it without, as you predict, "alienating the very ones we long to reach with the gospel"?

It seems to me, Jesus did not particularly worry about alienating people. Nevertheless, "those that had ears" heard Him. That is a truth we can "rest in," as you say. Those who God has called will come. We don't have to worry that obedience to God's commands will prevent people from receiving the Gospel. The fruit of the kingdom is not fertilized with the blood of the innocent.

Like I said in my blog, the Great Commission is not our only commission. It looks to me like you are encouraging us to neglect one of the "weightier matters of the law," namely, justice.

In this country, we probably have more influence than the population of any nation in history, in that we have a government that derives its authority "from the consent of the governed." To whom much has been given, much is expected. It's not like we don't have a say. I see you as asking us to do something akin to burying our talents in the sand.

I applaud our Christian leaders for leading! You should, too.

Mike