Beauty in a Broken World

I have found, as a Christ-follower, that it is much easier to explain the corruption and decay and evil that abounds in our world than it is to explain just why, in such a sin-drenched world, there are things that bring joy. I know why there is darkness; but why is there light? I can explain the reality of death, and despair, but how do we account for the presence of beauty and the pleasure it brings?

My simple answer is found in contemplating that doctrine theologians refer to as common grace. Now, of course, nothing about God's benevolent attitude toward us is really "common." And that's not what the doctrine tries to indicate either. The grace of God in every way is uncommon, amazing, unmerited, and utterly worthy of praise and unfettered gratitude. However, in this sense of common grace we mean those gifts that fall from God's hands upon all mankind in common. These are distinguished from those salvific gifts that fall only upon those in whom the Spirit - through the Gospel - has worked faith and repentance. To these, the gifts of special, saving grace are granted unto eternal life!

But, it is also clear that some of God's gracious gifts fall on all mankind. They don't deserve them, but they get them, and in abundance! Ps. 104 reminds us that God causes the rain to fall, and crops to grow so that mankind can eat, make wine which makes the heart glad, and even produce the oil that smooths and shines the skin! In OT talk, this is great stuff! God is taking credit for the common things necessary for life not only to exist on earth, but also for that life to be filled with a measure of pleasure. Paul picks this up in Acts 14:14-17 where, trying to dissuade the pagans from worshiping him, he maintains that he is not God, and that it is God who has made everything that exists. He goes further to explain that, while in the ages past God allowed the nations to act as they pleased, sinning and rebelling willfully, God did not leave Himself without a "witness". This "witness" - Paul explains - was the fact that God did good by sending rain, and fruit, and provided mankind with food and happiness (check it out for yourself!). Do you get the point? God showered the pagan, unbelieving world with good gifts, including the things like food and drink, that brought them happiness.

I like to sum up these "gifts" of God that provide for our well-being and happiness as his gifts of "beauty." Beauty is defined as that which brings pleasure to the senses. So, when my sense of taste is pleasured, it is because of God's gift of "beautiful" food. So to with my ears that are pleasured by music, and my eyes by the beauty of sculpture, painting, and all other manner of beautiful "gifts" from the hand of God.

But why would God give these gifts? Simply because in a world filled with brokenness and despair, "beauty" in all of its forms calls to that vestige of imago dei in mankind, declaring to those surrounded by darkness, that light exists; to those living in the despair of sin's bondage, beauty shouts "there is a better way to live which offers joy and eternal beauty!"

Now some of you are saying that beauty also poses a risk. It can be so enticing that it becomes the master rather than the servant of God for His glory. And you are so right! The topic of beauty - the "good things God so richly supplies for our enjoyment (see: 1 Timothy 6:17) - has always raised controversy among Christ-followers. Some, in order to prevent any slide into intemperance, adopt the principle of avoidance, and champion abstinence from any and everything that might somehow appeal to the senses. Unfortunately, these otherwise good and holy people, place restrictions on the conscience that are much more than are to be found in the Word of God. And in so doing, they actually label many of God's gifts of beauty as sinful. On the other end of the spectrum are those who, in the name of freedom, encourage great indulgence in all manner of beauty, to the place where they become much more enamored with the gift than the Giver. It is obvious that standing up for beauty places us on a precipice from which both sides plunge down into ruin. But there is an answer.

Given that God has richly supplied us with all things to enjoy, we must enjoy them. But, given that overindulgence presents great risks, we must always temper our appreciation with moderation. The key is simply to remember, in the enjoyment, who the Supplier really is. If, in our enjoyment, we are first and foremost recognizing the hand of the Supplier - God! - we will temper our enjoyment with the gratitude and worship necessary to remain steadfastly moderate in all things. A good rule is that we must always endeavor to enjoy God's gifts of beauty a little less than we otherwise might if His Name were not attached to our lives.

Hope this helps,

David

Horse or Moose?

When my daughter Ellen was 4 or 5, we went to one of those wild animal parks where the animals are free to roam, and the spectators are 'caged' in buses. Coming around a wooded bend in the road, we were brought immediately face-to-face with a huge moose. "That's a moose, Ellen" I dutifully announced as the father/tour guide. "It's a cow" was her casual reply. "No, sweetie, it's a moose; see the antlers, see the big ears? It's a moose." "It's a cow" she said once again, somewhat bored. Try as I might, with all my arguments and grown-up knowledge, I couldn't get her to see the clear truth that the animal whose lips were pressed up against our window was a moose!

What I ran into that day would stick with me forever. Sometimes those who want something so badly are blind to the truth that is right in front of them. The same thing is true of Proposition 8 here in California. Like the moose, marriage is not open to our own definition. It is what it is because it has been historically, theologically, and societally defined as such from the beginning of time. Have there been aberrations? Yes, but there were recognized as aberrations because they deviated from the understood norm; the exceptions proved the rule. "That's marriage: one genetic male, and one genetic female united for life." And now some people have come along, blinded by their ideology, and said "No, that's a cow." They refuse to see what is pressed up against the window in front of them! Why? Because they so badly want to re-orient what is on the other side of the window. They want to radically change society, and theology, and history. They want to obliterate all the distinctions that society and theology and history have granted to marriage as biblically defined so that their desire to rebel against God's created order will be re-packaged as enlightened. But, no matter how loud their protestations, it's still a moose!

Hope this helps,

David

Vote and Voice

Here's another thought I have about the whole topic of political involvement. Is there a difference between vote and voice? Can it be that I am encouraged to vote in line with my conscience, but asked not to give voice to that same conscience in political/religious dialogue? Is the freedom to vote one of those "rights" afforded me as an American, while it is considered improper - as a preacher - to voice the religious and biblical beliefs behind that vote? Do we really think that we can protect the freedom of vote while at the same time curtailing the freedom of voice?

It is very discouraging to me that some professed Christ-followers have decided, for political reasons, to remain silent - in both voice and vote! - concerning the issue of same-sex marriage. I believe they have been compromised by the culture around them. They have imbibed of the philosophy of "live and let live" rather than lining up behind the Son of God whose authority has invaded our broken world with the Gospel that both identifies, and cleanses from sin. That which is best for society is what God says is best for society, and when Christ-followers shave the edges off of this most fundamental principle, the society itself is in big trouble.

Hope this helps,

David

God's Recipe for Marriage

I have recently been castigated for declaring God's design for marriage from the pulpit at Northpoint. And, what is far more disturbing is that this negative critique has come from those who consider themselves "enlightened" Christ-followers. Simply put, they believe that a strong declaration in favor of "marriage as one man and one woman" coupled with the assertion that homosexuality is sin only reduces the ability of the church to overcome the cultural opinion that Christians hate homosexuals. Let me reply in two ways:

First, to declare that the church must not speak biblically regarding homosexuality because to do so is to promote hatred against homosexuals paints the whole argument with the paint of the "excluded middle." Is it true that the only two options available to us are 1) say nothing, or 2) hate the homosexuals? Of course this is a logical fallacy which is apparent to anyone who has taken even an elementary logic course. There is a third option which, for sake of winning their argument, my opponents eliminate. But here it is: Tell the truth from a biblical point of view, and love the Gospel and the forgiving grace of God so much that we long for those trapped in the sin of homosexuality to be overwhelmed by it. We don't hate them; we see them as those desperately in need of the same freeing, forgiving grace that has captured our hearts.

Second, let me talk about marriage. I have been told recently that the church has no business campaigning for a proposition that would define marriage by Constitutional Amendment. They suggest strongly that the church has no place in governmental or political affairs (see previous post: Church and State for rebuttal). This flies in the face of the historical position the church has held as the conscience of society, including government and the political actions of a society. It also limits free speech. Amazingly, those who don't want the church to participate in the political process are blind to the fact that they are limiting the fundamental right of American citizens and organizations to speak freely.

But, let's talk about marriage itself. First, let's be clear that marriage was God's idea, His creation. He created it and defined it in Genesis 2. This creation and definition means that the Divine Law regarding marriage preceded every man-made law and governmental entity. Further, this law regarding marriage has endured in every culture. While there have been aberrations along the way, marriage between a man and a woman has, for the most part, been the continued and honored practice in every culture and society down through history, including ours. We have laws against polygamy, sodomy, beastiality, incest, and a host of other aberrant sexual practices which are all measured against the "baseline" of what is acceptable sexually, which has always included one-man-one-woman marriage. Until only a few years ago, we had laws against fornication and adultery as well!

Second, since God created marriage, those who follow Him have every right to fight to maintain what He has created. In fact, not to do so constitutes treason against His divine order in terms of the family. And let me go even further. In Genesis 2, God declared that marriage was the way in which His own relationship within the God-head would be recognized and understood - at least fundamentally, if not perfectly - by mankind.

Third, since God created marriage, He has a right to the patent! He has created the "recipe" for marriage, and who can possibly come up with a reason to allow mankind to edit that recipe? Imagine if someone came to Kentucky Fried Chicken and said "we think the secret recipe for your chicken is unfair to the spices of cinnamon and oregano!" We want it declared illegal for you to continue with your secret recipe! We demand that you change it to include these two spices that you continue to discriminate against!"

Of course this is ridiculous! Yet, that is exactly what the opponents of marriage have done in California. And let's be clear. This is not about legal standing; civil unions already confer legal status on unmarried couples. This is about turning the created order on its head. The same thing happened in Paul's day. In 1 Timothy 4:1-5 Paul warns Timothy about some previews of the "last days." Men will come teaching that the fundamental of the Garden of Eden (what you can eat, and the relationship between man and woman) need to be edited! Food and marriage were under attack then, and marriage is under attack now. Further in 4:6 Paul tells Timothy that "in pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus." He never tells him the church has no voice in the affairs of the society. Rather, he exhorts him to spread the alarm, and teach the truth. May the Lord raise up an army of Timothys!

Hope this helps,

David

Church and State

I have been deluged with emails from some of our younger friends explaining why they have decided not to vote in the matter of Proposition 8 here in California. Prop 8 would define marriage as between a man and a woman. If you're following the saga of this Proposition in our state then you know it has become a very spirited competition.

I am quite concerned about the way that many professing Christ-followers have been eroded by the tide of culture. Let me address the issue here of the separation of Church and State. Unfortunately, this is a situation where those who don't understand history are going to be punished by the future.

The framers of the Constitution had long recognized the abuses that governmentally run churches had perpetrated on their citizenry. In England, Scotland, France, and a host of other European countries, the church had been under the thumb of the government, run and funded as a governmental agency. Of course, this had all but eliminated religious freedom in the country and brought about hardship for those who dissented. (Historical Note: The "Free" church movement, begun in France, was one of the groups who stood in opposition to the governmental practice of ruling over churches.) As a result of these lessons from history, our founding fathers wisely set the government of the USA in such a way that religious groups were free from governmental oversight. As originally framed, this doctrine was for the protection and benefit of the people, then of the church. It was not conceived as a protection of government! In fact, as the Constitution was framed, the framers themselves understood that the church had an important role to play as the conscience of the nation. Their preamble stated that they took actions "with reliance on Divine Providence" which they understood to be the sovereign control of history by God. The various ways in which the place of theology and religion was valued can be seen things like the engravings over the Supreme Court buildings, the motto on our coins, the office of chaplain in many governmental agencies including the Senate, etc. They recognized that God's Law preceded their establishment of government, and as such, would play a necessary role in the establishment and maintenance of the US governmental structure.

Today, it appears that most folks think the "separation" is for the benefit of the government. That government needs to be protected against religion, which is quite opposite of the original intent. This view has made it "incorrect" for the church and its leaders to speak out against the policies and actions of the government. Not only is this not the intention of the founding fathers, it actually impedes free speech, which they were quite intentional about guarding and promoting.

To Sum Up: The church and its leaders, and its congregants have just as much right to speak out against government and political ideas as any other American or organization. In fact, to remain silent is to abdicate the position of "conscience" that religious leaders have held as far back as the OT prophets.

Over the years, the church in America has been increasingly painted as the enemy of government, of society, and of the freedom Americans enjoy. What apparently escapes the notice of those who feel this way is that when they limit the freedom of the church to be the church, to express its theology in constructive ways, they are actually eroding the very freedoms they are trying to protect.