Common Grace, Common Courtesy, and Righteous Restraint

Please forgive the rather ostentatious title for this blog post. It's high sounding, probably a bit arrogant in its intention, and certainly was decided upon in haste. That's because I'm writing while upset, which is usually not good. But, I need to get something off my chest.

It really bothers me when Christians get together and an Obama bashing breaks out. I've even heard folks us Bible verses to support their dishonoring and downright discourteous diatribes. And, to make matters worse, they often draw a direct line between being a Christ-follower and being a Republican, and even more, suggest that as a good Christian, we should be intent on winning back the White House.

Now please understand. I consider myself a politico, an observant citizen with strong opinions, and not one to let error masquerade as truth. I believe it is fit and proper for Americans - including Christ-followers! - to discuss political topics, current events, and to be persuasive in the marketplace of political ideas and actions. But, I think it is unacceptable to layer political labels over Christianity in an attempt to enlist God as a member of the party. I believe the behavior of that group of believers that took such joy in ripping President Obama is wrong for the following reasons:

1) God is not a Republican. In truth, He isn't a Democrat either, or a member of any other political party, organization, or think tank. He is not a proponent of any earthly ideology. He is the King of All, and never stands for election to that position. Further, God's kingdom work has never been slowed down by the political actions of man. Communism in China drove the church underground, and the house church movement was responsible for a stronger, more vibrant and holy church. And while we much more desire freedom, the truth is that persecution has always grown the church both deeply and broadly.

Given that God is a king, and not a political figure, the main job of the church must be kingdom living, not politics. We are all about the transformation of individual lives through the Gospel. I am not saying politics and kingdom living are mutually exclusive, but clearly the second has far greater priority. Let me be more clear about their relationship.

There is a great need, certainly, for some Christ-followers to be "salt and light" in the political realm. We should pray for talented, knowledgeable, and able Christian men and women to enter the political fray (and pray equally that dim-witted believers will stay out!). They provide a "dam building" service to society in that they are putting up dams to stop the steady onslaught of sin, perversion, and pride that is manufactured daily in the hearts of lost mankind. Any thoughts they may have of turning the tide, of creating a Christian utopia or anything even close are certainly misguided; yet, their importance in holding back the tide of wickedness should not be missed.

On the other hand, the job of all Christ-followers is that of a rescue swimmer. You might remember that movie where Kevin Costner is an aging Coast Guard rescue swimmer charged with training a new young recruit. In that movie, I think he depicts what Christ-followers are to be in real life: we jump into the raging storm, into the sea of unbelief where we once were drowning without hope, and we swim as fast as we can, for as long as we can, and rescue as many as we can. This is Gospel work. It is not merely an attempt to stop wickedness, but actually is an enterprise intent on rescuing souls out of the stormy sea of sin, and placing them safely in the kingdom of Jesus Christ.

So, there are dam builders, and rescue swimmers. My greatest anger is reserved for those who get so caught up in political critique that they begin to act as though building dams, and getting the right guys to do the building, is how a true Christ-follower will be known. "Let's get out the vote, and let's use our resources to elect the right dam builder!" Now, again, let me be clear. There is some value in the building of dams. But the kingdom of God has never been about dams; it is about lives being rescued from the flood of sin and judgment.

I so remember the years when Christians lived in the White House. If you count President Jimmy Carter - a professed Southern Baptist evangelical - and include the President Ronald Reagan and President George Bush Sr. presidencies, you have around 16 years where the occupants of the highest office in the land were professing Christ-followers. And many good things happened! But if we are honest, we have to say that those "good things" were primarily economic. No moral tide was turned; the wickedness was only abated, and then only for a short time. Within the first 30 days of President Clinton's presidency, he took back almost all of the moral victories won, through executive order. I remember thinking that millions and millions of dollars, countless man-hours, and enormous amounts of dialogue among Christ-followers had been spent on political initiatives, and in a few short weeks, it had pretty much all been swept away. We had stopped the flow for a time, but not for long.

And, even worse in my opinion, was the fact that, during those years when so many joined the "moral majority" and became inflamed with our new evangelical political power, someone crept into the church and stole the Gospel. American evangelicalism emerged from that period with a "gospel" of self-help, "free-will theism", a compromised concept of sin and judgment, a deified view of man, and a whole new way of "doing church" that placed ultimate priority on making church big and sexy - "seeker driven" - rather than Gospel-driven, Scripture-based, God-honoring, and Christ-exalting. We got caught up with power, fame, position, and "relevance" (which is newspeak for wearing the trappings of common culture), and forgot that following Christ was all about His glory, and our humility, His grace and our great need, His power and our brokenness. Politics brought us power and position, while the Gospel called us to forsake our pride to find His strength in our weakness.

I would be willing to bet that most of those Christ-followers who pummel President Obama have never had their unbelieving neighbors over for dinner, never put an arm around them in a painful situation, and have never, ever, ever shared the Gospel with them. It has been my experience that those most enraged politically are usually the ones least engaged evangelistically.

2) Christ-followers answer to a higher ethic. This is the second reason why subjecting President Obama to public ridicule is so wrong for a Christ-follower. We just don't act that way because, as citizens of heaven, we live by a higher standard. We do not approach earthly problems in earthly ways. We are charged to carry out the ethic of heaven, and that ethic is clear in the Bible.

We can start in the Old Testament, with a great example from the life of David. (You can read all about it in 1 Samuel 24). David has been anointed as king of Israel, but the reigning king of Israel - Saul - is still on the throne. And Saul is intent on killing David.

Put this in modern political terms. Say Saul is the President. Everyone knows he is a wicked man. He has turned away from following God, and God has promised to take the kingdom away and give it to David. We know David; he's a "man after God's own heart." This is the classic confrontation between good and evil; between God's king, and man's king. Saul isn't too keen on giving up his position so he is chasing all over the wilderness looking for David. He wants to kill him, and end the threat to his administration. In 1 Samuel 24, David and his merry men are hiding in the far recesses of a big cave. Saul, unknowingly, decides to spend some time in the mouth of the cave. This is David's chance. God has delivered his enemy - the guy who is trying to kill him! - into David's hand. But David does not follow the urging of his men. Rather than take Saul's life, David sneaks up to Saul and cuts a souvenir swatch from his coat. Why? David explains that, even though this is a wicked man, and a man from whom God is taking the kingdom, he is still "the Lord's anointed." That is, he is the one God has on the throne. Do you get the point? David honored Saul, not because he agreed with Saul's actions or beliefs, but because he honored God who had put Saul in the honored position of king.

The same is true of President Obama, even though we are not Israel, and he is not a king. Romans 13 is clear that governments owe their very existence to God, and they play an important role in His government of the universe. Governments, like law enforcement, and a host of other institutions, are vehicles whereby God holds back the wickedness of mankind in order to allow for ordered society to exist. The doctrine of common grace teaches us that President Obama holds a high and honored position before God, and we are to treat him accordingly. Peter advances this idea as well in 1 Peter 2:17 when he calls upon the severely mistreated Christ-followers of his day to "honor the King." Paul does the same thing in instructing Pastor Timothy that the Ephesian believers should offer up "entreaties, prayers, petitions and thanksgivings" even for the kings and those in authority over them who were responsible for their ill treatment in society (1 Timothy 2:1ff).

Here's the deal: Christ-followers are not at liberty to launch at our elected leaders. We must ALWAYS treat them with honor and respect. We answer to a heavenly ethic.

Lastly, let me add that it is also fundamentally wrong politically to do what that group of Christ-followers did in publicly mocking and disparaging President Obama. From what I have heard, most conservative Obama bashers consider themselves the best kind of Americans. They spout that they are "true" Americans, intent on carrying out the true ideals of our country. Here's my problem: Why then do they not recognize that President Obama is the choice of the people of America? Our system of governance allows the people to vote, and they did, and President Obama won. If they want a different outcome next time, they should channel their energies into constructive ideas and strategies. The losing side lost because the voting public considered its ways and words to be inferior to those of President Obama and his advisers. Losers should get better, not bitter. It does no one any good just to spout off insults. We may not agree with all that he says and does. On the other hand, we ought to be at least educated and courteous enough to acknowledge where we do agree, and not offer only mockings, cynical critiques, and hurtful diatribes when our disagreements arise. To do so will only reinforce what the majority of American voters already think: that conservative Christians don't offer ideas that work because they are too busy critiquing and condemning everyone. That's what they think, and our best opportunity to change their minds comes when we love and live the Gospel.

Hope this helps,

David

Simple Reminders

Lots of people are losing their jobs, their retirement nest eggs, and their nerve. Questions haunt us all about the future, about the economy, about the preservation of righteousness in a broken world. If you take your cues from talk radio, we're in deep trouble in almost ever sector of life, without clear solutions, and the biggest problem is that only the show hosts actually know anything. But, if you look around, you'll find reminders that God is still intimate in our world, in the news, in our lives.

When Job finished his journey from righteousness to self-righteousness, and began to call God out, God responded with some of the greatest questions of all time (check it out beginning in Job 38). "Where were you, Job, when I created the sun and stars, and told the light just where to begin and end?" "Where were you when I gave the young donkeys their lives, and their food, and ordered their way?" Okay, so these are just my paraphrases but you get the point: the reminders of God's perpetual presence in history and in our lives are all around us. And while the sun, and the stars, and the animals, and all the other divinely crafted pieces of nature are huge reminders, I also find immense joy in the simple reminders He sends my way, reminders that are always there in grand numbers but seem hidden behind the clouds of my own anxiety, concern, and doubt.

Today a good friend got a job, and a good one at that. After more than a year of consistent, diligent, and prayerful hunting, Phil landed a position that will feed his family, benefit society, and be the right kind of challenge for his skills and passions. Phil got a job, and God is real, and really involved in it all.

In two days, I'll pack up my wife and a few essentials and wind my way up to Sonoma on a 3-day quest for beauty, rest, and great gourmet. It'll be so good because God, in His mercy, has made our marriage so good. Three days of unhurried time together will be yet another reminder of God's love, care, and providential provision for us together. We found a marriage almost 32 years ago, and made it ours, while giving it to Him. And the fact that our marriage works so well remains one of the great reminders that God continues to surround us with His sovereignty, regardless of stockmarket loss, the price of gasoline, or the unemployment rate.

Phil found a job. Cherylyn loves me. Simple reminders that life, with all of its tragedy and uncertainty, is truly good, to those who love God, and have been called to share His purposes. Look around. Your simple reminders are there too.

Hope this helps,

David

The Sad and Silly Saga of Secondary Separation

In some corners of the ecclesiastical world, there still remains a belief that we are to act like Old Testament Israel in regard to the peoples of the world. By that I refer to the way some demand that Christ-followers remain "separate" from the world. As Israel was told to stay away from the idolatrous peoples that surrounded them (when they weren't told to actually go and kill them all!), so also some who march to the fundamentalist beat consider it a high and holy privilege to distance themselves from having meaningful, caring friendships with unbelievers. After all, God commanded Israel to "come out from among them and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing", right? My problem with all this is that all too often this attitude of separation becomes the default relationship setting with believers as well, especially with those with whom we disagree.

I remember growing up in that world. I remember that when Billy Graham came to town, we couldn't go. I also remember that after he left, we couldn't be friends with those that did go. Looking back on it, that was really weird, and even wrong. But back to the Old Testament ...

It is perfectly clear that in the OT, God did instruct the Israelites not to settle with, or fraternize with, the foreign nations that surrounded them. And if those in the nations wanted to come to God, they had to come to Israel. Ruth, Rahab, Uriah, and a host of other foreigners did just that, and found refuge under the wings of Yahweh. It has always been curious to me that God never sent Israel door-to-door in Philistia! Rather, He demanded that His people live separate from the nations, distanced from the idolatrous peoples of the world, safe in the corral that was the Law.

But, on a mountain in Galilee, the resurrected Lord Christ changed all that. He declared that there had been a radical change in the management authority of the world. "All power has been given to me in heaven and in earth" He told them. "Therefore - since I now have wrested power and authority from the Evil One whom I defeated on the cross (see: Hebrews 2:14,15) - go into all the world, and as you go, don't be isolated anymore, but make disciples of the peoples of the world, baptizing them, and teaching them to obey the Word! And fear not, I'll be with you every step of the way!" (Hegg paraphrase of Matthew 18:18-20).

Certainly, this was the great "unpacking" of the "salt and light" principles Jesus had taught on another mountain a few years before (see: Matthew 5:13-16). Go, have vital contact with those in the world, so as to preserve and save them. Just be careful that in your contact, you don't compromise! Unsalty salt is useless! Two mountains, same command: Get involved with those in your world!

We know that this is what Jesus was saying simply because many of the Jewish disciples had trouble with it. It seemed quite opposite to what they had grown up with. Didn't the nations need to come to Israel to get to God? Didn't they need to keep the law, and get circumcised, yada yada yada? Paul had to battle that, and even Peter had to admit that this was a bit of a change (see his reaction to God's command that he go take the Gospel to a Roman Centurion in Acts 10!). And Peter had a hard time staying with the program, as demonstrated in his conflict with Paul in Galatians 2:1-11. Paul had to get in Peter's face and show him that the Gospel wasn't about separation anymore. Paul confronted Peter because the way he was living (not wanting to eat a meal with Gentiles, even though they were believers!) was an affront to the Gospel. Keep that in mind.

There is yet another text from the pen of Paul that we have to factor in before I try to wrap all this together and make my point. In Ephesians 4, Paul stresses that the responsibility of every believer is to "preserve the unity of the Body in the bond of peace." Two things are clear:

1) The Body here is the universal, invisible, true company of Christ-followers in whom the Spirit dwells, and to whom the Almighty is a Father. There is only one Body here described, and its pretty big!

2) The unity of that Body has already been established; it needn't be created; rather, the call is to preserve the unity that has been established by God Himself as the Spirit has "baptised" each individual Christ-follower into that Body. It is apparent that the unity of the Body has to be preserved because there are so many ways that it can be stretched and torn! All kinds of wicked forces are trying to rend the unity we have in Christ. Our call is to stand firm, preserving that unity. Unfortunately, some are working against us from the inside.

So, here's the deal. Anyone who is "in Christ" is in the Body. And I am called upon to try to preserve that unity. I am not free to "separate" in terms of loving relationship and warm, Christian friendship from those in the Body with whom I may have differences and even doctrinal disagreements. I am called to handle my differences differently! It is only when someone claiming to be in the Body displays, through their rejection of a core theological doctrine (eg. the Deity of Christ), or their pursuit of habitual sin, that they are not truly "of us" that we are called upon to "put them out", to reduce our relationship with them to the level of an unbeliever.

So, as believers we are no longer to be "separation" driven. Not from the sinners in the world, and not from those in the Body of Christ with whom we differ. The New Covenant change all that. Now, our list of friends is not complete until it includes someone who needs Jesus. And our relationships with unbelievers must be real, authentic, caring for the whole person. And while their eternal destiny is our highest concern, we must also care about them in the here and now, and extend real Gospel love and truth, wrapped in genuine Gospel living.

And all that must also inform the way we relate to other believers. Unless the very fiber of the Gospel itself is at stake, we are called to preserve the unity of the Body. But, at times, I find that love for self and team trump love for the whole Body of Christ. We evangelicals have just enough of that old fundamentalist toxin in us to conjure up civil wars all too often.

I am heartsick today because I have just left a long coffee with a good friend who is on the receiving end of something I also watched unfold as a kid growing up. Back then it was called "secondary separation" although in truth, it should have been called "primary disobedience to the Word." It went like this: "We disagree with Billy Graham, and so we are 'separating' from any association with him" (Note: in the fundamentalist lexicon this goes under the heading of "primary separation"). "And since you supported Billy Graham, we're 'separating' from you - even though you agree with us about almost everything else, including the Deity of Christ, and all the other biggies - because you didn't separate from Billy like we did!" (Note: in the fundamentalist lexicon this is called "secondary separation"). Do you see the problem? A secondary difference (over something other than the core truths of God) has been allowed to sever primary unity! Can you see that this is exactly what Paul's exhortation in Ephesians 4:1ff was meant to deter?

We are currently seeing a revival of secondary separation in our circle. If you like one theologian, you aren't allowed to appreciate another. And if you like that preacher, you're going to be in trouble with another. And so on, and so on, and so on.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that there are many theologians and preachers in our world today that are wrong, dead wrong, on the Gospel, on the Trinity, on many of the biggies. And I have no trouble naming names (coughosteen)and warning everyone to "examine everything according to the plumb line of Scripture." I'll also admit that there are some who do stupid things, and embarrass the rest of us, while remaining true to the core beliefs we all share. It's here that we encounter, all too often,
those intramural squabbles with those of like precious faith that are being fueled way beyond what is helpful. Should it ever be that these pride-fueled skirmishes are allowed to fracture the Body of Christ? Are we right to choose sides over things less than the Gospel, and its core ingredients? Never!

Where differences arise, they should be handled privately, winsomely, honestly. Where agreement isn't reached, others should be called in to help. And where disagreement is still an issue, commit yourselves to passionate prayer and continued discussion for as long as it takes. Get to know each other. Realize that you may never agree on every point, but if you are in the Body of Christ, you must preserve its unity even at the expense of publicly winning the argument. There are many things that are more important than you proving your view is right. Chief among them is the testimony of Christ's unified Body before a watching world.

I sure wish some Paul would get in Peter's face and remind him that the Gospel is about how God unites enemies, and not about how it divides friends.

Hope this helps,

David

Mark Driscoll

Given that almost every evangelical blogger has already feasted on this subject, I had determined not to join the fray. But, in my study to preach 1 Thessalonians 5:14,15 I encountered a happy providence: the need for what I was learning and endeavoring to teach our Grace family was being illustrated on a grand scale as sides were being drawn over Mark Driscoll's use of what many think is corse and lewd language in his exposition of Song of Solomon.

For those of you who are new to this controversy, here's a very, very brief summary: In the past few years, Mark Driscoll (pastor of Mars Hill Church, Seattle) has had occasion to teach several times from Song of Solomon. In particular, he preached a sermon in Scotland in which he used descriptive language that many have deemed inappropriate at best, and vulgar and pornographic at worst. John MacArthur has penned a 4 part blog entry soundly critiquing Driscoll (you can read it at 5ptsalt.com). John Piper, in recent Q & A at Begg's "Basics" conference labeled Driscoll's use of explicit language as "horrible". On the other side of the field are the many for whom Driscoll is simply being authentic, real, and genuinely pastoral as he humorously and directly calls Christ-followers to the joys, and God-approved pleasures of oral sex, stripping, and other sexual delights within the bounds of marriage.

For any interested in my take, here it is: My biggest problem is with Driscoll's exegesis of Song of Solomon. He makes the text say stuff that the author doesn't say. The book is filled with mystery and nuance, but Driscoll insists that the author is speaking in graphic terms. What the book describes with art and beauty and literary restraint, Driscoll describes in undressed language. He simply does not teach the book the way it was written.

Secondly, I too agree that Driscoll's method of communication was simply wrong. One of the necessities in biblical preaching is to fit the means of communication to the message being communicated. As I tried to explain in a previous post (Nobility, Approachability, and the Vitality of Truth), MacLuhan was correct in challenging us to understand that "the medium is the message." By choosing the low road in terms of language in order to be what he considers "real", Driscoll has actually drained the nobility, mystery, and sanctity out of marital intimacy in the Biblical book (Song of Solomon) where marital intimacy is most nobly, honorably, and reverently described.

Thirdly, I disagree with Driscoll's premise, in the first place, that such direct and explicit language, mixed in with sexual humor, is needed in teaching Song of Solomon, and here's why: In taking a "Sex and the City" approach to the "mystery" of marriage, it appears that Driscoll feels the great problem in today's evangelical world is that we have a wrong view of sex. Our view is much to high, too reverent, to noble, to stuffy, too respectable. But, is it true that the pressing challenge among the 20- and 30-somethings is that their view of sex is too lofty, too noble, to serious? That their attitudes toward sexual intimacy in marriage are too narrow, to restrictive? That the great need is for preachers to provide a more blatantly explicit and humorous view of sex since the world around us just isn't doing enough of that? That our audiences are so narrow in their sexual views and experiences that we have to pry them out of their puritanical ways, and expose them to the fact that sex is really great? O wait, seems to me that the very wallpaper of our world is blatant sexuality, and the voice of society is constantly screaming at us to throw off all restraint and drink deeply and often from the fountain of sexual pleasure.

Do we really think - as preachers called of God - that we have to make sex sexier? Is our call really to get the wives of our congregation to think, talk and act "dirtier", and our husbands to demand a wider array of sexual pleasures? Funny, but I think our world is already doing that at such an alarming rate that what God intended to be an act of mutual communion, caring, and companionship has become a competition for ever-increasing levels of ecstasy. Now don't get me wrong. Marital intimacy is supposed to feel good, really good! And it does! But it is the unity, not the ecstasy that lies at the heart of the "two becoming one." And to the extent that the quest for sensory pleasure erodes the mutuality of the encounter, that quest has become an idol. Further, when sexual intimacy is taught as primarily a quest for increasing ecstasy, we are laying the foundation for an idol factory in the hearts of our people.

But we still haven't gotten to my #1 concern in all this. What is ongoing between Driscoll, Piper and MacArthur will - we prayerfully hope! - turn out for the best, for the church and for the individuals involved. I am confident that, behind all the rhetoric, these are men who truly want God's best, and will find their way down the path of humility and mutual love, to a godly resolution.

So here - finally - is my main concern: Why is it that those who are trying to come alongside Mark Driscoll and hold him accountable for what is clearly an undisciplined use of language are from outside his immediate circle of ministry partners? Where are the leaders of Mars Hill? Where are the stalwarts of Acts 29? If I am clear on Paul's direction in 1 Thessalonians 5:14, it is the responsibility of those in our own circle to "admonish" (warn) those who are exhibiting an "unruly" (undisciplined) life. So, the deafening silence coming from Driscoll's own camp can only mean one of four things:
1) Those closest to Mark don't see anything wrong with the way he has consistently used explicit language and sexual humor when preaching.
2) Those closest to Mark do recognize his language and sexual humor as inappropriate but they are too zealous to protect their side, or too afraid of Mark, to do anything about it.
3) Those closest to Mark do recognize his language and sexual humor as inappropriate, and they have already taken steps to corral Mark, but it just hasn't been made public.
4)Same as 3, and it has been made public, and I just haven't heard or seen it.

I hope #3 or #4 is the truth. I really do. I have watched, read, and listened to, Mark Driscoll. I have flown my pastoral staff up to Mars Hill to meet with some of their folks to talk about ministry. I have attended one of Mars Hill's conferences. And while I have not adopted the style he exhibits, I have been benefited by his thoughts on several occasions. I believe he has a great influence, and even a good influence on many who need Jesus. And for that reason, I pray that he will more and more adopt a disciplined and appropriate way of commuicating the truth of God's Word.

Hope this helps,

David