Archive for category Scofield Memorial Church

Mayor Rawlings Addresses Dallas Faith Community in Conference Call

I received an email this morning from Ms. Amanda Sanchez, who works in the Office of the Mayor of the City of Dallas, Mayor Mike Rawlings. The message was sent to numerous faith community leaders in North Texas, inviting them to participate in a conference call with the Mayor that took place today at 2:00pm CDT. I took notes, and I am publishing a summary of the briefing here for your information and convenience.

The Mayor opened the call expressing his gratitude for our time, and he acknowledged that the City’s experience with Ebola in recent days has felt like a “roller coaster” — things get worse, things get better, things get worse, things get better. He believes that things will end well, and he exhorted us to “be honest with each other,” which became a consistent theme in the conference call. The Mayor felt that this conference call was necessary because there is a felt shift in the psyche of our city from last week to this week regarding its fear associated with Ebola. Last week, our community was cautious; this week, the Mayor feels our community is afraid.

He asked us to recall West Nile Virus scare that happened upon North Texas not long ago. He reminded us about the West Nile outbreak that swept through Dallas County in 2012. According to D Magazine,

In total, there were 397 reported cases in Dallas County, and 20 people died.

My words, not the Mayor’s — I had forgotten about West Nile already, and if you think about it, mosquitos are way more sneaky than vomiting, bleeding, diarrhea-ing, even sneezing humans. Just a thought.

Only two — 2 — people have been infected with Ebola, since Mr. Duncan’s diagnosis and care here in Dallas.

The Mayor commented on the “community contacts” and “health care contacts.” Regarding the former, 48 people have been self-isolated. One family remains in controlled isolation. An additional individual who had been in controlled isolation recently finished the 21-day “incubation period,” and this person is healthy. On Monday, October 20th, the family in controlled in isolation and those who have been self-isolated will also finish the 21-day “incubation period.” None have shown any symptoms associated with Ebola.

Regarding the “health care contacts,” the Mayor acknowledged that we were naive to think that the hospital was the “safer place.” My commentary here—it seems that the focus had to be heavily placed on the “community contacts” at first, and initially, some assumptions were made about the safety of the hospital; however, the insufficiencies that did exist have been remedied. The Mayor complimented the health care workers who served Mr Duncan, calling them brave, courageous, of whom we are proud, and for whom we are thankful. 75 total health care workers were in some way involved in Mr. Duncan’s care — some in the lab work, some in the room wherein Mr. Duncan was treated. All of these people have been in communication with the proper authorities. They have been assigned a document asking them to avoid travel on all means of public transportation as well as to avoid public places, such as grocery stores, places of worship, etc. All of them are visited twice daily, so that there body temperature can be examined. They have all been invited to come to Presbyterian Hospital should they desire assistance in their self isolation. I can’t remember if the Mayor said one dozen or two dozen have taken advantage of this offer. Further, the Mayor added that violation of compliance with the travel and public restrictions would lead to a more controlled environment for their isolation.

Mayor Rawlings reviewed that the two health care workers who became infected with Ebola — Ms. Pham and Ms. Vinson — have been moved to biomedical facilities in Maryland and Georgia, so that Texas Presbyterian could both better manage those in continued and various degrees of isolation and be ready to receive any new case that may arise. He assured us that there is cooperation at the City, County, State, CDC, and Federal level, commentating that he had spoken with the White House earlier today. The President gave his support for Federal Aid as needed. In his assurance, he was not trying to say that we are “out of the woods” yet. This next week is critical, and honestly, we should expect to see another case or two; however, he and those working with him do not envision a widespread epidemic due to the precautions that have been taken.

After briefing us on the state of the situation, Mayor Rawlings then appealed to us as faith leaders in the City of Dallas. He made four salient points. First, he exhorted us to “confront fear with the facts.” This has been the constant message from all of those dealing with the media and public. No one is keeping anything from anyone, and he commented that the coming weeks will reveal this to be true. He asked us to encourage our congregations to depend on the facts, evidence, and reason, not on our emotions. Second, he challenged faith leaders and our communities regarding ostracizing those who may have had contact with Mr. Duncan and ostracizing those communities in which these folks have their residence. Judge Jenkins has received numerous reports about ostracism. He advised that we can support these individuals, families AND practice good, public safety. It isn’t an either/or. He asked us to consider some of the realities, for example, the Duncan family is facing: Where will they live? Many apartments are saying, “We do not want the ‘Ebola people’ here.” Mayor Rawlings said, “Our city is better than that.” We must practice compassion as well as intelligence.

He closed with a challenge and commendation to faith leaders, saying that we “know the words that uplift and heal.” He asked us to share these things with our congregants and to direct them to the City’s website for further information.

Following Mayor Rawlings’ address, Dr. John T. Carlo addressed us on the conference call. He reminded us of the facts about Ebola’s spread. It is not contagious in someone not showing symptoms. It is not airborne. In order to infect, a bodily fluid has to travel from a symptomatic person to an “opening” on another person. Research has been gathered by professionals who have treated Ebola both here and in West Africa. Dr. Carlo dismissed the need to “shut down” schools and/or decontaminate based upon the available research and evidence.

A brief Q & A time proceeded. Question #1: How do we support city officials and health care workers? Mayor Rawlings suggested that we raise up these individuals, especially the health care workers, as heroines and heroes. They are brave. Question #2: What is the one message we should deliver from “the pulpit” this weekend? God willing, we will come through this, and we will have gained much wisdom that we will be able to use and share with others both here and around the world. The Mayor then shared that the President of Liberia called him and personally apologized and shared feelings of personal responsibility. The Mayor expressed again his concern about ostracism toward “community contacts,” “health care contacts,” and even those in our City who are of West African descent.

In conclusion, I think we have to heed the Mayor’s call not to ostracize, nor should we avoid exercising care and wisdom. I think the gospel calls us to this. Remember, it’s sin, not Ebola, that is our BIGGEST problem. My thanks to the Mayor and city officials who took the time to address these things with us.

 

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Divorce and Remarriage in the Christian Context—Part Two: New Testament Texts That Address Divorce and Remarriage

Review

A few months ago, I began a series on the topic of divorce and remarriage in the Christian context. The title of the first article was Divorce, Remarriage, and My Own Existence. It primarily focused on my own experiences with divorce and remarriage while growing up. Further, I admitted the complexity, thankfulness, and grace I feel knowing that without two divorces and a remarriage, I (humanly speaking) would not exist.

Judging from my personal experiences alone, I think that I could say that divorce is very painful and wrong, but also it is not unrecoverable nor unredeemable. In other words, as ugly as divorce is, God is able to take ugly things and make something shiny and new. I have learned this by experience.

Introduction

However, the point of the second part of this study is to turn to the Scriptures. Experience alone—apart from tested morality and purity—can be quite dangerous. It should never serve as a solo guide. Experience needs objective counsel too, and so we now turn to the word of God. Here are the primary New Testament passages that directly deal with the topics of divorce and remarriage:

  • Mark 10:2-12
  • Matthew 19:3-12
  • Matthew 5:31-32; Luke 16:18
  • 1 Corinthians 7:10-16

Yes. Only five. It may be helpful to add a word about the “law of proportion” in biblical studies. There are 7,947 verses in the Greek New Testament1 and only 31 verses directly2 address the topic of divorce and remarriage. That’s 0.4% of the New Testament. So, what does this mean? Does this mean that it was not an important topic to the writers of the New Testament or to the Holy Spirit? I definitely do not think this is the case for a number of reasons. First, if we added verses that speak directly about marriage, the percentage would increase. Second, the Gospel writers include Jesus’ teaching on the matter. John gives us a general principle that is helpful—there are many other things that Jesus may have done or said that were not included in the Gospels (cf. Jn. 20:30-31). In other words, the Gospel writers made sure to include Jesus’ teaching about divorce and remarriage. Therefore, I do not think that the “law of proportion” here teaches us that such a small number of verses should be interpreted to mean that this is an insignificant topic. What else could it mean? Another option could be that there was so much unity and agreement about the topics of divorce and remarriage that extensive repetition throughout the New Testament was not necessary. In other words, Jesus’ teaching is clear; the apostles echoed it exactly; no need to belabor the point; let’s move on. I think this is right. Therefore, it is our burden then to discover this clear, unified message on divorce and remarriage, and then orient our beliefs and practices to match the teaching of the Lord Jesus, his apostles, and the church.

Pastor Jeff VanGoethem, who serves with me at Scofield Church, has written extensively on divorce and remarriage. He has many helpful articles that demonstrate his years of study, reflection, prayer, and experience with these topics. I would advise any of you with an interest in further study to take a look at his writings (You can find some of his writings at the Scofield website by clicking here). Richard B. Hays is the author of The Moral Vision of the New Testament, and he pragmatically applies a New Testament ethic,3 which he ascertained from a study of the Scripture, to the topics of divorce and remarriage. The purpose of developing and applying such an ethic is to try to interpret and practice in a consistent manner across the variety of topics that one finds in the New Testament and in life. I mention both Pastor Jeff’s writings and the book by Hays because I will be interacting with these materials as I write.

New Testament Texts That

Address Divorce & Remarriage

Mark 10:2-12

And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her,and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10:2-12, ESV)

These verses are located in the central section on discipleship in Mark’s Gospel (8:31-10:45) where he repeatedly stresses the costliness of discipleship. There is no doubt that Mark has arranged the location of Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage precisely in this section so that his readers will make the connection that marriage is important in Christian discipleship. Following Jesus means believing and behaving in marriage in a way that involves service, suffering, and cost.

There are three keys to understanding Jesus’ teaching about divorce and remarriage in this passage. First, notice the verb that Jesus uses in verse 3 compared to the verb that the Pharisees use in verse 4. Jesus asks, “What did Moses command (ἐντέλλω) you?” The Pharisees respond, “Moses permitted (ἐπιτρέπω) a man…” The difference is clear, and the error of the Pharisees is exposed quickly—the Law does not command divorce. The Old Testament passage in question is Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Here, the situation of divorce is presupposed; it is not commanded or idealized. Moses is presupposing that such a tragic situation has occurred in order that he may give a command about not remarrying the first spouse after a second marriage has occurred. The point here is not the granting of permission; it is more like a case study, “In the case when a divorce has already occurred…” The Pharisees are wrong here in their interpretation of Moses, and Jesus nails them. Moses did not command divorce, neither did he give some sort of fatalistic permission to the practice. Instead, God gave Moses and Israel laws to lessen and manage the brokenness after such a tragic event. Again, Jesus is not ignoring the reality that divorces happen in the human experience—the fact that there was even such a thing as a “certificate of divorce” is representative that divorce sometimes happened (v. 5). Rather, Jesus is dusting off and reestablishing the forgotten desire of God concerning marriage from the very beginning, which exposes the hard heart that is behind the desire to divorce.

Second, Jesus attributes this “permissible position” to their “hardness of heart” (v. 5). There is an unwillingness to go deeper in sacrificial love in order to maintain the marriage. Hays writes,

For the reader of Mark’s Gospel, the inference is clear that “hardness of heart” is associated with lack of faith in Jesus and resistance to the power of God (cf. 3:5; 8:17). Those who trust God as revealed through Jesus will not seek such an escape clause from their marriages. For with God all things are possible (cf. 10:27), and for those who believe, hardness of heart can be overcome.4

Lastly, as Hays puts it, Jesus “trumps Scripture with Scripture” by appealing to the creation narrative, which establishes instruction on marriage that precedes the Mosaic Law. The ultimate intention of God is clear in the creation narrative—what God has joined together, let no human being tear apart. This has been God’s intention from the beginning concerning marriage, and although we are sinful and make marriage hard, God’s intention has remained the same. We need the gospel in our marriages. It has recreating power in our lives and relationships. The gospel puts to death all that needs to die in us, and it raises to life all that needs to be reborn in us. 

In verses 11-12, Jesus addresses remarriage. There are two ways that these verses are typically interpreted. First, Jesus is forbidding remarriage. Those who hold this view assume that Jesus is presupposing that divorces will happen (sort of like what Moses did in Deuteronomy 24:1-4), and he is seeking to minimize the damage and brokenness by forbidding remarriage. Second, others view these two verses as further emphasizing the teaching in verse 9. That is to say, he again is forbidding divorce, which was usually done in order to marry someone else. Divorce is further renounced by the absolute exclusion of remarriage.

So what is Jesus’ teaching about divorce and remarriage according to Mark? Simple. Stay in your marriage—no matter the perceived lack of satisfaction, no matter the struggle, no matter the suffering, no matter the cost. Don’t crave permission and give into a hard heart; instead, obey the command by the power of the gospel that was established in the beginning by God. If we consider Hays’ New Testament ethic, perhaps we would say that Mark gives the Christian community a look at marriage through the lenses of both the cross—by including it in his way-of-the-cross discipleship section—and the new creation—by appealing to the authority of the creation narrative.

Matthew 19:3-12

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” (Matthew 19:3-12, ESV)

Two things are immediately clear in Matthew’s rendering of Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage: (1) Matthew was aware of Mark’s writing, and (2) Matthew has notable additions, not found in Mark. A word about the nature of the Gospels is necessary here. The Gospels are perhaps best described as theological retellings of the historical Jesus of Nazareth inspired by the Holy Spirit to provide local Christian communities or churches with evangelistic and discipleship manuals. Simply put: God connected the past, present, and future in the person of Jesus; here’s how to follow him and how to go and tell everyone. The Gospels are historical, but they are not just historical. They are theological, giving expression to both God’s activity in the world and desires for his people in the world. The writers are also attempting to disciple their intended audiences in the way of Jesus. So, just as you or I when writing a personal letter may express ourselves in a variety of ways to get our points across depending on the recipient of our letter, we see some of this in the Gospels, but not to the extent that we see contradiction or tampering.

With that preface, let’s look at Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19:3-12. There are two main additions in the Matthew account that must be explained. First, the question of the Pharisees in Matthew 19:3 is asked a little differently than the question the Pharisees ask in Mark 10:2. Here it is: “Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?” The words in italics are not found in Mark’s Gospel. I believe Hays is correct when he explains why Matthew has done this,

The question alludes to the dispute between different rabbinic schools reported in the Mishnah:

The School of Shammai say: A man may not divorce his wife unless he has found unchastity in her, for it is written, “Because he hath found in her indecency in anything.” And the School of Hillel say: [He may divorce her] even if she spoiled a dish for him, for it is written, “Because he hath found in her indecency in anything. R. Akiba says: Even if he found another fairer than she, for it is written, “And it shall be if she find no favor in his eyes…”5

Matthew and his audience are acquainted with the Rabbinic squabble of the day concerning divorce and remarriage. Jesus’ teaching on divorce in Matthew is placed in the center of this debate. The question debated by the Rabbis is not whether divorce was permissible; they would say, of course it is. The question they were asking concerned appropriate grounds that would lead to a permissible divorce, so that—no doubt—the offended party could be free to remarry and enjoy life happily ever after. Jesus’ response in Matthew 19:4-6 is very similar to his response in Mark 10:6-9. In both instances, Jesus restores the teaching on marriage in the creation narrative. Matthew and Mark both agree that Jesus taught this as God’s ultimate intention for married people. Matthew and Mark also agree on the heart issue behind the one seeking a certificate of divorce; compare Matthew 19:7-8 with Mark 10:3-5. Both Gospels agree that the one seeking the certificate of divorce has become hardened. The foremost lexicon for the Greek New Testament describes the term for “hardness” in this way: “an unyielding frame of mind, hardness of heart, coldness, obstinacy, stubbornness.”6 The idea here is that this kind of heart has become impossibly hard. Hebrews 3:8 employs the verbal form of the word (σκληρύνω), where the writer quotes the Old Testament in his exhortation to the people not to harden their hearts as in the wilderness rebellion recorded in the book of Numbers. He goes on in Hebrews 3:12 to say, “Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.” So, we get a further description of the “hard heart” that explains its ultimate destination apart from divine intervention and grace—evil, unbelief, deceived by sin, and falling away from God. Loved ones, this is the condition of the heart that seeks divorce. This kind of heart has not only grown impossibly cold toward a spouse, but it has turned impossibly cold toward the desire of God for marriage. Now, as said earlier, nothing is impossible with God. God can thaw and soften any heart with his grace.

The second addition provided in the Matthew account is found in verse 9, “Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.” Mark has no mention of this “exception clause.” As you can imagine, much ink has been spilled in attempt to interpret and explain Matthew’s recording of Jesus’ instruction here. Hays offers three of the common attempts, and they all focus on the meaning of the term πορνεία (porneia), which has a varied lexical range of meaning perhaps best communicated by an umbrella phrase such as “sexual immorality.” Some interpret the use of this term in Matthew 19:9 to mean adultery. Even though the specific word for adultery (μοιχεία, moicheia) is not found, the meaning of “adultery” is certainly within the lexical range of πορνεία. However, if Jesus wanted to clearly and specifically identify adultery as the grounds for divorce, his choice of words seems odd. Other interpreters offer a slight variation to the first view. They suggest that,

Porneia refers not to adultery but to premarital unchastity, so that the exception would refer to the situation described in Deuteronomy 22:13-21, in which a husband finds his new bride not to be a virgin. Under such circumstances, Deuteronomy prescribes capital punishment, but actual practice may have been for a man simply to dismiss the woman, as in Matthew 1:19, where Joseph resolves to send the pregnant Mary away quietly. This interpretation, which would restrict the range of application of the exception clause, would perhaps explain why the term moicheia is not used.7

If I am understanding him fully, this is Pastor Jeff’s interpretation of the term as written in his article entitled, Is Adultery a Grounds for Divorce? An Examination of Matthew’s ‘Exception Clause’. Pastor Jeff writes,

In Jewish marriage practice a contract was struck between the two families of a couple intending to marry. Money changed hands, a Ketuba or wedding document was executed. Then a year went by, the so-called betrothal period, and then the wedding ensued. During that year, the couple was to present evidence of purity and virginity, particularly the woman, as this was a matter of honor. The goods were not to be “damaged” so to speak — a potential husband had the right, culturally speaking, in this important transaction to expect a pure bride. If she turned out to be impure, the betrothed husband had the right to get out of the contract. This however required a divorce, even though the marriage had not been solemnized or consummated.8

Lastly, there is one additional view, which both Pastor Jeff mentions in his aforementioned article, and which Hays articulates in his book. This view connects the Greek term porneia to the forbidden unions and sexual practices of Leviticus 18. Some seem to limit this to incestuous marriages, because of the similar cultural contexts of the “Leviticus generation” of Israelites and the first century Christians. Both were familiar with the incestuous practices among the nations with political power in their days—Egypt and Rome. In fact, some interpret the apostolic decree of Acts 15:28–29, where we also find the term porneia, to also be dependent upon Leviticus 17–18. Hays explains Matthew’s intention in this view,

Matthew, by inserting the exception clause in the case of porneia, would then be following the precedent of the apostolic decree by allowing for the dissolution of incestuous unions. Such a provision, it is argued, would make good sense in a community engaged, as Matthew’s community was, in mission to the Gentiles; the termination of such abominations would be necessary for the Gentile converts to have fellowship with the Jewish Christians in the community.9

There are three primary reasons why I think this third view is to be preferred to the rest. First, I think that apostolic decree of Acts 15:28-29 is being applied here, which means that Matthew is not being divergent or rebellious against apostolic tradition and teaching, but rather upholding it strongly. He falls right in line with the agreement at the Jerusalem Council.10 The second reason is that porneia is allowed to have its natural function as a “catch-all” term if it is viewed as covering all the sexual abominations of Leviticus 18. Leviticus 18 not only speaks of incestuous relationships, but also of a number of forbidden sexual offenses and unions; thus, some people question how it is that Jesus could only be referring to those verses that speak to incest in Leviticus 18 and why not to the whole of the offenses? Therefore, whatever position one takes should allow porneia to function in its natural “catch-all” function. The lexical meaning of porneia is basically fornication, which refers to any sexual act or relationship that takes place outside of divinely sanctioned marriage. This is why I, at least at this point, do not agree with either the first or the second views above. In my opinion, they try too hard to make the term describe one technical usage. Lastly, even though Hays’ does not adopt this view himself, I think that his New Testament ethical principle of community demands this view. The New Testament writings are almost always concerned with the relations between Jews and Gentiles as they experience Christ’s salvation together in one body, the church. The apostolic decree in Acts 15:28-29 covers matters of blood and sexual immorality—as does Leviticus 18. Matthew is faithful with the apostolic decree and with the historical encounter between Jesus and the Pharisees. Jesus identifies the indecency about which the Rabbis argued as porneia, which the apostles forbid in their decree (Acts 15:28-29), which has conceptual allusions back to Leviticus 18. Further, this type of exception, more than  adultery or unfaithfulness during the betrothal period, serves the realities of the Jewish-Gentile church.

But if porneia is a “catch-all” term, does that mean adultery or sexual unfaithfulness in marriage is included? Does Leviticus 18 include a reference to adultery? Maybe, maybe not. Here’s a summary of the forbidden unions:

  • Incest (vv. 6-18)
  • During the Woman’s Menstrual Cycle (v. 19)
  • With Your Neighbors Wife (v. 20)
  • Your Offspring to (the false god) Molech (v. 21)
  • Homosexuality (v. 22)
  • Beastiality (v. 23)

These themes in these forbidden unions include blood, seed, offspring, and forbidden places for sexuality to be expressed. You will notice that verse 20 could potentially relate to the question of adultery.

Now, let’s walk across the bridge to real life. Does Leviticus 18:20 and Matthew 19:9 send the Christian on a straight line to the divorce attorney? No. What if it happens more than once? No, not necessarily. Besides, according to Jesus, all of us are repeat adulterous offenders anyway (Mt. 5:28). You say, “Well, I do not like it that my husband looks at porn or has impure thoughts, but I can live with it.” That may be, but God is not going to “live with it.” His standard of purity has been violated; he will be sure to deal with it at the right time. You say, “I can forgive his mind from wandering, but I cannot forgive the physical act.” But God will forgive any sinner who repents and turns to him for grace and mercy. You say, “My wife is not seeking forgiveness for what she did.” Is it possible that more time and prayer are needed? You say finally, “You do not understand!” I say, “That is not true either, and I am not going to speak those words that short circuit marriages that may just need time to heal—I am not going to say, “Your’s is a special case; you deserve a divorce.” The gospel won’t let me say that. Remember this? “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you” (Eph. 4:32). How may I describe God’s forgiveness toward me in Christ?! The extreme forgiveness given to us is to in turn be practiced among us. When there is adultery in a marriage, the first response of the Christian spouse is forgiveness and an aim toward reconciliation. God’s intention for our marriages is permanence, and we should not let go of this easily. Of course, there are times when forgiveness is extended, reconciliation is pursued, and the offending partner keeps on following his or her path of wickedness, leading him or her to legally divorce, and even remarry, leaving the former family and spouse in ruin. To these dear ones, I am sorry; what pain and sorrow. May God’s grace allow you to continue living with such a soft heart, and may he be to you all that you need for the days ahead.

Regarding remarriage, it is clear that the exception clause modifies the verb for “divorce.” So, if such a divorce occurs, is a person allowed to remarry? It is not as clear. It seems that the exception clause would also allow for a person to be free from the previous marriage vow and allowed to remarry. It does not command someone to remarry, but rather a person whose divorce takes place due to the sexually immoral (Leviticus 18) nature of the relationship is no longer bound and is free to marry again. It is permissible. For example, if, during the days of the early church, a couple in an incestuous union were converted by the gospel, they would need to be divorced, and they would be allowed to remarry. Even if such a union was recognized by the “empire” as lawful, it would not be lawful in the church.

Matthew 5:31-32; Luke 16:18

It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (Matthew 5:31-32, ESV)

Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. (Luke 16:18, ESV)

I don’t have too much to say on these passages. There are some unique features regarding the emphases placed on one or the other gender, but I will not get into that here. It is notable that Matthew again mentions the exception clause, but Luke does not. We do gain a clear look into God’s viewpoint. Even after the human rendering of a certificate of divorce, with the exception of porneia, God still views the marriage as intact. Therefore, any joining together with someone else is adultery. Hays writes,

To dismiss a wife is to consign her to sin, or to singleness without protection in a patriarchal society; thus, Matthew calls husbands in the Christian community to a broader vision o the life of righteousness. They are to take full moral responsibility for maintaining their marriages faithfully—with the sole proviso that porneia can bring the marriage to an end.11

1 Corinthians 7:10-1612

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is  made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?” (1Corinthians 7:10-16, ESV)

Here in 1 Corinthians, we add another layer to the discussion. Hays writes,

This passage, chronologically the earliest of our New Testament sources dealing with divorce, is the most interesting instance we have of a consciously reflective pastoral adaptation of the tradition concerning Jesus’ teaching on this topic.13

First, let’s clear up one thing. The use of the English term “separate” is not referring to our contemporary idea of separation in a marriage. In this passage, “separation” and “divorce” are referring to the same thing—divorce. Verses 10-11 have a simple message: stay married; no divorce. In following a pattern that we have seen elsewhere in this study, Paul does address what a women is to do if she finds herself in such a situation: do not remarry, or reconcile with your husband.

Next, Paul addresses something we have yet to address. What happens when one spouse is converted to Christianity and the other remains an unbeliever?14 Paul’s pastoral counsel to the church at Corinth was to remain in the marriage because the presence of a Christian has a sanctifying effect in the home. This is not hard to imagine—the Spirit of God dwells in the believer; the believer knows and speaks the gospel; the believer prays; the believer was hearing and sharing the word of God. All of these graces enter the home through the believer and are seemingly made available to the unbelievers in the household. There is much more that could be said on this topic, but our interest here pertains to divorce and remarriage, instead of sanctification. You need to imagine the cost of remaining in some of these marriages. The common, pagan Corinthian would have most likely been involved in the rituals associated with the various temples in the city. While “Old Corinth” seems to have been far more sexually depraved than “New Corinth,” the latter’s moral fabric was still far from “a reputation of moral probity.”15

Paul goes on. If the situation should arise that the unbeliever abandons the believer, Paul says, “…let it be so. In such cases, the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.” Hays comments that is one instance where the individual’s union to the church is weightier even than his or her union in marriage. The term “enslaved” means literally “to make someone a slave, enslave,” or “to make one subservient to one’s interests, cause to be like a slave.”16 Does this mean the believer can remarry? Paul does not directly address this. In the surrounding context, Paul is quite clear that he prefers the single person to not seek to change his or her status, but rather to serve the Lord. However, he also states that the single person does not sin if he or she does marry. But does this apply to the newly single person who was abandoned by his or her unbelieving spouse? Some take “bound” or “enslaved” to mean that the believer is no longer bound to continue the previous marriage. In a sense, Paul in compassion is saying, “Look it is not your fault; God is not angry with you; be at peace.” Others take it further to say that the believer is no longer bound in regard to marriage and liberated to marry again or to remain single. Those in this latter camp see a conceptual parallel between this passage and 7:39-40; that is, the abandoned spouse experiences the same liberation that a widow or widower experiences.

What further complicates this for modern readers is our desperate desire to be happy and to reach self-actualization. As Christians, we must reorient ourselves with God’s revelation; we cannot be primarily concerned with self-actualization, but rather we must find happiness and contentment in God and the things that he loves. We are not the center of the narrative of the world; he is. I know many good men who were born again after they were married, and as time went on, their unbelieving spouses left mostly due to their husbands new faith. What would Paul tell my friends? In this particular passage, I must admit that it is too vague for me to dogmatically and harshly hold a position. So in one sense, I want to say let each person be persuaded by the Spirit on this. However, I am a pastor, and inevitably, I will sit across the room from this very situation one day, which means that I do not have the liberty to avoid forming a position. I think my first response would be to encourage singleness and at the very least an agreed upon season in which the abandoned spouse, now single, seeks the Lord on behalf of their spouse who has left him or her (1 Cor. 7:11, 39-40). I think this also gives the newly single person an opportunity to experience what Paul goes to great effort to emphasize in 1 Corinthians 7; that is, the single person is able to be wholly devoted to the work of the Lord in a unique way. This I think is the minimum we can do in such a situation in an attempt to honor the intention of God for marriage. I would certainly discourage any hasty dating, engagements, or weddings and dismiss such actions as inappropriate conduct for a Christian given the New Testament’s serious teaching about God’s intention for marriage.

Conclusion

As I wrote in Part One of this series of articles, I am no stranger to divorce. While I have not experienced directly in my marriage, it surrounded my childhood and continues to have effects in my day to day life. For example, Delainey (my daughter) recently had a school project that involved a little house on which we were to attach pictures of her family, so that she could share about her family with her classmates. When we made it to the part where we add grandparents, I had choices to make because of a marriage that ended sixteen years ago. Do I put pictures of my mom and stepdad and my dad and stepmom? Will Delainey be able to explain this triad of grandparents to her classmates?

The New Testament instruction for the Christian church is clear about the will of God concerning marriage: it’s permanent “until death do us part” (Mk. 10:2-12; 1 Cor. 7:10-11; 39-40). It is also clear that porneia was taken seriously by the apostles and such deviant acts threatened the building up of families and local churches according to God’s ultimate intention for marriage (Mt. 19:3-12; 5:31-32; Acts 15:28-29).

What if you are reading today and you find yourself feeling like a piece of human debris? You know, like, against your own will and desires the impossible coldness of divorce has entered into your life and left you emotionally, mentally, bodily, and spiritually on the sidelines of life. What I would like to say to you today is be comforted, for something greater than marital status has come. All the treasures in Christ are yours through faith in him.

Come ye sinners, poor and needy, weak and wounded, sick and sore;

Jesus ready stands to save you, full of pity, love, and pow’r.

(Refrain)

I will arise and go to Jesus, He will embrace me in His arms;

In the arms of my dear Savior, O there are ten thousand charms.

(End Refrain)

Come, ye thirsty, come and welcome, God’s free bounty glorify;

True belief and true repentance, ev’ry grace that brings you nigh.

Come ye weary, heavy laden, lost and ruined by the fall;

If you tarry till you’re better, you will never come at all.

Let not conscience make you linger, nor of fitness fondly dream;

All the fitness He requireth is to feel your need of Him.

-Come Ye Sinners, Joseph Hart

“Arise and go to Jesus.” Give yourself to the work of his gospel. If Jesus is not enough, then I have nothing more to say or offer. As one surrounded by divorce, I have come to know and experience that his grace can overcome and redeem.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

1 Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, 29.

2 Surely, we could many more verses is we expanded the conversation to those passages that indirectly speak to attitudes and behaviors that relate to marriage, divorce, and remarriage.

3 I will briefly mention the key components of his ethic here. They are (1) Community, (2) Cross, and (3) New Creation. He also adds a sort of appendix that states, “Why Love and Liberation Are Not Sufficient.” The way this works in his book is like this. First, he develops why he thinks these three themes of Scripture should function as governing principles when constructing a distinctly, Christian, ethical response to topics such as violence and justice, divorce and remarriage, homosexuality, ethnic conflict, and abortion. Then, he deals with each of these real world issues by interpreting and applying the relevant passages of the New Testament using these governing principles as his “lens” or “glasses” so to speak.

4 Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 350.

5 Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 353.

6 A Greek – English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition, on the term σκληροκαρδία.

7 Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 354.

8 Jeff VanGoethem, Is Adultery a Grounds for Divorce? An Examination of Matthew’s ‘Exception Clause’, 2.

9 Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 355.

10 The Jerusalem Council took place in 48 A.D. according to D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 464. Matthew wrote his Gospel prior to 70 A.D., not much prior, according to the same source on page 156. Therefore, Matthew most definitely would have been aware of the apostolic decree of Acts 15:28-29 that was distributed orally and in writing (15:23) to all the churches.

11 Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 357.

12 1 Corinthians was written during Paul’s time in Ephesus between 52-55 A.D., most likely toward the latter. Therefore, the apostolic decree of the Jerusalem Council would have already been given (Acts 15:28-29). I would argue that you do see allusions to the decree here—note the warning and instruction concerning porneia (“sexual immorality”) in 1 Corinthians 7:2 and note that chapter 8 is wholly devoted to the topic of food sacrificed to idols. In these chapters, Paul is answering questions posed to him by the Corinthian church in light of the apostolic decree.

13 Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 357.

14 To be clear, these people were already married. This is not in any way condoning the marriage between an unbeliever and a believer.

15 Carson and Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 420.

16 A Greek – English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition, on the term δουλόω.

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Give Us the Word This Christmas

The Word of the LORD in Jeremiah 

While studying and teaching the book of the prophet Jeremiah early this year in the student ministry, I discovered a little volume entitled A Mouth Full of Fire: The Word of God in the Words of Jeremiah by Andrew G. Shead. It was quite the read. Shead set out to examine every instance in the book in which a reference to the “word of God” was made, and then he proposed  a theology for the word of God in Jeremiah and to some extent compared this a theology for the word of God in the whole of the biblical narrative. In Jeremiah, the word of God is a, if not the, primary theme. Just consider here the frequency of use demonstrated in the following chart:

דְבַריְהוָהַ or “Word of the LORD” in the Prophets

 

Total Hits

Hits per 1000 Words

Isaiah

12

0.47

Jeremiah

63

1.89

Ezekiel

57

1.89

Daniel

1

0.10

Hosea

3

0.83

Joel

1

0.69

Amos

3

0.99

Obadiah

0

0.00

Jonah

3

2.77

Micah

2

0.94

Nahum-Habakkuk

0

0.00

Zephaniah

2

1.76

Haggai

5

5.42

Zechariah

13

2.68

Malachi

1

0.76

The chart demonstrates that the “word of the LORD” construction makes frequent appearances in the writings of the OT prophets (there are also other phrases that could be examined, but were not included here for the sake of brevity). The top five frequencies are found in Haggai, Jonah, Zechariah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and lastly Zephaniah. It would be interesting to do theology of the “word of the LORD” for each of the prophets in order to discover the similarities and unique traits throughout the prophets. Daniel’s one use of the construction is interesting to this study as it refers to “the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet” (Daniel 9:2).

To summarize Shead—and hopefully do justice to his good exegetical work—the phrase “word of the LORD” is specifically the message of God, which is found in the words of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:1; 26:20; 36:10; 51:64). The “words of Jeremiah” are also “the words of God” (1:9; 15:16); however, when the singular is used in the phrase “word of the LORD,” a specific message with a powerful purpose is indicated. At times in the prophet’s writing, it is as if the “word of the LORD” becomes a person and accomplishes his purpose. It is not too much to say that the “word of the LORD” is the main character of the book of Jeremiah.

The prophet “consumes” the words of God (15:16), and they become to him his delight and joy. The words of God, which contain the message of God, sustain Jeremiah in his lonely, lonely work as the prophet to whom no one would listen. It sustains him so deeply that he could say, “I have not run away from being your shepherd, not have I desired the day of sickness. You know what came out of my lips; it was before your face” (Jeremiah 17:16). Isn’t it true? Judgment was coming upon the people of Judah; they would not listen. Jeremiah had the message of God; yet, he was alone in listening to it. Although he wept at the hard-heartedness of his own people, the word of God sustained him. The message of God became the anchor of his soul, his delight, his joy. Further, although true listeners, like his friend Baruch, were few and far between, he had to proclaim the message. In Jeremiah 20:9, he says, “If I say, ‘I will not mention him, or speak any more in his name,’ there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with holding it in, and I cannot.” He could not suppress or stuff the message of God deep inside so that it never came out of his mouth; he says it was like a fire, burning him up from the inside—he had to open his mouth so that the “flames” could exit and fulfill the purpose of the message of God.

It is to this I would like to turn our attention—the purpose of the message of God in the book of Jeremiah. I find this very powerful, and again, I credit Shead for setting me on the path to discover this insight. Remember that I said earlier, it is as if the “word of the LORD” is a person, the main character, in the book of Jeremiah. I may say further that it is a warrior, sword in hand, to either tear down what needs to be destroyed and/or to build up what must be sustained or rebuilt. The “word of the LORD” is fierce and entirely sovereign in its ability to accomplish this destruction or construction. No one could stop it. No one could prevent it. We are informed of this purpose very early in the book, at the calling of Jeremiah, “Then the LORD put out his hand and touched my mouth. And the LORD said to me, ‘Behold, I have put my words in your mouth. See, I have set you this day over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant’” (Jeremiah 1:9–10; cf. 31:28 ESV). The prophet Jeremiah would speak the words of God to the people of Judah, from the greatest to the least, and through these words the message of God would destroy and/or strengthen.

The Word of the LORD beyond Jeremiah

Now, let us take what we have learned about the “word of the LORD” or the message of God from the prophet Jeremiah, and consider the rest of Scripture. For example, think about the creation of the world. Do you remember how it was that God created the world?

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.  And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day. And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.  And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.  And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 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.” And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation” (Genesis 1:3–2:3 ESV).

God created all things by the power of his word. His word “built up” the creation. Perhaps there are some differences between the theology of the word here in Genesis and what we observed in Jeremiah; however, I think it is a mistake to miss the similarity that where the words of God are found, the message of either destruction or construction is also found. Consider the sheer power of the word of God. His word has the power to brings new things into existence, to give life. In light of this, consider the potential power of the word of God in your life. Are you submitting yourself to the destroying and constructing power of the message of God? To the preaching, to the study, to the reading, to the internalizing of the word of the LORD? Surely, we all have things in our lives that need to be destroyed by the message of God. Surely, we all have things that need to be built or strengthened in our lives.

The Word of the LORD Incarnate

Now, Christmas is fast approaching. It is the time of year during which we often think afresh about the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ. May I suggest to you that at the incarnation the “word of the LORD” truly and actually becomes a person? Consider the words of the apostle John, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (John 1:1–5 ESV). And again, “The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:9–14 ESV). The same word that spoke the creation into existence, from which came all of life, and the same word that speaks to the people of God throughout the history in order to tear down and to build up, this same word has now become a person. John writing later in his first epistle teach us that, “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8). He came to destroy sin and death, and he accomplished this through his cross. He also came to build. He is building his church, and as the Creator and now Savior, he builds new life through his resurrection, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come” (2 Corinthians 5:17). Ironically, the personified Word, Jesus Christ, who came to destroy and to build up would accomplish these ministries of the “word of the LORD” by he himself being destroyed and built up, “Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up . . . But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken” (John 2:19, 21–22).

Father, Give Us the Word This Christmas

Dear Christian—are you believing the “word that Jesus had spoken”? Dear sinner—have you submitted yourself to the destroying and building power of the message of God in the holy Scriptures and in the person of Jesus Christ? Are you in the word and in the Word? Everyday, we must allow the message of God in the gospel to be preached to us that our hard heartedness may be destroyed and that new life and obedience may be strengthened and built up. This word is the most powerful thing there is; we must subject ourselves to it. I pray that this Christmas season would be a reminder to you of the great lengths to which God has gone in his love and glory to engage the world with the power of his word.

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Response to Marc5Solas on Top Ten Reasons Our Kids Leave Church – 3. They Got Tired of Pretending

Marc ends his previous post on “finding better feelings in other communities” with these words:

When they leave home, they realize that they can be “spiritually fulfilled” and get the same subjective self-improvement principles (and warm-fuzzies) from the latest life-coach or from spending time with friends or volunteering at a shelter. And they can be truly authentic, and they jump at the chance because…

3. They got tired of pretending:

Then he explains what he means by the weariness of pretending:

In the “best life now”, “Every day a Friday” world of evangelicals, there’s little room for depression, or struggle, or doubt. Turn that frown upside down, or move along. Kids who are fed a stead[y] diet of sermons aimed at removing anything (or anyone) who doesn’t pragmatically serve “God’s great plan for your life” has forced them to smile and, as the old song encouraged them be “hap-hap-happy all the time”. Our kids are smart, often much smarter than we give them credit for. So they trumpet the message I hear a lot from these kids. “The church is full of hypocrites” [brackets mine].

The idea that the Christian life is somehow a pathway to successful and prosperous living and a life in which you will be finally and fully comfortable and happy could not be further from the truth. This is a lie. A person only needs to read the Gospels and consider the life of our Lord Jesus to find that the way of Christianity is the humble path of the cross-shaped life. Resurrection only follows death. The Christian life is one that will cost you everything. It is only in this life in which we spend our lives for God that we find that he has indeed given us all things. On the other hand, the world is always searching for and never finding. And so some so-called evangelicals in an attempt to woo the world toward Christ, have forsaken the true gospel for a luxurious, false gospel. Young people who have an ounce of discernment take a glance at the Scripture and immediately pick up on the contrast that they see in the life of the Lord Jesus and his apostles as compared to some of the evangelical churches of our day. At some point, they either search for something deeper within the Christian faith, concluding that there must be more to it than this, or they “stop pretending” as Marc concludes.

Again, there is a sense in which I agree with Marc here; however, I feel like he again is missing a deeper issue. I feel that his worry is misplaced, or at least that he doesn’t say enough about what we should do. The local evangelical church’s response to this has to be twofold I think: (1) Teach and understand the doctrine of salvation that begins with the new birth, and (2) teach your church about proper ecclesiology between the young and the old, especially in the context of being a covenant member of a local church. At the heart of what real evangelicalism is, we find the doctrine of the new birth or regeneration. The thought that I as a pastor have to somehow manufacture a congregation in which there is no hypocrisy so that none of our teens get upset and “stop pretending” to be Christians is far-fetched and beyond my human ability. The answer to hypocrisy in the church as well as the answer to what happens when I see hypocrisy in the church is the Holy Spirit’s work in salvation. If a teenager has truly experienced the new birth, then he or she WILL persevere in the faith. The new birth is from the Holy Spirit (John 3) and the New Testament presentation of salvation is that the Spirit’s aim is to complete it (Romans 8:26–30). In the teen that witnesses hypocrisy in the local church, the Holy Spirit is present teaching that teen about things like we find in Paul’s prayer in Philippians 1:9–11. Not only this, but also the Spirit humbles the born again teen to consider his or her own hypocrisy. To go further, there is a test here for the young person, especially if they sense that they observed hypocrisy in an older saint. I recall teachings in the Pastoral Epistles that should cause pause to the young person who is quick to judge an older saint. I am not saying that what the young person observes as hypocrisy is not hypocrisy, but rather I am rather suggesting caution and humility to be practiced. Certainly, the apostle Paul calls the local churches to judge those who are within their assembly (1 Corinthians 5–6); yet the spirit with which we proceed in such a case should be one of humility, not arrogance or some threat of separation because “I’m tired of pretending.” The body of Christ is a family of sinners redeemed by grace. We eat the Lord’s Supper at a table of grace. Let’s seek to redeem and restore with humility through proper discipline and grace. For the young person to threaten and then actually walk away because he or she is “tired of pretending” reveals more about their own faith and ecclesiology than perhaps it does about their local church.

Just imagine for a moment the “I stopped pretending” young person’s response to God should he ask him or her about his or her reasoning for leaving the local community . . . “they were hypocrites, and I was tired of pretending.” I don’t think that is going to hold up well. IMO, that response will burn like wood, hay, and the like. Our young people (and all of us mind you) need a developed understanding of church membership and commitment to a local body. I’m speaking from what I see written in the Scriptures, especially as I begin a study on 1 Corinthians. Imagine being a member there! Plenty of hypocrisy-accusations to go around. Yet, the idea that leaving the local community is a valid option for any real Christian is absurd. No, the apostle along with the Corinthians sought to grow in grace and in this thing called the Church. I’m also speaking from experience. It was not long ago that there was an “exodus” of people from my very own local church, many of them probably claiming some level of discontent and some making accusations of hypocrisy as they headed off to other local churches that will surely be void of such hypocrisy (cue laughter). What I am discovering is that those who left revealed more about their poor ecclesiology and understanding of local church membership than they did about some kind of impenetrable hypocrisy that they supposed was present and that God was too weak to do anything about. Let be said and done in the local church this way, “rejoice in hope, endure suffering, persist in prayer.”  Let it be said to the young person who is “tired of pretending”: Stop pretending. Be a real Christian. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and glorify God in your local assembly. Keep going. Endure. Persevere. If you do, you’ll see God work, and you’ll witness hope spring up in your midst.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Comments

Response to Marc5Solas on Top 10 Reasons Our Kids Leave Church—5. Community

5. Community

This may be perhaps THE reason that Marc brings up that gives me the most pause. I think he is right to warn about the false security that community can bring. It is very easy to feel a part of anything when you are a part of the crowd. It feels good to be a part of something – this is especially so among young people, but also true among the other generations too. Sometimes it feels good to be a part of a small community, and sometimes it feels good to be a part of a larger community.

However, I do push back a little bit on Marc’s criticism of community, because community is obviously something that is going to happen in a local church context. Is he suggesting that we avoid community altogether? If not, what limits should we put on community so that people do not mistake the good feeling that accompanies community with sincere faith and discipleship in the gospel of Jesus Christ? He doesn’t say enough here. Community is GOING to happen.

We are relational beings – all of us – to some degree or another. In fact, I would argue biblically that we are hard-wired by God to worship him in community. How much time does the Scripture labor over the establishment, life, theology, and future of the BODY of Christ? Or even the NATION of Israel? There are endless places in Scripture to which I could turn to make my point. I’ll choose three.

  1. The Ten Commandments (Ex. 20; Deut. 5) were given to Moses by God to teach the PEOPLE of Israel how to be a community of individuals who worship YHWH in purity and holiness as well as how to live with one another in purity and holiness.
  2. Ephesians 2:11-22 is one of my favorite passages in all of Scripture (btw, who was this letter written to . . . oh yeah, a COMMUNITY of Christians). The whole context of the passage is community focused, particularly how Jesus Christ through his death has become the peace between diverse – and sometimes even hostile – members of a single community. The passage even goes on to say that the apostles, prophets, the Lord Jesus as the Cornerstone, and the rest of the Body of Christ is being built up into one temple in which the Lord makes his dwelling.
  3. Lastly, turn to end of the Story to Revelation 5:9-10, where a community is singing about the community that the Lamb has ransomed for God “from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a KINGDOM and PRIESTS to our God and THEY shall reign on the earth.” Again, I could share more, but I think that it is clear that throughout the biblical narrative, God has engaged himself in a great deal to make a PEOPLE for himself.

I have not yet even mentioned the notion of community that flows from the Godhead itself as the Father, Son, and Spirit enjoy perfect communion with one another as the one God.

Now that I have thrown Marc under the bus a bit, I’ll stop and embrace his warning because his warning – though not well-rounded per se – is still legitimate. I often wonder, “How many of our students come to weekly meetings because their friends are there?” “If so and so stopped coming or left the faith, would he or she leave too?” “Are they here because they know that the Lord Jesus has called them into the Body of Christ, to a commitment to this local church, and because the Holy Spirit is yearning in them to serve, work, and worship with the community of saints at Scofield?” These are fair questions, because a person can find a “feeling” of community anywhere – in your college dorm, as you sharpen your focus and truly become part of a degree program with other students, in a frat or sorority, on a sports team, through fitness, at a bar or restaurant, at a workplace, or through any number of common interests that you may end up sharing with others as you leave the student ministry of Scofield. Students – don’t mistake the common, human need for community with other humans for the unique, sanctified, reborn community in the Lord Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. I’m not saying that the former is evil; I’m just saying that it is NOT the latter. Word.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

How Gospel Conversations with 7th Day Adventists Led to Research about Michael, the Archangel, as the Pre-Incarnate Christ and to . . . John Calvin? What?!

Three months ago, over a third of our church participated in Unlock 2013: Asking God to Open Hearts in DFW. I had the privilege and opportunity to lead this ministry and all of our Unlock Workers that consisted of an evening VBS, a free meal, prayer groups, sports camps, lots of organizing, administrating, and publishing, evangelism teams and prayer stations in the streets and parks of Dallas, and now – follow up for discipleship. We had over 620 gospel conversations with folks in Dallas, and we’re excited to evangelize more and become better equipped at discipleship. This whole thing launched out of a renewal that is taking place at our church to grow by worship, prayer, conversion/the new birth, and discipleship as opposed to the ever popular mantra of “Hey, come to our church because we now have the latest, biggest, and best programs.” We want to worship, pray, and proclaim the gospel and watch the Holy Spirit work in power.

As our teams were out in the streets and parks, some encountered 7th Day Adventists. Honestly, I did not know much about the Adventists. After having done some research, I will suggest that their openness to prophecy and the authority that they give to the writings of Ellen White are troubling. Also troubling is their inability to see that the Law was entirely fulfilled in Christ, including the Sabbath. Their position on the Sabbath leads them down strange roads as expressed in this recent article from Ted N. C. Wilson, the President of the Seventh Day Adventist Church: http://www.adventistworld.org/issue.php?issue=2013-1009&page=8.

Is Michael, the Archangel, Jesus Christ?

During my research on the 7th Day Adventists, I came across a very interesting view on Michael, the Archangel, that I had never heard before. They believe that Michael, the Archangel is another title for Jesus Christ. Michael means “who is like God.” Archangel could mean, “highest ranked angel,” or “ruler of the angels,” or “chief of the messengers.” Context must help with the interpretation. Let me be entirely fair, they DO NOT believe that Jesus Christ is or ever has been an angel. They believe that Michael when mentioned in Scripture is NOT an angel, but it is Jesus Christ, the ruler of the angels. Now, whether or not such an interpretation is plausible will take more thought and work on my end. My initial judgment is that such a view is confusing rather than clear, and we do not ever have the New Testament writers clarifying this for us. In fact, Michael appears in the New Testament, and in my opinion, it becomes more clear in those passages, that Jesus Christ and Michael are two separate beings.

It is also very interesting that this study led me to a place, or a person rather, whom I did not at all expect to meet on this journey . . . John Calvin. One Adventist author referenced John Calvin’s commentary on Daniel in support of his view. I couldn’t believe it! I surely thought he was mistaken. So, I looked up the reference myself, and here is what I found:

Commenting on Daniel 10:13, Calvin writes, “He adds next, ‘Behold! Michael, one of the chief leaders or princes, came to strengthen me.’ Some think the word Michael represents Christ, and I do not object to this opinion. Clearly enough, if all angels keep watch over the faithful and elect, still Christ holds the first rank among them, because he is their head, and uses their ministry and assistance to defend all his people. But as this is not generally admitted, I leave it in doubt for the present, and shall say more on the subject in the twelfth chapter” (Calvin Commentaries: Daniel 7-12 & Hosea, XIII, page 253).

Commenting on Daniel 12:1, Calvin writes, “By Michael many agree in understanding Christ as the head of the Church. But if it seems better to understand Michael as the archangel, this sense will prove suitable, for under Christ as the head, angels are the guardians of the Church. Whichever be the true meaning, God was the preserver of his Church by the hand of his only-begotten Son, and because the angels are under the government of Christ, he might entrust this duty to Michael” (Calvin Commentaries: Daniel 7-12 & Hosea, XIII, page 368-69).

He seems uncertain about the whole thing really. Calvin also writes in his 65th lecture, which followed the above quotation, “As we stated yesterday, Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defence of his elect people” (Calvin Commentaries: Daniel 7012 & Hosea, XIII, page 369-70).

I could . . . not . . . believe it. It’s not that I sense orthodoxy is at stake if someone holds to such a view, especially as expressed here by Calvin. It’s just a thought that I had never heard of until recently, let alone a thought that I have entertained. Yet, many of us would identify the angel of the LORD in the Old Testament as the pre-incarnate Christ. I am not so sure about that now, but I once held to that with no problem at all, and I still don’t think such a belief is too big a deal.

My curiosity continued. I wanted to see if Calvin maintained this belief all the way through the New Testament. So, I picked up his commentary on Jude, where Michael is mentioned again. Here, Calvin’s tone was different on the matter,

However, when you read Calvin’s commentary on the epistle of Jude, he mentions no connection between Michael and Jesus Christ, and in fact, I would say that there is no way that Calvin sees Michael as another title for Jesus in Jude 9, “That Michael is introduced alone as disputing against Satan is not new. We know that myriads of angels are ever ready to render service to God; but he chooses this or that to do his business as he pleases. What Jude relates as having been said by Michael, is found also in the book of Zechariah, ‘Let God chide (or check) thee, Satan.’ (Zech. iii. 2.) And it is a comparison, as they say, between the greater and the less. Michael dared not to speak more severely against Satan (though a reprobate and condemned) than to deliver him to God to be restrained . . .” (Me commenting on Calvin Commentaries: Hebrews, I Peter, I John, James, II Peter, Jude, XXII, page 439).

So, it seems that something happened in Calvin’s understanding of Michael, the Archangel, between his writing on Daniel and his writing on Jude. I looked at Hebrews to see if he said anything about it on Hebrews 1, where Christ is taught to be superior to the angels, but I did not find anything. I have not yet checked his comments on Revelation 12, where Michael is mentioned once again. I am not sure what exactly catalyzed the turn around. An interesting ride though. Thanks Mr. Calvin.

*Update* I recently discovered – and I think that this was news to me – that John Calvin did not write a commentary on the Revelation of Jesus Christ to the Apostle John. Most with whom I have spoken or whom I have read state that he simply ran out of time in his life to write said commentary. This news then caused me to inquire as to what was the final word of John Calvin on the issue raised in this article; that is, which was written later—his commentary on Daniel or his commentary on Jude? One may assume that Calvin wrote his commentaries in order, working his way from the Old Testament into and through the New Testament. However, this is not what we find when we search the dates as recorded in Calvin’s commentaries. According to page lxxv in his introductory material to his lectures and commentary on the book of Daniel, Calvin signed a letter that included his provenance and the date, which were Geneva, August 19, 1561. He did the same for his commentary on the Catholic Epistles, which included the book of Jude. His provenance and the date for this writing were Geneva, Jan. 24, 1551. This means that what John Calvin wrote about Michael, the Archangel in Daniel CAME AFTER what he did or did not write about Michael, the Archangel in Jude. Therefore, the conclusion I think we must draw from the matter at hand is that John Calvin did indeed believe that “Michael, the Archangel” was another title for the second person of the Trinity. Calvin believed that the Son of God, Jesus Christ, was also the “One like God” who is also the “Captain of the Angelic Messengers and Host.” Although, let it be clearly stated here that John Calvin DID NOT believe that Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, was a created, angelic being, but rather the commander of the angels. In holding his position here, he does not succumb to the Arian heresy that “there was a time when the Son was not.” Calvin believed in the eternality of the Son, that he has no beginning and he shall have no end.

In my opinion, I think that Jude should be most informative to our understanding on this matter. First, it seems odd that after the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity such a title would continue to be employed. Second and more troubling, the Michael of Jude seems sheepish in his confrontation with Satan. If this is indeed an angel, I can completely understand his deflection to have the Lord rebuke Satan. However, it is difficult for me to comprehend a post-resurrection and ascension Christian writer reflecting on an event in the Old Testament in such a way that paints Jesus Christ in such a way. Now, I said difficult, not impossible. I can see how some may point out that (1) this is an event in the Old Testament and historically preceded the incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension, and (2) we observe Jesus Christ, even in his incarnate state, in his encounters with Satan and with spiritual warfare appealing to the word of God and to the Father through prayer and fasting. This reveals the inner fellowship and relationship of the Triune God with a common mission and a common glory as well as the faithfulness of the Lord Jesus as the second Adam, as the faithful Man. So, it is not impossible for us to understand Michael in Jude the same way that Calvin understands Michael in Daniel. Thus, I conclude that — hey — I don’t like it. I don’t like the idea. Yet, I can understand how someone may arrive at such a position. I am not ready to embrace it, nor do I think that there is any benefit in embracing it. I still think that it breeds more confusion than help for whether “Michael, the Archangel” is another title for the second person of the Trinity or not, whether it is a title given to him to emphasize his leadership over the angelic host or not, it remains true regardless that all creation is under his authority. He has been given this by the Father, and a special title is not necessary for this truth to be true.

He is the image of the invisible God,

the firstborn over all creation,

for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him —

all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers —

all things were created through him and for him.

He himself is before all things

and all things are held together in him (Colossians 1:15–17).

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Comments

Response to Marc5Solas on Top 10 Reasons Our Kids Leave Church—5. Community

5. Community

This may be perhaps THE reason that Marc brings up that gives me the most pause. I think he is right to warn about the false security that community can bring. It is very easy to feel a part of anything when you are a part of the crowd. It feels good to be a part of something – this is especially so among young people, but also true among the other generations too. Sometimes it feels good to be a part of a small community, and sometimes it feels good to be a part of a larger community.

However, I do push back a little bit on Marc’s criticism of community, because community is obviously something that is going to happen in a local church context. Is he suggesting that we avoid community altogether? If not, what limits should we put on community so that people do not mistake the good feeling that accompanies community with sincere faith and discipleship in the gospel of Jesus Christ? He doesn’t say enough here. Community is GOING to happen.

We are relational beings – all of us – to some degree or another. In fact, I would argue biblically that we are hard-wired by God to worship him in community. How much time does the Scripture labor over the establishment, life, theology, and future of the BODY of Christ? Or even the NATION of Israel? There are endless places in Scripture to which I could turn to make my point. I’ll choose three.

  1. The Ten Commandments (Ex. 20; Deut. 5) were given to Moses by God to teach the PEOPLE of Israel how to be a community of individuals who worship YHWH in purity and holiness as well as how to live with one another in purity and holiness.
  2. Ephesians 2:11-22 is one of my favorite passages in all of Scripture (btw, who was this letter written to . . . oh yeah, a COMMUNITY of Christians). The whole context of the passage is community focused, particularly how Jesus Christ through his death has become the peace between diverse – and sometimes even hostile – members of a single community. The passage even goes on to say that the apostles, prophets, the Lord Jesus as the Cornerstone, and the rest of the Body of Christ is being built up into one temple in which the Lord makes his dwelling.
  3. Lastly, turn to end of the Story to Revelation 5:9-10, where a community is singing about the community that the Lamb has ransomed for God “from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a KINGDOM and PRIESTS to our God and THEY shall reign on the earth.” Again, I could share more, but I think that it is clear that throughout the biblical narrative, God has engaged himself in a great deal to make a PEOPLE for himself.

I have not yet even mentioned the notion of community that flows from the Godhead itself as the Father, Son, and Spirit enjoy perfect communion with one another as the one God.

Now that I have thrown Marc under the bus a bit, I’ll stop and embrace his warning because his warning – though not well-rounded per se – is still legitimate. I often wonder, “How many of our students come to weekly meetings because their friends are there?” “If so and so stopped coming or left the faith, would he or she leave too?” “Are they here because they know that the Lord Jesus has called them into the Body of Christ, to a commitment to this local church, and because the Holy Spirit is yearning in them to serve, work, and worship with the community of saints at Scofield?” These are fair questions, because a person can find a “feeling” of community anywhere – in your college dorm, as you sharpen your focus and truly become part of a degree program with other students, in a frat or sorority, on a sports team, through fitness, at a bar or restaurant, at a workplace, or through any number of common interests that you may end up sharing with others as you leave the student ministry of Scofield. Students – don’t mistake the common, human need for community with other humans for the unique, sanctified, reborn community in the Lord Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. I’m not saying that the former is evil; I’m just saying that it is NOT the latter. Word.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Comments

Response to Marc5Solas on Top 10 Reasons Our Kids Leave Church—6. You Gave Them Hand-Me Downs

6. You Gave Them Hand-Me Downs

Today’s response to Marc5Solas on the “Top 10 Reasons Our Kids Leave the Church” allows me to – once again and more fully – use one of my favorite last names belonging to a past theologian . . . Schleiermacher. SCCCHHHHLLLEEEIIEEERRRRRMMMAAAACCCCHHHHHEEEERRRR! If you’ve been in the SSM for any amount of time, then you know how much I like to say Schleiermacher. Unfortunately, I loathe Schleiermacher’s theology. In Church History as the Enlightenment and Reason began to take the lead in people’s thinking and as the Church suffered from the mortar blasts of Modernism, Friedrich Schleiermacher stepped up in attempt to rescue the Church and Christianity. As Michael Patton and Tim Kimberly of The Credo House have said, when anyone claims to “save the Church” or “rescue Christianity,” turn and run the other way. Jesus is just fine as the Head of the Church, thank you very much. In his response to Modernism, Schleiermacher single-handedly moved the Church away from its historic, corporate creeds and doctrines of the apostles on to an embrace of an immeasurable, personal and internal feeling of dependence upon God. The Credo House gentlemen in their Church History Boot Camp DVD Series suggests an illustrative comparison between Schleiermacher’s claim that we need not get rid of Christianity to the same reason we need not get rid of Christmas Celebrations – don’t you like all of the festivities around Christmas? All the family? All the meals? All the presents? All the decorating? All of the get-togethers? All the children’s choirs? We can’t get rid of Christmas! Christmas makes us feel good. We need Christmas. We need the stories about Jesus; they make Christmas special. You need not believe those doctrines about the virgin birth, God becoming a man, etc. Those are just fables designed to create in us a feeling of dependence upon God. They are not real; they are not historical.

As the Church embraced Schleiermachian theology (and it largely does still today), it headed down the slippery slope of making the feelings within the self the final authority concerning truth. Marc5Solas claims that we have given our kids “hand-me downs” of a particular kind. Namely, we – the adults and the teachers – have followed Schleiermacher’s liberal theology of turning the Christian faith into a purely subjective, independently personal, self-fulfilling, good-feeling seeking religion. Some other comments by The Credo House fellows are helpful here:

You must know Schleiermacher in order to get your neighbors.

With one swift move . . . he disconnected the head from the heart.

Schleiermacher himself said,

You reject the dogmas and propositions of religion. . . . Religion does not need them; it is only human reflection on the content of our religious feelings or affections. . . . Do you say that you cannot accept miracles, revelation, inspiration? You are right; we are children no longer; the time for fairy-tales is past.

Thus, Marc is right when he claims that the Church at large has been attempting to pass on a “feeling” about God to the next generation, hoping that they will “feel” it too. But we are asking ourselves, to what extent have we at Scofield in the Student Ministry (even in the Children’s Ministry) passed on hand-me downs to our kids? Parents? I’m not sure about you. How are you discipling your kids to experience (i.e., to know, to feel, and to submit to) God? Do you immediately jump into a description that is primarily “feeling” oriented? Then, you are a child of Schleiermacher trying to create another child of Schleiermacher :-). Stop it. Feelings are fine in our faith, but only so long as they flow and trickle down from biblical truth. When our children want to know God, we must point them to four sources and trust that their feelings will be shaped appropriately as the Holy Spirit works. I’m not saying ignore or neglect emotions – we are human beings – but emotions must be controlled, just as the thinking and the will must be controlled by the Holy Spirit. So, here are four sources for helping a kid to believe and experience God rightly:

  1. The Holy Scriptures – help them to learn the Scriptures. Help them to discover God in his word. Look to the God-breathed writings of the apostles and the prophets. “Sanctify them in truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17).
  2. The gospel of Jesus Christ – of course the gospel is in the Scriptures, but what I mean specifically here is that you can help your kid grow by teaching them the good news about Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, his current ministry as our high priest, and his second coming. Is your kid suffering through something, show them what the apostles taught/wrote about the Lord Jesus’ suffering and how God brought good and later highly exulted Jesus.
  3. The Holy Spirit – now by turning your kid to the Holy Spirit, I am not suggesting the warm fuzzies that you sometimes feel on the inside. Don’t reduce the Holy Spirit to the warm fuzzies. He’s a bit more . . . like He is God for heaven’s sake. As I mentioned before, we must practice belief in the ministry of the Holy Spirit as we are told by the apostles in the Holy Scriptures. What does the New Testament teach us about the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the Church and its members? A lot is the answer. Mainly, the Holy Spirit takes what belongs to Jesus and glorifies him to us and teaches us about him and about life in him. The Holy Spirit has an aim to make you into the image of Christ (Romans 8:26-29). He seeks to gift you for service and God’s glory. He seeks to produce certain fruit in the Christian. There is no such thing as a Holy Spirit-less Christian.
  4. The leadership of your local church (a.k.a. Elders/Pastors) – don’t forget that the Lord Jesus blesses the local church with pastors and teachers and more. Need help discipling your kid in the real Christian faith? Get them to church. Encourage your student’s participation in as many discipleship activities as possible in the local church.

Which brings me to my last question, how is our teaching at Scofield with regard to passing on a substantial, biblical, historical Christian faith to our kids? Well, I may need you to tell me :-). My comments here would be much like my assessment in the previous response. Our content is solid, biblical, in continuity with the orthodox Christian faith of all times. Yet, I think we need to be less aimless in our plan. A little more focused on the beginning point, the finish line, and everything in between necessary to do our best in disciple making.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Response to Marc5Solas on Top 10 Reasons Our Kids Leave Church—7. You Sent Them Out Unarmed

7. You Sent Them Out Unarmed

As mentioned in my response to number 8, I think we do a fairly good job with regard to imparting quality doctrinal teaching and biblical literacy to our students. They study the Bible in our student ministry. They study doctrine in our student ministry. However, I think that Marc (the author) errs a bit too much if he indeed thinks that catechesis is THE solution. Catechesis or some sort of intentional discipleship is necessary to any ministry for growing believers; however, I am discovering more and more that a young person also needs to experience God in the spiritual life. I am not speaking of the Schleiermachian feeling based liberal theology that has birthed this hip nuance youth workers now call Moral Therapeutic Deism. What I am saying is that our young people need both to know the Triune God and to meet with the Triune God. He or she needs both instruction about God and his doings as well as to fellowship with him through spiritual disciplines and the life of the church. Personally, I sense that our student ministry is at the beginning of entering into a kind of discipleship that seeks to direct students to know God well and to experience his presence too. Here, there is an embrace of both catechesis and the spiritual life.

Now, I sense that our student ministry has some weaknesses too that we need to strengthen. First, while we dive deeply into the biblical text and doctrine every semester, I feel that the way in which I go about selecting biblical books to teach, theological themes to explore, or doctrines to learn is a bit aimless. This is what I am saying, I have six years with a student, 7th grade through 12th grade. Instead of a somewhat spontaneous selection of teaching content, I would like to see a discipleship plan or map for the whole six years . . . maybe even a couple of maps. The book Sustainable Youth Ministry speaks about the importance of developing a long-term teaching plan. This has been something that I have not yet implemented in our student ministry, but which I need to implement. I don’t want to totally remove spontaneity from the teaching curriculum of the youth ministry – come on, it IS youth ministry – but a plan or a map would give general direction for the six years of discipleship that we have with any given student. What do you think? We have six years with a student. What should be THE things that we cover, knowing that we will have Communities of Bible Study on Sunday mornings, Sunday Night Connect (our evening meeting), and Summer Small Groups, as well as at least 6 weekend retreats? This would be wonderful for our leadership team to help me think through. Second, we must continue to couple the knowledge of God and the experience of God hand-in-hand as a student ministry. I want our students experiencing God by answered prayer. I want them to fast and deepen their hunger for God. I want them to practice silence so that they listen to God in his word and to listen, as well as test, their own hearts and minds. I want them to practice personal bible study. I want them to be faithful in the sacraments of the church. I want them to participate in evangelism, real evangelism, where you actually share the gospel of Jesus Christ. So at Scofield, we are arming our students, but we can still do better. It isn’t simply a matter of them not being ignorant or biblical illiterate – which are not okay either – but it is also experiencing what we know about God to be true in our lives.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Response to Marc5Solas on Top 10 Reasons Our Kids Leave Church—8. They Get Smart

8. They Get Smart

I don’t agree with Marc here. Our youth group doesn’t dance around difficult questions. We embrace them, discuss them, argue from historic, orthodox Christian teaching, and attempt to humbly admit it when we must embrace mystery and trust God with things. We’ve talked, not directly, but about the ideas in the Epicurus quote. God is both willing and able to prevent evil. Has he not sent his Son to experience the full blow of evil? Does he not seek to unite believers with his Son by the Spirit in the fellowship of suffering? Is he not patiently waiting for all evil persons to repent and turn to him, before he finally and fully judges evil when the cup of his righteous wrath spills over and pours out every last drop? From where did evil come? From pride and disloyalty from within humans? How was it found in humans whom God created? It was enticed by the evil one, the Deceiver and Adversary of God. How was evil found in Satan? From pride and disloyalty from within the angel whom God made? Did God then make Satan evil? No, God tempts no one, for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one (James 1:13). What then? God created angels and human as good, and he alone is righteous to determine what is good. In this mystery, it seems that what was good to him was to create beings with a will initially free to be loyal or disloyal, prideful or humble, worshipers or idolaters. However, when the angels and the humans were enticed by their own wills to turn from God; they irrevocably found themselves bound in slavery to evil that leads to death apart from God. Therefore, God must have in eternity past desired for us to know him as the one who is both merciful and judge. For because of evil’s presence, he redeems and judges. The Trinity must have desired to be known through the story of redemption. We talk about such things in our youth group.

However, my concern about our students going forward is not that some professor will make them feel intelligent because we have failed to do so. We give our students a lot to chew on, sometimes purposefully too much for sake of awareness. My concern is that many of our students have not either experienced evil in a life altering way, nor have they yet embraced the gospel to the extent that they will be able to interpret evil and fellowship with Christ in the midst of evil, nor have they yet developed the insight or possibly have not taken their fellowship with the saints deep enough in the local church so as to come to realize that the body of believers with whom they meet every week knows the grief of evil well, many of whom continue to rejoice in hope, endure in suffering, and persist in prayer. Despite our best efforts, some teens continue to perceive the local church as some kind of social club, which it is not, rather than a corporate fellowship with Christ and with one another as worshipers through both days of trouble and days of celebration. You can know about evil and all the philosophical debates, and yada, yada, but your real theology shows up when you experience evil.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment