Hard Questions: What is the Normal (Healthy) Christian Life?

This the first in a continuing series of hard questions that I have been asked by members of my congregation, other Christians, and in some cases non-Christians. 

What is the normal Christian life? Or better yet, what is a healthy Christian life? Why is that we know Christians who hold to correct practices and doctrine, yet they seem so unhealthy? They are bitter, angry, joyless, and judgmental. Often as time goes on, they leave the faith or their children leave the faith. Why is that we know Christians who hold to different practices or doctrines than we do and yet they seem healthy and solid. I believe in not sending your kids to public school. Yet I know parents who send their kids to public school who are more godly than some who don't. Why is that? Why can someone be right in doctrine and practice and yet look so little like Jesus and be so unhealthy?

The temptation here is to point to externals. That is good as far as it goes. There are central actions that a Christian will do. These would be worship, prayer, reading the Word, fellowship with the saints, reaching the lost, confession of sins, etc. These are core practices of the Christian faith. But we all know Christians and churches who do these things and yet...something is off.

Unrelenting

In their excellent book, Unchanging Witness, Professors Fortson and Grams spend a chapter recounting the capitulation of the numerous mainline denominations to the homosexual agenda, including the Episcopal Church and Evangelical Lutheran Church. But the account that caught my attention was the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA).

I am not an expert on the history of the PCUSA, but I believe there were serious issues, such as rejection of the authority of Scripture, rejection of the supernatural, and ordination of women, which preceded their acceptance of homosexuality. If true, their capitulation to the homosexuals was not a surprise. A denomination that ordains women is going to have a hard time barring the doors against homosexuals. Here is the timeline how the PCUSA moved to accepting gays, gay ministers, and eventually same sex marriage (Fortson and Grams p. 157-158):

1978-United Presbyterian Church in the USA adopts a policy forbidding the ordination of homosexuals, but allowing gays and lesbians into church membership.

1979-The Presbyterian Church in the US adopts a similar policy.

1983-These two denominations join to create the PCUSA. The policy from 1978 remains in force.

1983-1993 There was constant debate in the denomination about ordaining homosexuals. So much debate that in 1993 a ban was instituted to prevent the issue from being voted on for three years.

1997-Conservatives passed an amendment to the PCUSA constitution requiring candidates for ordination "to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and woman, or chastity in singleness."  Liberals presented a substitute amendment which said, "fidelity and integrity in marriage or singleness." The substitute amendment by the liberals was defeated.

1998-Liberals again pushed for their substitute amendment. Again it was defeated though the votes grew closer. This happened again in 1999 and 2001. Each time the votes for the liberals grew.

2006-A PCUSA task force recommended allowing exceptions to the "fidelity and chastity" clause. This allowed homosexuals to be ordained.

2009-Again the liberals pushed for a vote to change the constitution. Again it was defeated though by the smallest margin yet.

2011-The language from 1997 was finally gotten rid of and openly gay persons could now be ordained to the ministry.

2014-The PCUSA approved a policy allowing pastors to perform same-sex marriages in states where the practice is legal. In that same year an additional vote was made that changed the definition of marriage from one and one woman to two persons. That passed by a 71% majority.

What I find fascinating is how "unrelenting" to use the authors' word, the pro-gay lobby was. They never stopped bringing up the votes. They found ways around official policy, such as the 2006 task force. They kept pushing and kept fighting until they got what they wanted.  I am sure this began long before 1978, but even from 1978-2014 is a pretty long time. It reminds me of what Edwin Friedman said in his excellent book Failure of Nerve. Pathogens do not stop. They will not stop. They must be cut out. Long before sodomy ever became an issue someone within these denominations compromised on basic Christian teaching. It may have been the authority of Scripture. It may have been human sexuality. It may have been the denial of the resurrection of our Lord. But they compromised and here is the key no one disciplined them for it. Maybe they disciplined them the first time and second time and third time, but eventually they stopped, eventually the good guys gave up.

In the previous chapter Fortson and Grams discuss all the denominations that remain faithful to the Scripture's teaching on homosexuality, such as the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), and Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS). I look at those denominations and my own, the Communion of Reformed Evangelicals (CREC), and I pray. I pray that we can hold fast. I pray that we have the stamina and backbone to fight. I pray that we have the courage of our brothers in Africa who stood up to the Anglican bishops who compromised. I pray that we are not afraid of being hated, cast out, and maligned. I pray that we can preach faithfully what the Word says. I pray we have the strength to excommunicate when necessary. I pray that our seminaries fire those who compromise. For we can be assured of this; the homosexuals will not stop. Their goal is not live and let live. Their goal is that churches everywhere accept them as true Christians no matter their sexual practices. For the sake of Christ, his sheep, and the lost we must be as unrelenting as they are. If not we will end up just like the PCUSA and the proverb will be fulfilled:

Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked. (Proverbs 25:26)

Did the Early Church Approve of Homosexuality?

Revising history has been one of the common ploys in the gay Christian movement. In particular John Boswell and former Jesuit priest John McNeill have written books that revise the history of the church to be more friendly to gays. These books have been used by gay Christians as proof that Christianity from it's earliest times was welcoming of homosexuals. Boswell even argues that same-sex unions were approved by Anselm. Their scholarship, if it can be called that, has been called into serious question time and time. Yet they are cited by gay Christians as proof that sodomy really has not been that big a deal in church history.

To combat this error Donald Fortson and Rollin Grams have written Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition.  These authors carefully cite numerous primary sources from the early church into the modern era that show without a doubt that sodomy in all its forms has been condemned by the church. Michael Kruger has a review of the book here. He states:

After reading Fortson’s and Rollin’s book, they may not agree with what Christians have always believed.  But, they would have to admit that Christians have always believed it.

I have only gotten through the chapters on the early church and the Middle ages, but both are valuable and clear. Several points stand out.

First, the church has always taught that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality. Hospitality is sometimes mentioned alongside of homosexuality, but homosexuality is always mentioned. I read nothing that indicated that the primary problem was homosexual rape either. 

Second, sodomy was often grouped with murder and bestiality as the gravest of sins.

Third, the celibate priesthood was a breeding ground for sodomy. Sodomite priests were common enough that specific punishments were put into law for priests who were homosexuals. Despite these laws sodomy continued to be a problem in monasteries.

Fourth, marriage between a man and a woman was always considered the only proper outlet for sexual expression. Sodomy, masturbation, prostitution, bestiality, lesbianism, mistresses, concubines, etc. were all sins of varying degrees with sodomy being at the top of the list.

Finally, there were distinctions made between different types of homosexual behavior, including sex with boys, the dominant male, and the submissive male. But all of these were considered a gross violation of nature. One does not get the impression reading the primary sources that the main concern was sex with boys. The problem was sodomy not the sexual abuse of boys.

Here is the conclusion to their chapter on the church fathers:

This brief survey of the early Christian centuries underscores several assertions that can be made with confidence about Christian attitudes towards homosexual practice. Given the ethnic diversity of Christians and their geographic dispersion throughout the Mediterranean world in the earliest centuries after Christ, the evident consensus on this issue is remarkable...The church fathers were aware of homosexual practices in their culture and consistently condemned such behavior...The Fathers believed homosexual practice was perverse and would lead one down the path to destruction. Same-sex activity was considered a grievous sin against the Creator who designed men and women for each other. In addition to violating divine design, homosexual activity-according to early Christian writers-was an instance of humans abusing and polluting one another. 

Here are some conclusions from their chapter on the Middle Ages:

The cumulative evidence from centuries of medieval sources points to the church's unequivocal condemnation of all forms of homosexual practice. As in the patristic era, despite the geographical separation and diverse cultures of early medieval Christians, they shared a commitment to biblically defined sexual ethics...no extant source includes an example of medieval Christians expressing toleration of homosexual behavior. There was no medieval deviation from patristic teaching concerning the accepted code of Christian sexual morality...all varieties of homosexual practice were condemned by the medieval church...in the late medieval era, when massive collections of earlier Christian writings  emerged, the compilers of canon law provided a comprehensive picture of the church's views of homosexual practice. What one observes is a consistent pattern of both denunciation and pastoral care for persons guilty of homosexuality.  

Here is the final paragraph in the chapter on the Middle Ages:

The medieval material indicates a distinction among persons who engaged in same-sex acts. Younger boys experimenting with homosexual sex were treated far more leniently than adults, adults who habitually engaged in homosexual acts were treated more severely than occasional offenders. The texts reveal a medieval awareness that some people felt sexual desire for persons of the same gender, but this did not legitimate acts against nature. Rather extreme measures were taken to help persons with same-sex attraction avoid eternal damnation, from penance to strict requirements concerning their living arrangements. Homosexuality was not viewed as a psychological disorder: it was sin. While homosexuality may have been characteristic of some persons-an orientation-ethics was not reduced to a psychology of inclinations or orientations; it dealt with actions that proceeded from the wickedness of fallen humanity, a humanity that could be transformed through the work of Christ. 

The authors have done the church a great service by doing the research and writing this book. It will be a great resource for the body of Christ as she ministers to those coming out of the gay culture to Jesus and as she stems the tide of the gay Christian movement which attempts to turn the Bible's teaching on its head and to throw out 2,000 of the church's teaching on sexuality in general and sodomy specifically.

Book Review: Discovering Church Planting

Discovering Church Planting: An Introduction to the Whats, Whys, and Hows of Global Church Planting by J.D. Payne
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This book was okay, but honestly had way more information than was necessary. I am the founding pastor of a church plant that is now almost ten years old. There is not much in this book that would have helped me ten years ago. It felt like overkill for most situations. The best chapters were the ones on ecclesiology, discipleship and caring for one's family. It might be more helpful for those in global situations.

While church planting does bring challenges that a pastor does not find when he goes to an established church, I believe books like this make it more complicated than it needs to be.

View all my reviews

Culture First, Then Laws

Dr. Al Mohler in his book  We Cannot be Silent, spends a chapter chronicling how the homosexual agenda gained traction through the latter part of the 20th century. He begins by noting that in 2004 eleven states voted to ban gay marriage. In all eleven cases the referendums passed with not less than 66% voting in favor of banning gay marriage. Compare this to 2012 where four states voted to ban gay marriage and in all four cases the vote failed. He also notes that in 2008 most polling data indicated a vast majority of Americans were opposed to gay marriage. By 2014 the polling data had changed dramatically with many being open to gay marriage as morally neutral or even a good thing. Add to this the Supreme Court's decision in the summer 2015 and one can see that gay marriage and indeed the whole gay agenda has taken hold in America.

Mohler is not ignorant of the many compromises prior to the gay movement that set the stage for where we are at today. Still, the magnitude of the moral shift along with speed of the shift is striking. In less than fifty years, America moved from a country where sodomy was immoral and where same-sex marriage was unthinkable to a country where many accept sodomy and same-sex marriage as a moral right. How did this happen?

The answer is interesting. Mohler explains how the gay movement decided not to try to change laws, but rather to change the moral landscape and then use laws to stamp their morality with approval:

In After the Ball [a pro-homosexual strategy book published in 1989], Kirk and Madsen [the authors] set out a program that, in retrospect, was likely even more successful than they had dreamed, largely because it focused on changing the culture, rather than just changing the laws...They demanded far more than legal recognition. They demanded that American society embrace homosexuality as a normal sexual experience and view same-sex relationships on par with heterosexual marriage. [Emphasis Mine]

Mohler goes on to recount how homosexuals worked to change public opinion concerning sodomy through what essentially amounts to a massive PR campaign. They did not seek to change laws. Instead they sought to change the minds of professors, movie stars, journalists, psychiatrists, psychologists, students, pastors, and judges. One good example of how drastic this change has been is that in the 1970s same-sex attraction was a form of mental illness. We have now arrived at a place where those who believe same-sex attraction is wrong are mentally ill. In almost any field, from sociology to medicine, from movies to law, from clothing to churches, the gay revolution has been successful. Sodomy has been normalized. To speak against it is to speak against the cultural norm. Most of this happened without the help of the courts. Here is Mohler's summary of the connection between culture and the courts for the gay agenda:

At every point along the way, the approach was to use the courts as a means to extend the cultural gains already occurring in the larger society. 

The reason the gay agenda worked was because culture, or perhaps more clearly, society, changed first, then the laws followed giving a stamp of moral approval to the cultural changes.

I am not opposed to changing laws. The Christian witness must extend to the courts and legislative bodies around the country. We should be speaking prophetically to law makers, judges, and politicians. We should also be raising up Christian men who will work in these places to bring about better laws. But sweeping changes, such as the gay movement has seen over the last fifty years, does not come primarily through courts or laws. It comes from changing the minds of people "on the ground" if you will. How can the church do this? I will address that in a later post.

Heterosexuals Started It

I am reading Al Mohler's book We Cannot Be Silent. The second chapter details how birth control, no fault divorce, and fornication by heterosexuals led to an open door for the sodomite agenda and same-sex marriage. Here is the last paragraph from that chapter. Emphasis mine.

It is profoundly true that the sexual revolution did not begin with same sex marriage. The sexual revolution began when a significant number of people in modern society decided to liberate themselves from the inherited sexual morality that had been derived from Christianity and had informed the cultural consensus throughout human history. That was a decision largely made by heterosexuals who intended to legitimize their own sexual sin by means of a new moral argument. There were sexual revolutionaries advocating and hoping for the normalization of homosexuality from the beginning, but these were voices far outside the mainstream. Today's movement toward the total acceptance of homosexual behavior and relationships was only made possible because some heterosexuals first did their best to undermine marriage.

The only thing I would add to Dr. Mohler's analysis is that heterosexuals who started the sexual revolution were often part of the church.

Where and What, But Not Who?

It has become common, even among conservative Christians, to hold that the restrictions on women teaching and having authority over men in I Timothy 2:11-12 are limited to preaching and in some cases church discipline. Mixed Sunday school classes, small group studies, and church conferences can all have women teaching men and not be in violation of this passage. Pastor Philip Ryken argues this in his commentary on I Timothy 2:11-15. He bases this on the use of the Greek word διδάσκω, which means to teach. Here are some quotes from his commentary on I Timothy 2:12. By the way he titles this section of his commentary "But Not to Preach."

He says the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:17-18 means that all "God's sons and daughters exercise prophetic ministry" which makes "it clear that at least certain kinds of teaching are to be carried out universally within the church." He does not explain what he means by this, which is odd because in principle no one disagrees. The question is not can women teach in the church. The question is can they teach men. He then notes that Priscilla taught a man and thus it must be okay for women to teach men at least in some circumstances (Acts 18:24-26). Again no clear indication of what these circumstances are.

Then he says (all bold is mine):

There is at least one place where it is not appropriate for women to teach however:in the authoritative proclamation of God's Word in the context of the public worship of the church...What he [Paul] writes is not intended to govern men and women in every situation, but applies especially to those occasions when the church gathers for the preaching of the Word of God...What the Holy Spirit does not permit women to do is to transmit apostolic doctrine publicly and officially. To put it more simply, the main thing God forbids women to do is preach (or to exercise the doctrinal and disciplinary authority that is tied to the preaching ministry). 

Ryken goes on to link "authority" with teaching, thus restricting the entire phrase "to teach or have authority" to:

Writing of creeds and confessions that summarize Christian doctrine, and also the formulation of church policy on theological issues. The word authentein [authority] hints that church discipline also may be in view. These things are the exclusive work of the elders of the church....to preach is to exercise teaching authority.  

Depending on the discretion of the elders in the church, some other teaching situations may fall under the category of teaching with authority. The training of elders, for example, or classes on fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. But elders are by no means required to teach every  Bible study and Sunday school class in the church. Women and men who are not ordained may teach a wide variety of biblical, historical, and practical subjects (although they should not, in my view, teach confessional doctrine).

Perhaps this is the best place to emphasize that beyond this one biblical restriction, women are at liberty to use their spiritual gifts to their fullest extent in the church.  

Why He is Wrong
"At least one place where it is inappropriate...the main thing God forbids women to do is preach...beyond this one biblical restriction."

Ryken believes Paul's restriction on women in I Timothy 2:11-12 is about where they teach (worship) and what they teach (fundamental doctrines), but not who they teach. They can teach mixed Sunday School, Bible studies, and small groups, but what they cannot do is preach at the regular gathering of the saints and they cannot pass on apostolic doctrine in any official way. Ryken's interpretation falls flats for several reasons.

First, in the text the key is not where they are teaching or what they are teaching, but who they are teaching. Women cannot teach men in the church, which is the subject of Paul's letter (I Timothy 3:15). Ryken's commentary on this section of Scripture is a classic exercise in trying to get around in any way possible what the text actually says.

Second, Ryken wants didasko (the Greek word for teach) to mean preaching, as in Sunday morning in the pulpit. But unfortunately for him the word and its derivatives have a wide variety of meanings including teaching from house to house (Acts 20:20), all Christians teaching all Christians (Col. 3:18), older women teaching younger women (Titus 2:3), the whole teaching ministry of the apostles ( Col. 1:28, 2:7),  and what nature teaches us about men having long hair (I Cor. 11:14).  Didasko cannot be restricted to official preaching on Sunday morning. It can include that of course, but it also includes other teaching as well.  More than likely, Paul here is talking about the entire teaching ministry of the church. There is no reason in the passage, I Timothy, or in the use of the word to restrict this the Sunday morning preaching.

Third, Ryken wants the content of the teaching to be "apostolic doctrine," "confessional doctrine," "church policy on theological issues," and possibly church discipline. Ryken is not clear about what he means here. Obviously, the whole New Testament is apostolic. But Ryken does not mean that women cannot teach men the Bible. He says later that women can teach men "on a wide variety of biblical, historical, and practical subjects." According to Ryken, women can teach men the Bible in a public setting. It just can't be Sunday morning. And they cannot teach the fundamentals of the faith.

However, the word didasko is not limited to fundamental doctrines. Paul's teaching covers a whole host of "Biblical and practical" subjects that are not creedal or confessional in nature. In I Timothy Paul encourages Timothy to "teach (didasko)" on things like sex, marriage, food, and exercise (I Timothy 4:1-11) and how slaves are supposed to react to masters (I Timothy 6:2).  In Titus, there are false teachers who are "teaching things they ought not to" (Titus 1:11). In response to these false teachers, Paul encourages Titus to  "Speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine (Titus 2:1)." The word "doctrine" is a derivative of didasko. Paul then tells Titus to teach older men, older women, younger women, and younger men about things like wise speech, loving their husbands, being reverent in behavior, being sober minded, and not drinking too much wine.  In other words, sound doctrine includes a lot of practical stuff (Titus 2:1-10). This section ends with an appeal to slaves to be faithful so the doctrine, again a derivative of didasko, of our God may be adorned (Titus 2:10). Some form of the word for teaching is used in Titus 1:9, 11, 2:1, 7, 10.  Paul does not encourage his pastors, Timothy or Titus, to restrict their teaching to the fundamental doctrines of the faith. In other words, teaching includes "Biblical and practical subjects" and therefore Ryken's assertion that didasko is limited to key doctrines is wrong. I Timothy 2:11-12 does not mean women shouldn't teach men the fundamentals of the faith. It  means, in the church, women should not teach men at all, whether the subject is fundamental doctrine, other Biblical subjects, or practical subjects.

Ryken's position has become popular over the years. The restrictions on women teaching men in the church have become lax. We don't let them in pulpit...just yet. But anywhere else in the church it is often fine for women to teach men.

Ironically Ryken goes on in the next section to say this:

The preceding explanation of I Timothy 2:11-12 (or something close to it) has been the nearly universal understanding of the Christian church. Only in the late twentieth century did it come under relentless attack...The liberal strategy has been to deny the authority of these verses. 

Ryken counts himself among the conservative interpreters. But he isn't. He is just a softer liberal than the evangelical feminists he mentions later, but his interpretation will eventually gets us in the same mess.The way he limits I Timothy 2:11-12 is exegetically untenable. His restriction of the word didasko is unnecessary and strips the passage of its force. His failure to be clear on what he means provides the necessary wiggle room to look conservative while not sounding too harsh on the fairer sex. This is an interpretative and pastoral failure right at the point where the barbarians are storming the gates. Ryken believes he is preserving the church from the forces of liberal, feminist, Christians. But the reality is he has cracked open the door just enough for them to slip in.

Related Posts
Why a Conservative Interpretation of I Timothy 2:11-12 is Not Enough

Book Review: What Is a Reformed Church?

What Is a Reformed Church? by Stephen Smallman
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

A short (28 pages) introduction to the key aspects of a reformed church. Smallman lists six distinct themes in reformed churches: Submission to Scripture, God's sovereignty, the Covenant, the law of God, the Church (government and sacraments), and the Kingdom of God. Not all these were equally well stated. Also I felt his church government section was too narrow. But he is clear overall and thus the book would be helpful for a new convert or someone just coming into a reformed church. In particular the emphasis on God's Word as the foundation for all was helpful.

View all my reviews

Book Review: 50 Crucial Questions about Manhood and Womanhood

50 Crucial Questions About Manhood and Womanhood by John Piper
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

A great introduction to most of the main issues surrounding feminism and the church's capitulation to it. The answers are not comprehensive, but they are good and will point the reader in the right direction. The great benefit of this short book is the amount of ground the authors cover. I am not sure any reader will agree with everything. But most readers will learn something and even where they disagree will find their views challenged. It would be a good book to put on a book table or to hand to someone who is curious about the key teachings in Scripture on male female roles in the church and in the home.

View all my reviews

Pleasure Done Wrong

Christians have an awkward relationship with pleasure. How are we supposed to approach things like sex, steaks, football games, cool summer breezes, a good beer, laughter, and a tickling our children? Are we supposed to feel guilty? Excited?  Isn't the life of a Christian serious business?  Isn't our culture driven by a love of pleasure and shouldn't we be salt and light in this wicked society? Don't things like sex and beer lead to all sorts of sin? Wouldn't it be better if we focused on doing our duty instead of pursuing pleasure?

There are at least four ways we sin in our pursuit of pleasure. In a later post I will flesh out how to approach pleasure positively.

Sin #1: Trade Lasting Pleasures for Temporary Ones
Sin is pleasant. If it wasn't, who would be attracted to it. But it is pleasant in a temporary, short sighted way. Sin is pleasant in the same way Esau's bowl of soup was pleasant or Bathsheba was pleasant  for David. Yes it tasted good or felt good, but then it was gone and these men awoke to the reality of what they had lost. Satan's great goal is to get us to trade lasting, long term pleasure for short, fleeting pleasures. Satan knows that God is pleasure. When we come to him we find joy, happiness, and pleasures without end (Psalm 16:11). Satan knows that God will fill all our needs and desires far beyond our expectations, if we will just pursue Him with all our might and wait on Him to provide. So he makes us push. Sex before marriage is a great example. Almost every study ever done on the subject says that people who do not have sex before marriage, marry one time, and stay with that person are happier than those who don't. Yet Satan whispers in our ears, "It will be fun to sleep around before marriage." And he is right...sort of.  Sin is fun for the moment. But it reaps pain in the long run.

God is not saying, "Give up temporary pleasure for eternal pain." Nor is He saying, "Give up temporary pleasure to do your duty." He is saying, "Give up temporary pleasure for lasting pleasure." Of course, this works eternally (Romans 8:18). We give up many things in this life because we know the next life will bring us great pleasures, the greatest being God himself. But it also often works in this life. A young man who waits on sex will usually find his sexual relationship with his wife better, filled with more pleasure. A woman who controls her eating will find that piece of pie tastes so good at the end of the day. A teenager who gets his work done first will find that he can rest with a clean conscience.

Solution: Do not give up lasting, long term pleasures for short, fleeting ones. Instead pursue lasting pleasures within the boundaries of God's good Word. 

Sin #2: Pleasure is Sinful
Many Christians agree with #1. Yes we must wait. We must not give in to the world's temptations. But we do it out of duty instead of delight. In other words, we buy into Satan's idea that God's rules are there to keep us from pleasure and fun (Genesis 3:5).  We know we are supposed to follow God, but we think this means giving up pleasure. After all, God is a harsh task master. For many conservative Christians pleasure is a sure sign that sin is lurking somewhere. This is a temptation for homeschoolers, Roman Catholics, evangelical Christians, and anyone in between. We know the world makes the mistake of trading lasting pleasures for fleeting ones. Therefore we overreact. Pleasure is bad. Sex can only be about procreation or it can only be a duty to protect ourselves from sexual temptation. Why do we approach it this way? Because God does not like us to have fun.  We watch our weight, what food we eat, how we spend our money, how other people spend their money, how we spend our time, how other people spend their time, etc. We don't watch comedies, tell jokes, dance, like vacation, or enjoy sitting on the deck and watching the sunset. In short, we believe life is very serious, very practical, and we are not here to have fun.

There are two signs a person is trapped in this mindset. First, they feel guilty about pleasure. If something makes them happy then it is probably sinful. They may do it, but penance must be paid later. Second, they give disapproving glances when other people are joyful. They think to themselves, "A happy person is probably a sinning person." A child gleefully running to get a cookie is probably greedy.  A man who loves eating a steak is probably a glutton. If my son enjoyed that movie there was probably some sin involved. And so on.

But, fortunately, God is not this way. God invented all those pleasures. He made cows so we could butcher them and eat a rib eye.  He made sunsets, mountain ranges, ocean beaches, and snow. He made men who would invent baseball, movies, rock music, roller coasters, go-carts, hot dogs, and corn bread to go around our hot dogs. He created wheat so we could have a thousand types of bread and beer. He created dogs, cats, birds, and snakes. He created men and women to fit together physically.  God loves pleasure. He put us in a world where are there are pleasures without end. He is taking us to a world where there will be pleasures beyond imagination. A person who hates pleasure or thinks pleasure is sinful is living in rebellion against God and His world.

Solution: Without guilt, fully enjoy all the pleasures God gives to you. He wants you to enjoy that movie, that ball game, that new car, that steak, your wife, your child's laughter, and yes even the snow. 

Sin #3: We Enjoy Pleasure, But Do Not Thank God 
This mistake is worshiping the creature instead of the Creator. God gives good things to all men, not just Christians (Matthew 5:45). All humans can enjoy God's gifts. Non-Christians can keep sex within marriage. They can teach their children the discipline necessary to enjoy money, food, house, home, work, etc. They can take pleasure in a sunset or a kitten. But proper use of God's good gifts is not the final goal. The goal is doxology, praise, and thanksgiving to the God who gave those gifts. Here is where all those who do not worship the living God fall short.

Christians can fall into this trap. We enjoy God's gifts. But instead of enjoying the gift and then thanking the Giver, we stop at the gift. We do not have to give explicit thanks for all good things. But our lives should be ones of perpetual thanksgiving.

By the way, Christians who think pleasure is sinful (#2) cannot be truly thankful. Why would a person give thanks for what makes them feel guilty?

Solution: Give heartfelt thanks to God for the gifts and pleasures he gives to you daily.  

Sin #4: We Enjoy Pleasure, But Refuse to Deny Ourselves for Others 
Here the failure is not lack of gratitude, but rather failure to love our neighbor. With this sin we enjoy God's gifts, we may even give thanks for them, but we do not moderate our pursuit of pleasure for the sake of others. We love God's physical gifts to the detriment of loving those around us. A man can love to play golf and not be sinning. But when golf becomes more important than family he is sinning. Usually this has to do with how much or what manner we do something, not the thing itself. Eating out is not a sin. But if you eat out so much that your family suffers financially that is a problem. Watching football is not a sin. But if you refuse to fellowship with the saints because of the football game then you are sinning.

Often loving our neighbor and enjoying God's good gifts can and should be combined. A father can teach his children to play golf instead of spending every Saturday away from his family. My brother loves to run. As his kids have gotten older he has included them in his hobby instead of selfishly setting them aside to pursue his own goals. We can invite friends over for a beer instead of just enjoying it ourselves. We can go on a hike as a family instead of just husband and wife. We don't have to, nor should we do this every time, but it will help keep our pursuit of pleasure within God's bounds if we strive to include others. A true joy and pleasure is one you want others to experience.

Solution: Pursue pleasure, but make sure you are not running over your neighbor to do so. Make sure your pleasures are used in service of others.  Include others, as you can, in your joy. 

Healthy Families Play

Edwin Friedman's book Failure of Nerve is an excellent diagnosis of what ails many organizations, whether they are families, businesses, churches, schools, or government agencies. He notes that our society has become what he terms "chronically anxious." He then goes on to list five characteristics of chronically anxious systems. Here is the first sign: reactivity. When Friedman uses the term "family" or "families" he is not just talking about biological families. He is talking about all systems and organizations, such as churches, businesses, biological families, clubs, etc.  Everything indented is a quote for Friedman. I bolded certain phrases.

Reactivity As a Sign of Organizational Devolution

The most blatant characteristic of chronically anxious families is the vicious cycle of intense reactivity of each member to events and to one another...This state is not to be confused with "emotionality": dogged passivity can also be a reactive response. 

Members of chronically anxious families...are constantly taking and making things "personal."

The family is easily "heated up" as feelings are confused with opinions...Family members therefore are easily brought to loggerheads over the most inconsequential issues...Members of highly reactive families wind up constantly focused on the latest, most immediate crisis. 

What also contributes to this loss of perspective is the disappearance of playfulness...Lacking the capacity to be playful, their perspective is narrowed. Lacking perspective the repertoire of responses is thin. Neither apology nor forgiveness is within their ken...The relationship between anxiety and seriousness is so predictable that the absence of playfulness in any institution is almost always a clue to the degree of its emotional regression. 

This is the most striking idea Freidman proposed in this section. Loss of laughter, humor, comedy, playing is a sign that an organization is dead or dying. Christians could translate this into loss of joy. But I like the term playfulness.  It brings the proper perspective to it. Life is a comedy. The dead rise while the living are already dead. Fools are made kings and kings are thrust down. A Jewish carpenter saves the world when a Roman Caesar could not. Dead "families" are always very serious. Living ones know that the joke is on them and can laugh about it.

The most damaging effect of intense reactivity in any family is on its capacity to produce or support a leader...Reactivity, therefore, eventually makes chronically anxious families leaderless, either because it prevents potential leaders from emerging in the first place or because it wears leaders down by sabotaging their initiatives and resolve with constant automatic responses. 

As with any chronically anxious family, there is in American society today an intense quickness to interfere in another's self-expression, to overreact to any perceived hurt, to take all disagreement too seriously, and to brand the opposition with ad hominem personal epithets. As in personal families, this hardens hearts and leaves little room for forgiveness or balanced accommodation.  

With chronic social anxiety, the major regressive effect on leaders is the same as in families. They remain in a reactive stance themselves, led by each emerging crisis rather than being able to take a proactive stance that develops out of an objective perspective or principle.

Friedman's analysis is excellent and puts a name to something that we see all around us. We are a culture that reacts. Leaders react to polls. Pastors react to parishioners. Parents react to children. Husbands react to wives. You cannot lead this way. Reactivity is the opposite of leadership. Leadership means you are going somewhere and you want people to follow you. Leadership is not bouncing from one crisis or one overreaction of your constituent or one complaint from your wife or one bad experience to another. Leadership is calm, focused, and knows what direction to go. It is not sidetracked by constant little fires that arise.

A Square Triangle: Same Sex Marriage and the Rejection of Scripture

Here is my sermon from this past Sunday on the decision by the Supreme Court. My goal was to be clear. There are numerous things I do not talk about, such as how to interact with homosexuals, etc. that I hope to blog about in the future. Here is a simple outline of the sermon:

1. Basic Scriptural teaching on marriage: One man, one woman married for life, serving God and man by taking dominion over the earth and having children. This paradigm is the only proper place for sexual expression. All other paradigms, men to men, women to women, multiple spouses, being married to animals, divorce, adultery, fornication, etc. are consistently and regularly rejected by Scripture. 

2. How did we get here? Short answer: we slowly began to reject God's Word as the final source of truth in our lives. 

3. Where is here? Three things:

Sodomy is judgment. The church and our country are being judged by God. Sodomy is not just a sin it is a judgment. 

The homosexuals want us to approve of and participate in their immorality. They do not just want to commit the acts. They want us to say the acts are okay, righteous, just, natural, and good. They also want us to participate in the immorality by celebrating it with them in weddings and other events. 

We live in a country where the government actively supports the homosexual agenda. Therefore Christians need to continue to disentangle themselves from the government. 

4. What should we do about it? See this blog post for the answer to that. 

Tullian, What About the Sheep?

Celebrity pastors can vary in shape and form. There are men like Doug Phillips suit wearing homeschooling pastor to Mark Driscoll overbearing uber masculine pastor to Tullian Tchividjian hip, grace loving antinomian. But the one thing they have in common is that they destroy the sheep for the sake of their egos. Hear the Word of the Lord to the prophet Ezekiel:

"As for you, my flock, thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I judge between sheep and sheep, between rams and male goats. Is it not enough for you to feed on the good pasture, that you must tread down with your feet the rest of your pasture; and to drink of clear water, that you must muddy the rest of the water with your feet? And must my sheep eat what you have trodden with your feet, and drink what you have muddied with your feet? "Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD to them: Behold, I, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. Because you push with side and shoulder, and thrust at all the weak with your horns, till you have scattered them abroad, I will rescue my flock; they shall no longer be a prey. And I will judge between sheep and sheep. And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd. And I, the LORD, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them. I am the LORD; I have spoken. (Ezekiel 34:17-24)

There is a lot going on in Ezekiel 34 that connects with the coming of Christ and the New Covenant. However, there is a focus on the condemnation of the shepherds. God hates faithless shepherds. Shepherds who destroy the sheep. Shepherds who pollute the streams the flock of God drinks from. Shepherds who push and shove. We don't think of men like Tullian and Phillips as polluters, as men who muddy the waters. They look so nice. They are all sweetness and kindness and grace. But they scatter and hurt the sheep.  Pastors can and do sin. But the response of men like these to their sin, along with too many others, shows they do not understand God, his judgment, or his grace. When David sinned he cried out to God for mercy. He begged God's unconditional forgiveness (Psalm 51). When David counted his people in pride and God judged him he pleaded with God to lay His hand on himself and not on the sheep (I Chronicles 21:17). When Peter sinned he wept and was grieved (Luke 22:62 and John 21:17). What do we get when Tullian Tchividjian commits adultery?

I resigned from my position at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church today due to ongoing marital issues. As many of you know, I returned from a trip a few months back and discovered that my wife was having an affair. Heartbroken and devastated, I informed our church leadership and requested a sabbatical to focus exclusively on my marriage and family. As her affair continued, we separated. Sadly and embarrassingly, I subsequently sought comfort in a friend and developed an inappropriate relationship myself. Last week I was approached by our church leaders and they asked me about my own affair. I admitted to it and it was decided that the best course of action would be for me to resign. Both my wife and I are heartbroken over our actions and we ask you to pray for us and our family that God would give us the grace we need to weather this heart wrenching storm. We are amazingly grateful for the team of men and women who are committed to walking this difficult path with us. Please pray for the healing of deep wounds and we kindly ask that you respect our privacy.

This statement wreaks of self-centered pride and evasion. Does this sound anything like Psalm 51 or Psalm 6 or Daniel 9 or Ezra 9? The word  "sin" is not even used in the statement. Why not? What on earth would cause a minister of the gospel to commit adultery and call it an "inappropriate relationship" or say he was having "marital issues" or say it was "sad and embarrassing?" While he does not technically blame his wife, he does throws her to the wolves. He plays the coward by mentioning his wife's sins. What does her affair have to do with his repentance?  Much like "apologies" from other church leaders and our politicians, it is damage control. It is not begging for repentance. It is not the cry of the tax collector, "Lord be merciful to me a sinner." It is the calculated move of man playing the celebrity game. He talks about his "heart wrenching storm." What about the sheep, brother? What about the sheep? What about the folks at Coral Ridge who stuck with you? What about your leaders who now have to spend hours and hours looking for new pastor all because you needed "comfort?" What about all the ministers who stood up for you and promoted you and sold your books? What about your denomination, the PCA? What about your children? What about Christ and His Name? What about using the term "adultery" instead of affair? Later Tullian tweeted "Welcome to the valley of the shadow of death...thank God grace reigns here." Really? He views himself as walking through the valley of the shadow of death instead of standing on the edge of a cliff? Again, I say what about the sheep? Not what about your Twitter followers or your image or your future ministry or your restoration or your doctrine of "inexhaustible grace", but what about the sheep, those whom you will give account for on the day of judgment (Hebrews 13:17)? Please give us something that shows true repentance and real concern for those you have hurt by your sin.

Pastors, we are being judged for our failure to love the flock. We have fallen in love with ourselves and the sound of our voice. We did not mean to of course, but we have. We are more politicians than pastors. We are more celebrity speakers than preachers. We long for books and conferences and tours. Faithfulness is only a means to becoming famous. I know there are many good pastors. I sit in their company from time to time. But all of us, famous or not, must kill the longing in our souls for the applause of men. We must resist the siren song of celebrityism. We must wage war against the desire to be known. We must hate pride. We must be accountable to good, but hard men who will ask the questions we don't want to hear. And we must continue to pray that God will destroy celebrity pastors and the culture which creates them and bring us back to our work; loving, shepherding, teaching, praying for, preaching to, and rebuking the sheep placed in our care. 

Two For, Two Against

.

A church discipline situation became public last week that had been going on at The Village Church (TVC). Matt Chandler is the pastor of this mega-church. He is also the one who took over the Acts29 network when Mark Driscoll resigned.  As I read through the documents and various blog posts, I thought about how much pastoral wisdom is necessary to exercise church discipline and to make sure to push when necessary and lay off when necessary. I have sympathy for the wife who was betrayed in an awful manner by her one flesh partner. But I also have sympathy for the elders at Village Church who are trying to give a good account to the Lord for the sheep (Hebrews 13:17). 

Timeline 
Here is the timeline I cam up with from the articles at this site.   I went through and read everything I could find about the case.

A husband and wife, Jordan and Karen Root, were missionaries in Asia. They were supported by TVC and were members of TVC, but they were employed by Serving in Mission (SIM). In December the husband confessed to looking at child porn for several years. The couple was immediately taken off the mission field. SIM investigated the husband and reported back to TVC. Sometime in late January the wife filed for an annulment of her marriage without consulting the elders at TVC. This was a violation of her church membership vows. On February 11th Karen sent a letter to TVC requesting to be dropped from the membership rolls. TVC refused to do so because she had violated her membership vows. Then they put her under church discipline.

TVC  and SIM removed Jordan from leadership. TVC removed all of his financial support while agreeing to support Karen until August 31st. Restricted him from certain areas at church. He must check in and be chaperoned by an approved member of TVC while at church. They alerted all the proper civil authorities. They also told all places where Jordan worked what he had done.

The church body was kept up to date throughout the process, though some of the earlier emails were vague as to the exact sin Jordan had committed. In an email on May 23rd the elders informed the congregation that Karen was under church discipline for filing for annulment without consulting the elders. This week a furor arose over Karen's church discipline and yesterday Matt Chandler issued an apology letter and agreed to remove her from the membership rolls. 

In a situation like this there are many unknown facts. Therefore clarity, especially for an outsider, is hard to come by. But based on the documents I read, which are surely not everything, here are some thoughts. 

A Couple of Odd Things

Why were no charges pressed against the husband? In a May 23rd email Chandler says the FBI "investigation resulted in no charges being filed against Jordan." I have never heard of someone using child porn for years and not going to prison. Maybe he looked at images as a missionary and thus he was outside U.S. Jurisdiction. Also why did Karen chose annulment and not divorce? 

In Defense of Membership Vows

One complaint against TVC is that membership vows are unbiblical and create a situation that is ripe for abuse. Anytime someone makes a promise to someone else that promise can become a way for the powerful to abuse the weak. However, that does not make membership vows inherently wrong anymore than it makes marriage vows wrong. If a person joins any organization, much less covenants with other people, they expect to know what responsibilities they have and what obligations the organization has towards them. The church is the same way. What is required of me when I join a body? What obligations do the elders have towards me? This can be twisted and abused. Vows are only as good as the people making them. But members need to know what they are getting into. Too many people attend churches with no formal commitment to their local church. This is not healthy or biblical. 

The Coming Division Between Christ and Family

For many generations a convert to Christianity in the West (Europe & America) did not have to sacrifice much. The reason was Western Christendom. Most of society was built on Christian laws and operated under a Christian ethic. If someone went to a revival meeting and got saved they went out into a world, that for the most part, approved of their conversion and the actions that flowed from it.  If a preacher called a man to come to Christ, that repentance rarely meant that the man would lose his family or job for believing in Jesus.

In the coming years this will change. Conversion to Christ in the West will require more sacrifice. In particular, we will find families divided. There will be other types of loss, such as jobs and money, but nothing compares to being rejected by our family. Losing family is a deep wound. New Christians will no longer find themselves in a world that basically approves of them and their actions. Instead they will find themselves in the position of many Muslims who when they choose Christ lose all. Two Muslim brothers who came to Jesus described it this way:

Faith [in Jesus] often means the total rejection of culture, ethnicity, family, and friends. To find heaven's glory in Jesus Christ, we Caner brothers lost our father. (Islam Unveiled)

Another example is Rosaria Butterfield who was a lesbian professor at a major university when she came to Jesus. In the account of her conversion she notes that not only did she lose her friends, they felt betrayed by her. They put their trust in her. They counted on her to support them. When she came to Christ, they felt like she had stabbed them in the back. While this was not her biological family, the bonds she felt with these people were as strong as natural family bonds.

Stories like these will become more common as the years progress.  We will hear of sons being rejected by fathers and fathers rejected by sons. We will hear of children raised in homosexual homes converting to Christ and being rejected by their parents. We will hear of daughters being kicked out of homes for their faith in Christ. We will hear of Muslims rejecting family members for conversion, not in the Middle East, but here in America. We will hear of close knit groups who hate a member for leaving them and following Jesus. The possibilities are endless, but the probability of families, biological or otherwise, being divided by Christ is high.

How can the church prepare for this?

First, we must remind ourselves and tell those we evangelize that Jesus demands absolute loyalty. Family is not the highest good. Jesus is. You can gain your family and lose Jesus. You can hold to all sorts of wonderful family values, like the Mormons and the Muslims, and still burn in Hell. Jesus came to separate.

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:34-38)

Family is important, but it does not trump Jesus Christ.  If we give the impression that family is more important than Jesus people will not make the choice to follow Jesus with their whole heart. They will be divided. We must declare without apology, that if the choice is Jesus or family, Jesus must win.

Second, our churches must be a places where broken families come to be integrated into God's eternal family of brothers and sisters. Single mothers, divorced folks, people recovering from sodomy and abortion, the abused, the abuser, etc. when they trust in Christ and are baptized should find a place in our churches to serve and grow. Widows must be cared for and orphans must be adopted. If our churches cannot or will not bring in these people then we are saying biological family trumps God's family. That is a grievous sin and shows disloyalty to Jesus. Teaching this is not enough. Somehow, and it is not easy, we must create a tone, an atmosphere where broken families are welcome. Perhaps most important is to remember that we were broken (Titus 3:3) and outside of God's family (Ephesians 4:14-22), but God in his mercy has adopted us and saved us.

Third, we must maintain strong families, but not idolize them. A good Biblical home is a wonderful witness of God's grace to the watching world. We should teach and model what a good wife and husband looks like. We should teach parents to raise their children in the discipline and admonition of the Lord. We should encourage our young people to get married and have lots of children.  But all of this must be done, not as an end to itself, but as a way to glorified God and build his kingdom. If we build the family for the sake of the family then we have made the family an idol. And God destroys idols. But if we build our families so they might serve and build the church, including those who do not have families, then we are reflecting Biblical priorities.

Fourth, we should be grateful for the good relationships we have with non-Christian family members. For many, even though their family is not worshiping Jesus, they can still be friends. Of course, there is always a divide. No matter how much we love our family, if they do not trust in Christ there is chasm that cannot be crossed until they believe.  But God is kind. He gives common grace so we can enjoy their company and they our's despite their lack of faith.

Finally, we should be thankful when our biological family is Christian. My whole family believes in the Lord Jesus Christ. He could have made me choose between Christ and my family as many Christians around the world have done. But he didn't. God in his mercy has made my temporary, biological family part of my eternal, spiritual family.  The only proper response to this astonishing fact is gratitude.

How We Got Here or Principles of Modern Thought: Authenticity

This is the fourth post in series on Stephen Clark's five principles of modern thought. The list is below along with links to the previous posts.

The Principle of Equality
The Principle of Freedom
The Principle of Developing Full Potential 
The Principle of Authenticity
The Principle of Being a "Full-Person"

Here is what Clark says about the principle of authenticity:

The Principle of Authenticity-"It states that each individual should express his or her true feelings and preferences at all times so that one's 'authentic' personality might develop and be seen. Closely related to the principle of authenticity is the notion that each person should express his or her unique personality and gifts as fully as possible. The ideals of authenticity and uniqueness lead to a dislike for the type of social structure taught in scripture. To accept a role which does not fit one's feelings or preferences would be inauthentic. 

While scriptural teaching allows for individual differences it does not idealize them, since sin finds authentic and unique expression in the lives of most people." 

Authenticity has been mocked more and more lately, which is a good thing. Yet the central idea holds on with vehemence in our culture. Dress, sexual identity, job choice, education, spouses, are all often chosen based on what makes a person feel authentic, whatever that means. The key, as with the other three principles is that of individualism. We have a right to express ourselves in "authentic" ways. No one can fence us in or put us in a box. There is a real "me" that must come out and you cannot stop it. I have a right to be me.

Biblical structure, order, submission, and obedience reject the absoluteness of this idea. You may have dreams, desires, personality traits, giftings, that cannot be developed without breaking God's commands. Or that are outside of God's providence for you. The idea of women preaching and having authority is, in part, rooted in this idea of authenticity. A woman has the gift of teaching. Why shouldn't she be allowed to express that gifting? Often authenticity is just an excuse for selfishness and a refusal to submit to God's Word. Authenticity does not equal righteousness. For a Christian the question is not, "Am I expressing the true me?"  Rather it is, "Am I conforming to Christ and His revealed Word?"

How We Got Here or Principles of Modern Thought: Full Potential

Here is the third post in a series on Stephen Clark's five guiding principles of modern thought. The list with links to the previous posts can be found below.

The Principle of Equality
The Principle of Freedom
The Principle of Developing Full Potential 
The Principle of Authenticity
The Principle of Being a "Full-Person"

Here is Clark's description of the third principle that drives modern thinking:

The Principle of Developing Full Potential or Achieving Self-Fulfillment-"This an individualistic principle closely related to the principle of freedom. Self-fulfillment and full potential become ideals under conditions of little social cohesion where each individual feels the need to watch out for himself...It emphasizes gifts and abilities rather than personal relationships. 

A principle of self-fulfillment cannot be found in scripture. The scriptural teaching presumes a cohesive communal lifestyle and sets forth an ideal of servanthood. The scripture allows Christians to seek reward, but the criterion for action is love, that is, laying down one's life for the Lord and the brothers and sisters." 

The thought here is that anything or anyone that prevents me from achieving what I think is my full potential is restricting  my freedom and ultimately harming me. People and things exist to give me fulfillment and make me happy.

Perhaps no principle on this list is as thoroughly rejected by Scripture as this one. The Christian life is one of love and service that is focused on giving of our life, time, money, and energy to others. A principle of achieving full potential runs hard against that truth. It is impossible to live like Christ and still be focused on achieving your full potential. Yet because this is the air that we breath we still function this way. Popular Christian preachers make millions promising people that if they come to Christ he will help them fulfill their potential. On a more day to day level, we assume that if I am not becoming who I think I ought to be then something has gone wrong.  How many "Christian" men have left their wives because they felt held back by them? How many college children reject their parent's faith because it keeps them from "stretching their wings?" How many pastors have stopped preaching the hard truths of service and sacrifice so their people will be happy and feel fulfilled? How many young men enter the job force expecting it to help them fulfill their potential? How many young ladies bear children for the same, ungodly reason? The Christian life is one of service. The minute we make our personal satisfaction and fulfillment the goal then have abandoned the narrow path.

I would add that when we follow Christ we will ultimately find happiness and satisfaction. We were made for God and in him we will be filled. But that satisfaction comes from the well-done at the end. And that well-done comes from living for Christ, dying to self and serving others. It does not come from putting our own personal fulfillment at the center of our existence.

Women's Ordination and the Rejection of the Created Order

Stephen B. Clark's last chapter in his great book Man and Woman in Christ  covers ordination, occupation and legislation. He makes three points about women's ordination that are worth quoting. All words in the quote blocks are him, except for brackets. First;

The study done here [his book] reveals that both Scripture and tradition teach very clearly that the positions of overall government in the Christian community are to be held by men. This is one of the clearest and most consistent principles concerning the structure and order of the Christian people from the time of Christ and the apostles until a very recent period of Christian history. If any authoritative statements about order among the Christian people are undisputed in scripture and tradition, this is surely one of them. To change it is not simply a matter of changing one rule: If this principle can be changed, the Christian people can change any feature of order, and they are not bound by scripture and tradition in shaping their life together. The judgment to ordain women, then, involve the judgment that modern society has reached the point where scripture and tradition cannot definitely guide the structuring of the common life of Christians.

His first point is that ordaining women is a complete rejection of the teaching of Scripture and the history of God's people. By the way, when he says, "Christian community" he does not mean just church.

Clark goes on to say

Second, the study done in this book indicates that the question of who should be the heads of the Christian people is actually a question of God's purposes for the human race and how the new humanity [Christians] should be formed. Government of the Christian people is not merely a secondary question of social roles that can be changed with little consequence. Rather, the question involves a broader vision of what human life should be like according to God's ideal. The ordering of governmental responsibilities is only an expression of that underlying vision. Deciding to have women acting as heads of the Christian people means deciding that the scriptural vision of the life of humans together is no longer applicable or appropriate. A decision about structure and order in this area is a decision about what a body of Christians is trying to be. 

Clark's second point, derived from his study of Genesis 1-3, is that traditional male/female roles are inherent in the created order and are necessary for the flourishing of the human race.  Christ came to restore the human race through making new creatures.  Becoming a new creature in Christ includes maintaining this distinction between men and women. The rejection of this distinction does not just change the church structure, but is an explicit rejection of God's goal for the human race. It is odd that many feminists and evangelicals believe that a true restoration of the human race would abolish all these differences.

In his third point he addressing churches, which do not want to ordain women:

These churches are trying to maintain this position without attempting to provide a corresponding social structure to support it. For instance, they do not any longer normally teach very clearly about a difference in the roles of men and women. Yet, unless they do, their position on ordination will become more and more difficult for their people to understand and accept. When rules of order do not structure social life in a helpful way, such rules are often experienced as both restrictive and senseless. Of course these churches could claim a basis other than social structure for holding that women should not be ordained.  That is, they can, for example insist that ordination is a sacramental matter which operates by an entirely different set of rules than the rest of life, and which should have no consequences for social structure...In short, if the churches that presently maintain the prohibition of women's ordination do not (1) back up their position with clear instruction on family structure, and (2) provide their people with adequate social support to live a way of life different from the technological society around them (one which includes the role difference between men and women) these churches will fail to resolve the current controversy in this area.  Either the issue of women's ordination will remain a sore point, or it will contribute to an even greater separation between "sacramental" matters and the daily life of the Christian people. 

This final quote is perceptive by Clark. His point is that a refusal to ordain women cannot be properly maintained without being placed in an overarching paradigm of male and female roles that derives from Genesis 1-3, is meant to apply to all humans, and is taught that way to Christian people. Here is how Clark says it in another section of his book:

Christians cannot obey the few clear scriptural directives about order in personal relationships and live in every other respect according to the functional relationships of the modern world and still expect to experience the scriptural directives as an unqualified blessing. 

He lists only two options when the paradigm does not hold: continued contention or sharp dualism. But there is a third option: compromise. Many Christians long before they promoted women elders rejected the traditional reading of male and female roles outlined in Genesis 1-3 as a normative goal for all societies at all times and therefore one that is to be lived by all Christians. For a while the line holds because there is chapter and verse that says, "No women elders." However, once the traditional reading is rejected, eventually someone says, "I Timothy 2:11-12 and Ephesians 5, as traditionally taught, do not fit our new paradigm." Those texts, along with others that teach the traditional reading, are eventually reinterpreted to fit the previous reinterpretation of Genesis 1-3. Unless Ephesians 5, I Timothy 2 and texts like these are just a normal extension of God's purposes for creating the human race then they become "senseless" and arbitrary.

How We Got Here or 5 Principles of Modern Thought: Freedom

This is the second post in a series on Stephen Clark's list of guiding principles of for modern thought. Here is the list with a link to the first post.

The Principle of Equality
The Principle of Freedom
The Principle of Developing Full Potential 
The Principle of Authenticity
The Principle of Being a "Full-Person"

Here is Clark's second principle that guides modern thought.

The Principle of Freedom-"Each individual should guide his or her own life and make his or her own decisions independent of the thoughts or interference of others. This principle considers all forms of social control other than state-authorized bureaucratic or educational forms as morally wrong, and it regards them as forms of oppression or domination. Personal subordination is evil and degrading. Underlying this Liberal principle of freedom is an individualistic notion that the highest good resides in the greatest degree of personal autonomy and freedom of movement.

Scripture also teaches a principle of liberty, but is the liberty to be sons and daughters of God and freedom from that opposes this status-especially the world, the flesh, the devil, and sin. The type of freedom scripture describes is compatible with a strong commitment to a body of people and with the acceptance of personal subordination. In fact, scripture sees corporate commitment and personal subordination as aids to freedom." 

A couple notes on this principle:

First, state control seems at odd with this principle, but Clark understood that state control would not be seen as restricting freedom. Clark wrote this 35 years ago. The state would set itself up as the guarantor of freedom. Isn't it strange that we all cry for freedom and person autonomy, yet we send our children to state run schools that have a state approved curriculum administered by state approved teachers? Even those of us who do not do that must usually be "state approved" in some way. How odd that a people who value personal autonomy allow their sons and daughters to be shaped for years by the state? Clark understood that we all serve someone.

Second, here is why many forms of libertarianism are modern through and through . Supreme value is placed on personal autonomy.

Third, here is one of the roots of post modern relativism. Who are you to restrict my freedom, especially in moral areas? Who are you to tell to me what I can and cannot do? This flows easily from the first principle of equality. If all men are to be treated equally then they should have freedom to do as they please. Restriction, for the modern, equals inferiority. So if you take away my personal freedoms you are not treating me as a equal.

Fourth, freedom for the Christian is always freedom from sin, never freedom to be whoever we want to be. A Christian teacher who says the Christ came to set you free must carefully explain what he means. The modern mind naturally drifts towards freedom meaning "no restrictions on my life."

Fifth, in the Christian life subordination is part of our freedom in Christ. A Christian wife is not enslaved to her marriage or her husband. She is free. The modern mind has a hard time grasping this. But Ephesians 5 is particularly strong in this area. Freedom means freedom to obey. Slaves are free to obey. Wives are free to submit. Children are free to obey. Freedom does not mean I escape from obligations and responsibilities to God's Word.

How We Got Here or Principles of Modern Thought: Equality

Stephen Clark lists five guiding principles of modern thought. The list is interesting since it was written 35 years ago. But looking back one can see that it is spot on. How did we get to a place where sodomite marriage is fine, abortion is fine, women go into combat, and the rejection of one's God given status as a man or a woman is fine ? This list gives you the blocks that build the modern mind.

The Principle of Equality
The Principle of Freedom
The Principle of Developing Full Potential 
The Principle of Authenticity
The Principle of Being a "Full-Person"

Just to be clear on what Clark thinks of these five principles he closes the section saying this:

These five ethical principles exert a powerful influence over Christian discussions of men's and women's roles. Yet none of them are intrinsically Christian principles and none of them derive from a Christian ethical system.

I am going to address these in five posts. Here is what Clark says about the first principle:

The Principle of Equality-"This principle states that all individuals should be treated identically, except for differences in ability or interest...Sometimes the principle of equality is phrased as an attack on anything that would make one person be regarded as 'inferior' to another. This principle militates against social roles ascribed according to age and sex and also against personal subordination. 

Scripture also teaches a principle of equality, but it is a principle of equal care for all members of the body. The scriptural principle is compatible with social roles and personal authority. It is not based on the individualizing of people for a functional society, but is instead based upon a communal life and personal relationships."

There are several things to note about this principle:

First, equality as defined by moderns naturally leads to sodomy, transgenders, and the rejection of male/female roles, among other things. All "roles" become choices we make based on what we enjoy and like, not based on any inherent, built in standard. So a person might be fine with my wife being a homemaker, but they would not be fine with me saying, "Homemaking is the normal, God-ordained, path for women." A person might be fine with men leading my church, but they would be upset with me saying, "Men must lead the church." Each person is equal and what they end up doing is based in the individual's choice, not in any divine law. It also means we can move in and out of "roles." On one level, egalitarians should have a live and let live mentality. But see the next point.

Second, modern equality means you forcefully eradicate anything that makes one person "inferior" to another. The goal is to destroy all positions of authority or empty them of their power.  Egalitarianism is militant.  It is not ultimately content to let others believe in hierarchy. For a while, it pretended to get along, but the goal has always been to drive out by force anything that smacks of inequality. We cannot all just get along. Egalitarians know this better than many conservative Christians.

Third, a plain reading of Scripture beginning in Genesis 1 shows how unbiblical modern equality is. A plain reading of nature shows how unnatural it is.

Fourth, there is an equality in Scripture, but that equality does not eradicate power, authority, hierarchy, male/female roles, etc.  Just because all men are saved the same way, by faith in Jesus Christ, does not make all Christians androgynous, equal in wealth, power, authority, background, knowledge, age, and experience.

Updated at 12 pm on November 13th.