I know that I have talked about Susan Hunt’s concept of being a life-giver before, but it has really been on my mind lately. I have been so convicted that even though I don’t realize it, by default I am a life-taker, not a life-giver. If I am not intentionally working towards that end, then I will always lean towards life-taking. Which is why I have decided to do a small series on being a life-giver. Doing a series on this blog may seem like a stretch for me, considering the lack of frequency in my posting. But, Lord willing, I hope to fulfill this desire, primarily for my own spiritual benefit. First, I will talk about what a life-giver is, and then I will touch on practical ways we can be life-givers in our every day lives.
In her book, The Legacy of Biblical Womanhood, Susan Hunt says that “Genesis 3:20 predicts the redeemed woman’s mission to leave the legacy [of biblical womanhood] by being a life-giver: ‘the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she is the mother of all living.’”
She calls this redemption a “battle” and says: “this battle for biblical womanhood is nothing new. It is simply the reclaiming of what has been and always will be. But reclaim we must—for the glory of our sovereign king and the advancement of his Kingdom.”
And so the battle rages.
Being a life-giver in today’s society is not easy. The argument for womanhood that we are given is one of life-taking. But it’s not just the society around us that makes life-giving a challenge. Our own hearts are, by their very nature, drawn to life-taking. Which is why we need the Gospel.
Becoming a life-giver begins with the Gospel because our example is Christ, who made himself nothing and gave his life for us (Philippians 2). He is the ultimate life-giver that we look to. It is also must begin with the Gospel because we need renewed minds. Romans 12:1 tells us this, and we know this to be true because of Romans 1 and 2. We are fallen and marred by sin and cannot think in terms of life-giving apart from Christ’s saving work in our lives.
Once we have been redeemed, how do we live? We must go to the source of our living, the Word. Jesus is the Word made flesh, and we know more about him by studying the Bible. If we are not daily fighting our sinful tendency to be a life-taker, we will naturally be inclined towards life-taking. Bible memory and daily Bible reading are very practical, beginning steps towards knowing our Savior. You can memorize Philippians 2, which is a great passage about the incarnation of our Savior. Read through a yearly Bible plan and learn about God’s purposes of redemption and how he redeems people to be life-givers. Listen to good sermons that will spur you on to holiness and challenge you in your walk. Get involved in a local church body where you will have opportunities to serve and give life to the members. All of these things are a start at fighting our own tendency to be selfish, life-takers.
My hope with this series is that we would first love our Christ more, that we would see our desperate need to be daily pleading before the throne of grace from the perfect life giver, Himself. This is not empty moralism. It is a heart issue, really, which is why the Gospel must be central. If we simply do this without trusting Christ, without trusting in his righteousness, we will fail and God will not be pleased. Any amount of life-giving in us is empty without the Savior. It must come be born out of a heart that loves Christ and desires to do his will. In part two, I hope to talk about qualities of a life-giver. May our great God give you grace to give life to others and glory to himself.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
C.S. Lewis and Gender
Many of us can probably remember our first C.S. Lewis experience. For me, I was introduced to Lewis’ works through the old PBS Chronicles of Narnia series. I loved these movies, and would often step into my bedroom closet just hoping that on the other side the world of Narnia and Aslan would be waiting for me. As I got older my encounters with Lewis became more intellectual. I distinctly remember thinking that I had long way to go at my first, and second, attempts at reading Mere Christianity.
C.S. Lewis is a staple of thought-provoking, engaging evangelicalism, which is why I was delighted to read a complementarian essay by my favorite Narnian.
In his book God in the Dock, Lewis pens an essay entitled “Priestesses in the Church,” where he expresses his dismay over the Anglican communion’s decision to ordain women. As a result of a shortage of priests, much like today, the Anglican church voted to bring women into the priesthood.
He says:
"To take such a revolutionary step at the present moment, to cut ourselves off from the Christian past and to widen the divisions between ourselves and other churches by establishing an order of priestesses in our midst, would be an almost wanton degree of imprudence. And the Church of England herself would be torn in shreds by the operation."
Lewis saw the decision to ordain women as one that would have lasting repercussions on his denomination. And it did. The very denomination that once moved in the direction of the ordination of women is now wrestling with the ordination of homosexuals. The Anglican Church now ordains more women than men.
Lewis saw that the ordination of women has everything to do with the doctrine of God. It is not simply about women being in the pulpit.
"To us a priest is primarily a representative, a double representative, who represents God to us and us to God. Our very eyes teach us this. Sometimes the priest turns his back on us and faces the East—he speaks to God for us: sometimes he faces us and speaks to us for God. We have no objection to a woman doing the first: the whole difficulty is about the second. But why? Why should a woman not in this sense represent God? Certainly not because she is necessarily, or even probably, less holy or less charitable or stupider than a man. In that sense she may be as God-like as a man; and a given woman much more than a given man. The sense in which she cannot represent God will be perhaps plainer if we look at things the other way round."
"Suppose the reformer stops saying that good woman may be like God and starts saying that God is like a good woman. Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to “Our mother which art in heaven” as “Our Father.” Suppose he suggests that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called Daughter as the Son. Suppose finally that the mystical marriage were reversed, that the Church were the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this, it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does."
And there is the reason. The ordination of women is not simply a preferential issue, like we decide music styles. Rather it is deeply rooted in a theology of God, a theology of his Triune nature, and theology of His Gospel. To abandon male ordination is to be set on a trajectory to abandon these fundamental doctrines. Lewis even goes so far as to say that moving away from masculine images and male priests is “against Christianity.”
According to Lewis, gender matters. Not simply in technical terms but for the Gospel itself. As is evident from his from his writings, C. S. Lewis saw in advance the problems that the church now suffers as a result of the ordination of women.
C.S. Lewis is a staple of thought-provoking, engaging evangelicalism, which is why I was delighted to read a complementarian essay by my favorite Narnian.
In his book God in the Dock, Lewis pens an essay entitled “Priestesses in the Church,” where he expresses his dismay over the Anglican communion’s decision to ordain women. As a result of a shortage of priests, much like today, the Anglican church voted to bring women into the priesthood.
He says:
"To take such a revolutionary step at the present moment, to cut ourselves off from the Christian past and to widen the divisions between ourselves and other churches by establishing an order of priestesses in our midst, would be an almost wanton degree of imprudence. And the Church of England herself would be torn in shreds by the operation."
Lewis saw the decision to ordain women as one that would have lasting repercussions on his denomination. And it did. The very denomination that once moved in the direction of the ordination of women is now wrestling with the ordination of homosexuals. The Anglican Church now ordains more women than men.
Lewis saw that the ordination of women has everything to do with the doctrine of God. It is not simply about women being in the pulpit.
"To us a priest is primarily a representative, a double representative, who represents God to us and us to God. Our very eyes teach us this. Sometimes the priest turns his back on us and faces the East—he speaks to God for us: sometimes he faces us and speaks to us for God. We have no objection to a woman doing the first: the whole difficulty is about the second. But why? Why should a woman not in this sense represent God? Certainly not because she is necessarily, or even probably, less holy or less charitable or stupider than a man. In that sense she may be as God-like as a man; and a given woman much more than a given man. The sense in which she cannot represent God will be perhaps plainer if we look at things the other way round."
"Suppose the reformer stops saying that good woman may be like God and starts saying that God is like a good woman. Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to “Our mother which art in heaven” as “Our Father.” Suppose he suggests that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called Daughter as the Son. Suppose finally that the mystical marriage were reversed, that the Church were the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this, it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does."
And there is the reason. The ordination of women is not simply a preferential issue, like we decide music styles. Rather it is deeply rooted in a theology of God, a theology of his Triune nature, and theology of His Gospel. To abandon male ordination is to be set on a trajectory to abandon these fundamental doctrines. Lewis even goes so far as to say that moving away from masculine images and male priests is “against Christianity.”
According to Lewis, gender matters. Not simply in technical terms but for the Gospel itself. As is evident from his from his writings, C. S. Lewis saw in advance the problems that the church now suffers as a result of the ordination of women.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Becoming an "All-Letter" Christian
I used to be a Democrat. In the same way that I wrestled with feminism after coming to faith, I wrestled with my political affiliations. Not because I wasn’t pro-life, or even pro-marriage. And not even because I was overly political. Those were never issues for me. I just hated to see people hurting and in poverty, especially children, and I wanted so badly to do something about it. So, I thought the best way to fix the poverty problem was to vote people into office who would fight poverty and join forces with humanitarian organizations.
For myself, my moderate, socialist leanings were stemming from a genuine desire to see needs met, but these honest desires were the result of a deficient ecclesiology on my part. While I paid lip-service to the truth that churches were supposed to help the poor, I was easily swayed by the mainstream ideology that the average conservative religious person cares very little about the poor, and for that reason I wanted no part. I honestly believed that the primary way to bring about kingdom change was through political agendas and the welfare state.
And then I moved to the Phillips neighborhood of Minneapolis.
Phillips is where supposedly over 200 languages are spoken, and on my street our house was the minority. It was not uncommon to see a drug deal take place within feet of our front door. It was not uncommon to hear gun shots at night. It was not uncommon to see a fight right outside our window and then wait for the police to show up. One night we even came home from Chipotle to find a charred and smoking car across the street. It had been set on fire.
But we didn’t live their simply because we felt like it. We lived there because our church, based in the city, was committed to being a Light to the community where we worshipped on Sunday morning. Now, more than ever I realize that if we are ever going to see poverty dealt with it will not be through elected officials, or even secular humanitarian groups. It must come from the local church living in communities and teaching the Gospel to their neighbors. And living in a community does not simply mean handing out Gospel tracts and door-to-door evangelism without ever inviting the single mother and her children over for dinner. If we are ever to see lasting change in the city, and in the world for that matter, we must live life with the people we desire God to save. We must know their names. We must bear their burdens. And above all we must preach the Gospel to them.
Christians should care about “social issues” primarily because, as Christians, our concern is not with fixing situations and symptoms, but rather the heart of the problem. I am not simply a “red-letter Christian,” but an all-letter Christian, recognizing that all of Scripture is inspired by God. Poverty is a symptom of the real problem—sin. We live in a sin cursed world that is crying out for redemption, and we can see that even in the face of the little boy playing across the street while his mother completes another drug deal. The Bible is telling us that the Kingdom is an already, but not yet. We are striving for a City that is to come, and if we exert all of our energy in a political agenda divorced from the Gospel and the local churches mandate to help the poor, we will be disappointed and confused in the end, and we really won’t be helping anyone.
We cannot attempt to put new wine into old wine skins because the Bible has shown us that it doesn’t work. We need new wineskins, new hearts, and a new creation, that has all been transformed by the saving power of our Christ.
C.S. Lewis said it best in Mere Christianity:
We must try by every medical, educational, economic, and political means in our power to produce a world where as many people as possible grow up ‘nice’; just as we must try to produce a world where all have plenty to eat. But we must not suppose that even if we succeeded in making everyone nice we should have saved their souls. A world of nice people, content in their own niceness, looking for further, turned away from God, would be just as desperately in need of salvation as a miserable world—and might even be more difficult to save.
For mere improvement is not redemption, though redemption always improves people even here and now and will, in the end, improve them to a degree we cannot yet imagine. God became man to turn creatures into sons: not simply to produce better men of the old kind but to produce a new kind of man.
May our hearts desire be to labor for the “new kind of man” and not simply a reordered old one.
For myself, my moderate, socialist leanings were stemming from a genuine desire to see needs met, but these honest desires were the result of a deficient ecclesiology on my part. While I paid lip-service to the truth that churches were supposed to help the poor, I was easily swayed by the mainstream ideology that the average conservative religious person cares very little about the poor, and for that reason I wanted no part. I honestly believed that the primary way to bring about kingdom change was through political agendas and the welfare state.
And then I moved to the Phillips neighborhood of Minneapolis.
Phillips is where supposedly over 200 languages are spoken, and on my street our house was the minority. It was not uncommon to see a drug deal take place within feet of our front door. It was not uncommon to hear gun shots at night. It was not uncommon to see a fight right outside our window and then wait for the police to show up. One night we even came home from Chipotle to find a charred and smoking car across the street. It had been set on fire.
But we didn’t live their simply because we felt like it. We lived there because our church, based in the city, was committed to being a Light to the community where we worshipped on Sunday morning. Now, more than ever I realize that if we are ever going to see poverty dealt with it will not be through elected officials, or even secular humanitarian groups. It must come from the local church living in communities and teaching the Gospel to their neighbors. And living in a community does not simply mean handing out Gospel tracts and door-to-door evangelism without ever inviting the single mother and her children over for dinner. If we are ever to see lasting change in the city, and in the world for that matter, we must live life with the people we desire God to save. We must know their names. We must bear their burdens. And above all we must preach the Gospel to them.
Christians should care about “social issues” primarily because, as Christians, our concern is not with fixing situations and symptoms, but rather the heart of the problem. I am not simply a “red-letter Christian,” but an all-letter Christian, recognizing that all of Scripture is inspired by God. Poverty is a symptom of the real problem—sin. We live in a sin cursed world that is crying out for redemption, and we can see that even in the face of the little boy playing across the street while his mother completes another drug deal. The Bible is telling us that the Kingdom is an already, but not yet. We are striving for a City that is to come, and if we exert all of our energy in a political agenda divorced from the Gospel and the local churches mandate to help the poor, we will be disappointed and confused in the end, and we really won’t be helping anyone.
We cannot attempt to put new wine into old wine skins because the Bible has shown us that it doesn’t work. We need new wineskins, new hearts, and a new creation, that has all been transformed by the saving power of our Christ.
C.S. Lewis said it best in Mere Christianity:
We must try by every medical, educational, economic, and political means in our power to produce a world where as many people as possible grow up ‘nice’; just as we must try to produce a world where all have plenty to eat. But we must not suppose that even if we succeeded in making everyone nice we should have saved their souls. A world of nice people, content in their own niceness, looking for further, turned away from God, would be just as desperately in need of salvation as a miserable world—and might even be more difficult to save.
For mere improvement is not redemption, though redemption always improves people even here and now and will, in the end, improve them to a degree we cannot yet imagine. God became man to turn creatures into sons: not simply to produce better men of the old kind but to produce a new kind of man.
May our hearts desire be to labor for the “new kind of man” and not simply a reordered old one.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Alternative Views of True Headship: Part I
Below is a blog post that I wrote for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood with David Kotter. We are responding to an article where Muslim men are condoning the "light" beating of their wives. May this be a reminder that the gender issue is not simply about "roles." It is about Christ and his Gospel, apart from it we have no basis for gender roles. CBMW is a great resource for learning more about the gender debate. You can visit them at http://www.cbmw.org/
________________________________________________________
When dealing with a "disobedient wife" a Muslim man has a number of options. First, he should remind her of the "importance of following the instructions of the husband in Islam." If that doesn't work, he can, "leave the wife's bed." Finally, he may "beat" her, though it must be without "hurting, breaking a bone, leaving blue or black marks on the body and avoiding hitting the fact, at any cost," according to Saudi scholar Abdul Rahman al-Sheha.
Recently in Genderblog we discussed the true meaning of headship in a four-part series. The focus was on the biblical and historical textual evidence supporting the concept of authoritative headship in Ephesians 4:23, "For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior." This post will contrast the complementarian view of male headship with the vision set forth in Islam.
Biblical headship must always be humble, loving, strong, and sacrificial in a way that brings glory to Jesus Christ. In practice, husbands (and wives) sinfully fall short of this biblical ideal, which is why we are grateful that forgiveness is freely available the blood of Jesus. Nonetheless, this complementarian goal for headship in marriage stands in stark contrast to other views of headship in other religions or the prevailing culture.
Islamic teachings on verse 4:34 of the Koran was described by Asra Q. Nomani in an article in the Washington Post. An English translation of the verse is available online: "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."
Abdul Rahman al-Sheha understands this to allow husbands to use physical punishment as a "disciplinary action," especially for "controlling or mastering women" or for others who "enjoy being beaten."
American Muslim Preacher, Sheik Yusuf Estes, commented on this verse when speaking at an American university. In reference to "disobedient wives" said, "First, tell them. Second, leave the bed. Finally, roll up a newspaper and give her a crack. Or take a yardstick, something like this, and you can hit." The ensuing discussion included questions about whether or not it would be appropriate to use a heavier Sunday paper to give a wife "a crack."
Other Muslims are understandably troubled by this understanding of verse 4:34. Accordingly, Indian Muslim scholar A. Yusuf Ali, inserts a parenthetically qualifier in his translation of the verse, "Men could beat them (lightly)." An organizer of Muslim Men Against Domestic Violence endorses only the "tapping" the wife as a "friendly" reminder.
Even so, not all Muslim husbands beat their wives (even lightly), and sadly, domestic violence occurs also in non-Muslim communities. Nonetheless the Koran presents a view of headship that is different than what we see in Scripture.
The headship of Ephesians 5:25-30 is one of a husband loving his wife, cherishing her, and caring for her physical, emotional, and spiritual needs. God provides for us, in his Word, a framework for understanding headship and manhood that is not compatible with that of the Koran.
Think of, Joseph, the earthly father of our Lord, Jesus Christ, who protected and provided for his fiancé who was pregnant with a child that was not his. He did not beat her, he did not scorn her, and he did not even divorce her quietly (Matthew 1:19-24, 2:19-22).
And lastly, consider Christ, who was crucified for his disobedient Bride, the church (you and me). He does not give us what we deserve, which is far worse than a light beating. Instead he guides us, provides every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, and makes us joint heirs with himself (Romans 8:16-17). Though Muslim leaders may understand the Koran to allow and even condone "light" wife beating, we recognize that the Bible has no room for domestic violence of any kind. Complementarians have no tolerance for beating because we believe the Bible to teach that headship and submission are willing and loving acts, not oppressive patriarchy. Truly biblical patriarchy is a call to die, not to beat. It is a call for husbands to sacrifice for the good of his wife and family. It is a call for husbands to protect from oppression, not administer it.
________________________________________________________
When dealing with a "disobedient wife" a Muslim man has a number of options. First, he should remind her of the "importance of following the instructions of the husband in Islam." If that doesn't work, he can, "leave the wife's bed." Finally, he may "beat" her, though it must be without "hurting, breaking a bone, leaving blue or black marks on the body and avoiding hitting the fact, at any cost," according to Saudi scholar Abdul Rahman al-Sheha.
Recently in Genderblog we discussed the true meaning of headship in a four-part series. The focus was on the biblical and historical textual evidence supporting the concept of authoritative headship in Ephesians 4:23, "For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior." This post will contrast the complementarian view of male headship with the vision set forth in Islam.
Biblical headship must always be humble, loving, strong, and sacrificial in a way that brings glory to Jesus Christ. In practice, husbands (and wives) sinfully fall short of this biblical ideal, which is why we are grateful that forgiveness is freely available the blood of Jesus. Nonetheless, this complementarian goal for headship in marriage stands in stark contrast to other views of headship in other religions or the prevailing culture.
Islamic teachings on verse 4:34 of the Koran was described by Asra Q. Nomani in an article in the Washington Post. An English translation of the verse is available online: "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."
Abdul Rahman al-Sheha understands this to allow husbands to use physical punishment as a "disciplinary action," especially for "controlling or mastering women" or for others who "enjoy being beaten."
American Muslim Preacher, Sheik Yusuf Estes, commented on this verse when speaking at an American university. In reference to "disobedient wives" said, "First, tell them. Second, leave the bed. Finally, roll up a newspaper and give her a crack. Or take a yardstick, something like this, and you can hit." The ensuing discussion included questions about whether or not it would be appropriate to use a heavier Sunday paper to give a wife "a crack."
Other Muslims are understandably troubled by this understanding of verse 4:34. Accordingly, Indian Muslim scholar A. Yusuf Ali, inserts a parenthetically qualifier in his translation of the verse, "Men could beat them (lightly)." An organizer of Muslim Men Against Domestic Violence endorses only the "tapping" the wife as a "friendly" reminder.
Even so, not all Muslim husbands beat their wives (even lightly), and sadly, domestic violence occurs also in non-Muslim communities. Nonetheless the Koran presents a view of headship that is different than what we see in Scripture.
The headship of Ephesians 5:25-30 is one of a husband loving his wife, cherishing her, and caring for her physical, emotional, and spiritual needs. God provides for us, in his Word, a framework for understanding headship and manhood that is not compatible with that of the Koran.
Think of, Joseph, the earthly father of our Lord, Jesus Christ, who protected and provided for his fiancé who was pregnant with a child that was not his. He did not beat her, he did not scorn her, and he did not even divorce her quietly (Matthew 1:19-24, 2:19-22).
And lastly, consider Christ, who was crucified for his disobedient Bride, the church (you and me). He does not give us what we deserve, which is far worse than a light beating. Instead he guides us, provides every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, and makes us joint heirs with himself (Romans 8:16-17). Though Muslim leaders may understand the Koran to allow and even condone "light" wife beating, we recognize that the Bible has no room for domestic violence of any kind. Complementarians have no tolerance for beating because we believe the Bible to teach that headship and submission are willing and loving acts, not oppressive patriarchy. Truly biblical patriarchy is a call to die, not to beat. It is a call for husbands to sacrifice for the good of his wife and family. It is a call for husbands to protect from oppression, not administer it.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Thoughts on Gossip
MSNBC came out with an article this fall stating that more people are swayed by gossip than the truth. This is not surprising considering we live in a time where it seems that there is a new celebrity gossip magazine at the checkout line every time I am at the grocery store. Our culture thrives on gossip and being in peoples lives. The rise of reality television is a sad testament to that fact. We are obsessed with peoples lives, right down to the type of drink they order at Starbucks.
While this may seem like an abstract article to the average churchgoer, the sad fact is that it directly applies to us. We too are more swayed by gossip than the truth. Rather, if we were really honest with ourselves; often we are the gossipers hindering the truth from going forward. It is true that statistics always have a margin of error, and there really is no telling how accurate the article truly is, but it still made me think. Unfortunately, I have on a number of occasions found myself being the proud producer of gossip. Suddenly that “prayer request” becomes a fifteen minute speculation session on the life of the recently divorced mother.
Pride is essentially at the root of gossip. I know the rush I feel when I am “in the know.” And I have had the desire to fit into a conversation, or, tragically, attempt to destroy someone’s reputation. Gossip has devastating and lasting consequences, especially if the gossip is not even true.
In thinking about gossip and its consequences, three things came to mind. The effect gossip has on the Body, the effect gossip has on the outside world, and the effect gossip has on the Gospel.
Gossip tears down the work of the Gospel in a person’s life and destroys the Body of Christ. If the information is untrue, or even distorted, it is painting the particular person in a light that is not reflective of Christ’s redemptive work. In essence, it is destroying the person’s reputation, and it is completely unnecessary. If the information is true, it can be divisive and have lasting consequences on the people in the direct line of attack. Regardless of the truth of the matter, the Bible never condones gossip, but gives specific instructions for how we are to behave and handle situations with our fellow believers. There are many split churches and ruined relationships all because of a seemingly harmless conversation over a cup of coffee during the fellowship time.
Our gossiping tongues destroy our witness. James tells us that blessings and curses cannot proceed out of the same mouth. They can’t because it cancels out what is being said. If we seek a thrill in knowing and spreading gossip about a person rather than knowing and spreading Christ we are confusing our witness. If we love knowing about a couple’s big break-up more than we love the souls of the affected couple, what does that say about our commitment to Christ and His Bride? Our obsession with always being “in the know” says far more about our understanding of the Gospel than we like to think. What message would we send to the unsaved community around us if we spent our Wednesday night fellowship dinners and Sunday afternoon lunches bearing one another’s burdens rather than talking about the latest “news”?
Gossip effects the Gospel by making Christ look less glorious than he really is. If our conversations are filled with other peoples business, people begin to look more valuable than the Creator of those people. When information surfaces about a person our minds should immediately go towards the Gospel and how the Gospel can be applied to the situation, but so often we are drawn into the idol of information, rather than the Savior. Gossip makes knowledge look like our treasure, rather than the Gospel.
If our hand attacked our head with a knife, we would die, or be seriously incapacitated. And that is exactly what gossip does to a body of believers. It kills and incapacitates for effective ministry. So often in my own life it seems so harmless to give an “update” on a friend, when I am really passing on information for the sake of being the one knowing the information to begin with. Instead, my life should so be characterized by a deep concern for people that when I hear gossip I don’t react with the typical “oh, that is so interesting” followed by a series of follow-up invasive questions. Rather, my life should reflect one of humility and compassion, so when I hear of the failed marriage or unplanned pregnancy, I don’t react with pride and scorn, but respond with tears and prayer.
As Christians, our lives should be characterized by truth, not lies, because we know and have been saved by the Truth—Jesus Christ. And we should be quick to remember that this One who has redeemed us was the most gossiped about of all. As we seek to become more conformed into the image of Christ, let us resolve this year to be less like the world, and more like our Savior—who never reviled back and is always true.
While this may seem like an abstract article to the average churchgoer, the sad fact is that it directly applies to us. We too are more swayed by gossip than the truth. Rather, if we were really honest with ourselves; often we are the gossipers hindering the truth from going forward. It is true that statistics always have a margin of error, and there really is no telling how accurate the article truly is, but it still made me think. Unfortunately, I have on a number of occasions found myself being the proud producer of gossip. Suddenly that “prayer request” becomes a fifteen minute speculation session on the life of the recently divorced mother.
Pride is essentially at the root of gossip. I know the rush I feel when I am “in the know.” And I have had the desire to fit into a conversation, or, tragically, attempt to destroy someone’s reputation. Gossip has devastating and lasting consequences, especially if the gossip is not even true.
In thinking about gossip and its consequences, three things came to mind. The effect gossip has on the Body, the effect gossip has on the outside world, and the effect gossip has on the Gospel.
Gossip tears down the work of the Gospel in a person’s life and destroys the Body of Christ. If the information is untrue, or even distorted, it is painting the particular person in a light that is not reflective of Christ’s redemptive work. In essence, it is destroying the person’s reputation, and it is completely unnecessary. If the information is true, it can be divisive and have lasting consequences on the people in the direct line of attack. Regardless of the truth of the matter, the Bible never condones gossip, but gives specific instructions for how we are to behave and handle situations with our fellow believers. There are many split churches and ruined relationships all because of a seemingly harmless conversation over a cup of coffee during the fellowship time.
Our gossiping tongues destroy our witness. James tells us that blessings and curses cannot proceed out of the same mouth. They can’t because it cancels out what is being said. If we seek a thrill in knowing and spreading gossip about a person rather than knowing and spreading Christ we are confusing our witness. If we love knowing about a couple’s big break-up more than we love the souls of the affected couple, what does that say about our commitment to Christ and His Bride? Our obsession with always being “in the know” says far more about our understanding of the Gospel than we like to think. What message would we send to the unsaved community around us if we spent our Wednesday night fellowship dinners and Sunday afternoon lunches bearing one another’s burdens rather than talking about the latest “news”?
Gossip effects the Gospel by making Christ look less glorious than he really is. If our conversations are filled with other peoples business, people begin to look more valuable than the Creator of those people. When information surfaces about a person our minds should immediately go towards the Gospel and how the Gospel can be applied to the situation, but so often we are drawn into the idol of information, rather than the Savior. Gossip makes knowledge look like our treasure, rather than the Gospel.
If our hand attacked our head with a knife, we would die, or be seriously incapacitated. And that is exactly what gossip does to a body of believers. It kills and incapacitates for effective ministry. So often in my own life it seems so harmless to give an “update” on a friend, when I am really passing on information for the sake of being the one knowing the information to begin with. Instead, my life should so be characterized by a deep concern for people that when I hear gossip I don’t react with the typical “oh, that is so interesting” followed by a series of follow-up invasive questions. Rather, my life should reflect one of humility and compassion, so when I hear of the failed marriage or unplanned pregnancy, I don’t react with pride and scorn, but respond with tears and prayer.
As Christians, our lives should be characterized by truth, not lies, because we know and have been saved by the Truth—Jesus Christ. And we should be quick to remember that this One who has redeemed us was the most gossiped about of all. As we seek to become more conformed into the image of Christ, let us resolve this year to be less like the world, and more like our Savior—who never reviled back and is always true.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Transgender Rights Trample Homeless Women
A recent commentary on "transgender rights" briefly drew attention to a new development in homeless shelters in New York City. Homeless men can now choose their residence based on whether they feel like a man or woman. While I do not agree with the spirit in which The Trumpet speaks against this development, they do make an important point. Laws attempting to be "gender neutral" or define "transgender rights" have staggering implications in many places throughout our culture. We are now seeing these implications manifested towards the most helpless members of our society. Perhaps the most profound sentence of the entire commentary states:
"To protect the right of a man who says he feels more comfortable as a woman, the law is preparing to trample on the right of women who feel more comfortable in public bathrooms devoid of perverted men."
This is an attempt to eradicate God-given male-female distinctions and causes grave concerns. In reality, women and children with few alternatives may be forced to sleep in dormitories with predatory men simply because these men report that they "feel" like a woman. As Christians we are called to take care of orphans and widows (James 1:27), and many women in our homeless shelters are modern-day widows. If we allow men to sleep in the bunk right next to their young children, what message does this send to a woman who may have already already been abandoned or mistreated by a man?
As our culture increasingly moves away from God and his Word, we will continue to see these developments. All the more reason for us, as the Church, to take care of the poorest of the poor in the name of Jesus. Only through the gospel of our Lord, Jesus Christ, will these women be truly protected. Only Scriptural truth will enable these confused men to understand that their manhood is intrinsic to who they are as created in the image of God. Legislation and transgender rights are not the primary issue. The gospel is. We must stand up against the further distortion of our genders, but most importantly we must proclaim the gospel to the very people who are confused about their gender.
Our churches, my church, and even my own home, must be a safe place for the battered mother of four even when the homeless shelter down the street decides to integrate the living quarters for the sake of "equality" and "rights." It is troubling that homeless shelters, which are supposed to protect, have now become an unsafe place for women. But this does not leave us without hope. It is a reminder to me that if I want to see the effects of sin reversed in my community, I must be a part of my community. If I want men and women to worship God and see the glory of Christ in our genders, then I must speak to the very issue of transgender homeless shelters - and not only to my Christian friends, but also to the homeless person herself.
"To protect the right of a man who says he feels more comfortable as a woman, the law is preparing to trample on the right of women who feel more comfortable in public bathrooms devoid of perverted men."
This is an attempt to eradicate God-given male-female distinctions and causes grave concerns. In reality, women and children with few alternatives may be forced to sleep in dormitories with predatory men simply because these men report that they "feel" like a woman. As Christians we are called to take care of orphans and widows (James 1:27), and many women in our homeless shelters are modern-day widows. If we allow men to sleep in the bunk right next to their young children, what message does this send to a woman who may have already already been abandoned or mistreated by a man?
As our culture increasingly moves away from God and his Word, we will continue to see these developments. All the more reason for us, as the Church, to take care of the poorest of the poor in the name of Jesus. Only through the gospel of our Lord, Jesus Christ, will these women be truly protected. Only Scriptural truth will enable these confused men to understand that their manhood is intrinsic to who they are as created in the image of God. Legislation and transgender rights are not the primary issue. The gospel is. We must stand up against the further distortion of our genders, but most importantly we must proclaim the gospel to the very people who are confused about their gender.
Our churches, my church, and even my own home, must be a safe place for the battered mother of four even when the homeless shelter down the street decides to integrate the living quarters for the sake of "equality" and "rights." It is troubling that homeless shelters, which are supposed to protect, have now become an unsafe place for women. But this does not leave us without hope. It is a reminder to me that if I want to see the effects of sin reversed in my community, I must be a part of my community. If I want men and women to worship God and see the glory of Christ in our genders, then I must speak to the very issue of transgender homeless shelters - and not only to my Christian friends, but also to the homeless person herself.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Unless you Become Like Children
“Truly, I say to you, unless you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”—Matthew 18:3-4
I used to think that this passage was a call to innocence. It seems perfectly logical. God is a holy God, and in order to enter the kingdom we must be perfectly holy. Children are sweet and seemingly innocent. Anyone who has spent any amount of time with an infant or toddler knows they are far from innocent. Romans tells us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” including the adorable three month old baby (Romans 3:23). There is something far deeper going on here than Jesus saying “be sweet and innocent like this child.” He is calling us to be like children in their very nature.
Children, especially infants, are utterly dependent on everyone around them for their very existence. If a newborn is not fed every day by his mother, he will not live. If a toddler is not bathed, she will never think to be clean on her own. If a five year old is not sent to kindergarten, he will never know that learning to read and write is essential. As we grow older we move into independence, but that is not what Jesus is calling us to as believers. He is calling us back to our childhood, and reminding us of our complete dependence on the Father.
Children are also extremely trusting. You never have to tell your eight-year old that food will be in the cupboard when she gets home from school, she simply believes in your provision. In the same way the little boy so quickly offers to be thrown into the air and caught by his father. He simply believes and trusts that his father will keep him safe. As a little girl I was always less afraid at night when I knew my dad was home. I could sleep more soundly knowing that he was in the room right next to me.
As we grow into adulthood we have this notion that complete freedom and independence is a given, a right of passage. And we live in a culture that thrives on personal autonomy and independence. As a friend of mine preached recently, we have a longing to be independent. We don’t want help, but Jesus is telling us that if we aren’t like little children, utterly dependent on the Father for life and salvation, we will not enter the Kingdom. That is a staggering thought.
We can’t enter the kingdom unless we are like children because there is no room for self-sufficiency where Christ reigns as king. It is quite humbling to admit that we are incapable of taking care of ourselves. I spend more time attempting to do things too difficult for me, when I very easily could have just asked for help and been done quicker. The Bible has a word for this. Pride, and we are all dripping with it. But, we are grafted into a family where God is our Father. In a family, children believe that their father will protect and provide for them. When I was a little girl I never was fearful that my dad wouldn’t be there to protect me if I was scared, and I never questioned his ability to provide food for our table. Yet so often I find myself worrying about whether or not my perfect, heavenly Father will provide the food for my table now. This is pride and unbelief in the sovereign purposes of our great God.
We must become like children because we must admit that we cannot do anything apart from the hand of our heavenly Father. We also must believe in the provision and protection of a perfect Father, who will never disappoint us, never abandon us, and never hurt us. Our theology of God has everything to do with our every day lives.
So, as we seek to become like children, let us look first to Christ because it is by him that we are made sons of God. But let us also look to the little children in our churches. Maybe, just maybe, we will learn something theological.
I used to think that this passage was a call to innocence. It seems perfectly logical. God is a holy God, and in order to enter the kingdom we must be perfectly holy. Children are sweet and seemingly innocent. Anyone who has spent any amount of time with an infant or toddler knows they are far from innocent. Romans tells us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” including the adorable three month old baby (Romans 3:23). There is something far deeper going on here than Jesus saying “be sweet and innocent like this child.” He is calling us to be like children in their very nature.
Children, especially infants, are utterly dependent on everyone around them for their very existence. If a newborn is not fed every day by his mother, he will not live. If a toddler is not bathed, she will never think to be clean on her own. If a five year old is not sent to kindergarten, he will never know that learning to read and write is essential. As we grow older we move into independence, but that is not what Jesus is calling us to as believers. He is calling us back to our childhood, and reminding us of our complete dependence on the Father.
Children are also extremely trusting. You never have to tell your eight-year old that food will be in the cupboard when she gets home from school, she simply believes in your provision. In the same way the little boy so quickly offers to be thrown into the air and caught by his father. He simply believes and trusts that his father will keep him safe. As a little girl I was always less afraid at night when I knew my dad was home. I could sleep more soundly knowing that he was in the room right next to me.
As we grow into adulthood we have this notion that complete freedom and independence is a given, a right of passage. And we live in a culture that thrives on personal autonomy and independence. As a friend of mine preached recently, we have a longing to be independent. We don’t want help, but Jesus is telling us that if we aren’t like little children, utterly dependent on the Father for life and salvation, we will not enter the Kingdom. That is a staggering thought.
We can’t enter the kingdom unless we are like children because there is no room for self-sufficiency where Christ reigns as king. It is quite humbling to admit that we are incapable of taking care of ourselves. I spend more time attempting to do things too difficult for me, when I very easily could have just asked for help and been done quicker. The Bible has a word for this. Pride, and we are all dripping with it. But, we are grafted into a family where God is our Father. In a family, children believe that their father will protect and provide for them. When I was a little girl I never was fearful that my dad wouldn’t be there to protect me if I was scared, and I never questioned his ability to provide food for our table. Yet so often I find myself worrying about whether or not my perfect, heavenly Father will provide the food for my table now. This is pride and unbelief in the sovereign purposes of our great God.
We must become like children because we must admit that we cannot do anything apart from the hand of our heavenly Father. We also must believe in the provision and protection of a perfect Father, who will never disappoint us, never abandon us, and never hurt us. Our theology of God has everything to do with our every day lives.
So, as we seek to become like children, let us look first to Christ because it is by him that we are made sons of God. But let us also look to the little children in our churches. Maybe, just maybe, we will learn something theological.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
