This is beautifully put! We have an abundance of programs to treat sin but, in so doing, we forget that there is only One cure. Programs can actually distract us from the cure which is repentance and humility over our own sin.
Hi Bev! I hope you see this comment before it's taken down! I set up a new post so that we can continue our helpful dialogue on WIO. Here's the link to the post:
Sarah from the network (email: [email protected]) helpfully emailed me my original comment. If you ask her for yours, you could paste it in the above link and I'll do the same with my response after you. That should get us going.
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Eric. That's actually why I wrote this. I wanted to study John's view of wealth but figured it would be quicker (after initially not finding any easy-to-find resources) to write a post and get feedback. So, you've helped me a lot here.
I completely agree with your two points. It's hard to define luxury and not point the finger as a hypocrite. Your solution—let each man search his own conscience—is surely the solution.
But, I think the church could do more to help people search their consciences. It's very possible that I feel justified in using expensive goatskin Bibles (of which I have many) on faulty grounds. Perhaps the Spirit could use the words of other Christians to convict me. I'm describing the tension between Christian liberty and living as part of the body of Christ. In my view, currently, the church has done a good job of telling people Jesus's command to sell all for the poor was hypothetical. But, we haven't done a good job asking the question: "Do we even come close to fulfilling that hypothetical?" I like Bonehoeffer's quip about a son "interpreting" his dad's instruction to clean his room: "My dad told me to clean my room. He knows if my room is clean, I'll be happier. So, he is really after my happiness. Therefore, to best obey my father, I should go outside and play instead because that will make me happy."
Like you say, if you had an armory of expensive guns, you'd call that into question (I have a safe with guns/rifles in it too). So, we all seem to draw the line at some point. For me, it's Christians who own Rolexes (I've met some in CA). How could a Christian justify buying (not inheriting) a $40k watch? But I'm sure I'm much more generous in where I draw the line for myself than for others. And, like you say, it's not my job to draw the line for other people anyway. That said, I think it's good for the church to talk about the line in clear terms to help us all figure out where it is—a tension to be sure.
I'm reminded of Billy Graham saying, "How can we say we're brothers and sisters with the starving in Africa when we're driving around in Cadillacs?"
Excellent distinction, Eric. Thank you for that. I think that's the piece I was missing—we should emphasize the principle but leave the application to the individual. That strikes the right chord because there is no clear biblical line in the sand barring stewardship from opulence. However, thinking about it some more, it'll be hard to emphasize the principle without supplying some concrete examples. Saying, "we shouldn't be opulent," may have very little effect without concrete examples since were all master sin-hiders, myself as the foremost.
Well said. As a hunter myself, I concur. The only thing I'd add, Hetty, is that God says, "kill and eat" to Peter (both imperative verbs, Acts 10:13). If killing and eating animals was as bad as you make it sound, God would be to blame as well! Perish the thought!
I think the difference there, Dan, is that lavish perfume was used on Christ, like Eric said. On the other hand, spending lavishly on ourselves is very hard to justify biblically.
Hi Douglas, thank you for your comment. In my view, doctrinal purity consists of two primary components. 1) doctrine that is as close to the text of Scripture as possible (which, I think the Three Forms of Unity are as good as any at that). 2) A church that agrees, as much as possible, on that doctrine. Of course, there will be minor quibbles about theological minutia (not meant as a derogatory term!) like how to interpret the seven bowls of Revelation or the infra/supralapsarian debate. But, in terms of the daily life of the church, the church agrees on all those essential doctrines. Of course, people draw the line of "essential doctrines" in very different places, but in the CRC we don't have to worry about drawing lines because the confessions do that for us.
I'm thinking primarily about the LGBTQ discussion as a primary instance of doctrinal purity being at issue. But there are myriad examples. How we are saved; whether the Bible is inerrant; how the Church is to be run; what constitutes sin; who Jesus/the Trinity is; etc.
To know whether it's absent, one (or both) of the two conditions above must be unmet. If the doctrine in question (say, LGBTQ activity) is not in line with Scripture, or the church doesn't agree with it, there is a church that lacks doctrinal purity.
Anton, unity isn't unanimity. Just because we all (should) believe that we should offer up our sexuality, doesn't mean we will all do so in a unanimous way. We all have our own struggles and temptations. Just because I don't have a struggle with SSA, doesn't mean I don't have different struggles which are just as deadly. Also, many SSA Christians reject your line of reasoning. Many say that their decision to give up a SSA lifestyle is *not* a bigger sacrifice than what a cis gendered person has to give up. I think you think that way because you've bought the cultural lie that your sexual orientation is the most important thing about you. It isn't. There are many SSA voices out there who disagree with you. Are you listening to them as well? Watch this video in which three SSA Christians argue against living homosexual lifestyles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tMpmsiS7VY
Dear Dale, thank you for your comment. As the CRC prepares for Synod 2023, we should look to Synod 0001. Paul recounts it in Galatians 2. He says that Peter was enacting a “local option.” He thought it was OK for Jews to eat with Gentiles, but when the Jews came to town, he would capitulate to their doctrine that it was not OK. He would eat with the Jews and let the Gentiles eat alone. If Paul were like so many in the CRC, he would allow for Peter’s position, or the Jewish position, and say “let’s have a conversation about it.” He would be afraid of hurting the feelings of Peter and company. But, Paul wasn’t like that: “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned” (Galatians 2:11). Paul strongly opposed Peter’s local option because the Jews and the Greeks must be unified—they need to eat at the same table. They should be so unified that individuals should be willing to restrict their diets, without theological necessity, so that they can all sit together. There was no “local option” because local options divide. Paul commanded that all Christians should believe the same thing.
Dear James, I understand your sentiment here. I certainly agree we should think hard about how we send our message. But, we also should think hard about whether we get to alter the message God sends. If God says certain types of sexuality are sinful, we should think about *how* we send *that* message. Not whether we should send it at all. I think the reason we are in this boat is because we have forsaken true Christianity for its Satanic counterpart—cultural Christianity. For too long we have believed and taught that Jesus is a supplement to our lives, rather than the Savior. If Jesus is just a "tack on" then He can't determine my every move. But that is not Christianity. Rather, “No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.” (1 Cor 9:27, NIV) “knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;” (Romans 6:6, LSB) “I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.” (Galatians 2:20, LSB) “Now those who belong to Christ Jesus crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” (Galatians 5:24, LSB). In light of the multitude of passages like these, is it really so hard to believe that God wants SSA people to deny their sexual desires? If we are to be crucified to the world (Gal 6:14) does that not include our sexual activity? Is sexual orientation so foundational to who we are that God doesn't get to determine how it is used? After Jesus experienced the white hot wrath of God for our sins, is offering up our sexuality in grateful response too much to ask of us? Is there anything that is "too much"? He deserves everything. Including what we do with our genitals.
Hi Sarina! Thank you for your kind comment. I'm sorry you didn't see this until now. I should have sent this to you but I did assume you'd get it since I tagged your article. But, I'm glad you have some thoughts and will be responding. I look forward to reading it!
Brother, this is a breath of fresh air. I've been voicing concerns like this and as I do, I always feel like a fish out of water. I take some classes at CTS and I voice my view when the topic arises. I've never heard another male with the same perspective. A few times, however, after class, men will say they agree with me. Though we have "two positions" only one is culturally acceptable. Thank you for speaking on principle and not cultural convention. I agree that our third way with women in office sets a precedent for what we see today. Lord willing, I'll post something along these lines soon.
Posted in: Why Is Racism Still Part of the Church?
This is beautifully put! We have an abundance of programs to treat sin but, in so doing, we forget that there is only One cure. Programs can actually distract us from the cure which is repentance and humility over our own sin.
Posted in: So What Is "Prophetic"?
Hi Bev! I hope you see this comment before it's taken down! I set up a new post so that we can continue our helpful dialogue on WIO. Here's the link to the post:
https://network.crcna.org/topic/leadership/pastors/christian-discussion-women-office
Sarah from the network (email: [email protected]) helpfully emailed me my original comment. If you ask her for yours, you could paste it in the above link and I'll do the same with my response after you. That should get us going.
Also, here's my email if all else fails: [email protected]
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Eric. That's actually why I wrote this. I wanted to study John's view of wealth but figured it would be quicker (after initially not finding any easy-to-find resources) to write a post and get feedback. So, you've helped me a lot here.
I completely agree with your two points. It's hard to define luxury and not point the finger as a hypocrite. Your solution—let each man search his own conscience—is surely the solution.
But, I think the church could do more to help people search their consciences. It's very possible that I feel justified in using expensive goatskin Bibles (of which I have many) on faulty grounds. Perhaps the Spirit could use the words of other Christians to convict me. I'm describing the tension between Christian liberty and living as part of the body of Christ. In my view, currently, the church has done a good job of telling people Jesus's command to sell all for the poor was hypothetical. But, we haven't done a good job asking the question: "Do we even come close to fulfilling that hypothetical?" I like Bonehoeffer's quip about a son "interpreting" his dad's instruction to clean his room: "My dad told me to clean my room. He knows if my room is clean, I'll be happier. So, he is really after my happiness. Therefore, to best obey my father, I should go outside and play instead because that will make me happy."
Like you say, if you had an armory of expensive guns, you'd call that into question (I have a safe with guns/rifles in it too). So, we all seem to draw the line at some point. For me, it's Christians who own Rolexes (I've met some in CA). How could a Christian justify buying (not inheriting) a $40k watch? But I'm sure I'm much more generous in where I draw the line for myself than for others. And, like you say, it's not my job to draw the line for other people anyway. That said, I think it's good for the church to talk about the line in clear terms to help us all figure out where it is—a tension to be sure.
I'm reminded of Billy Graham saying, "How can we say we're brothers and sisters with the starving in Africa when we're driving around in Cadillacs?"
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
Excellent distinction, Eric. Thank you for that. I think that's the piece I was missing—we should emphasize the principle but leave the application to the individual. That strikes the right chord because there is no clear biblical line in the sand barring stewardship from opulence. However, thinking about it some more, it'll be hard to emphasize the principle without supplying some concrete examples. Saying, "we shouldn't be opulent," may have very little effect without concrete examples since were all master sin-hiders, myself as the foremost.
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
Well said. As a hunter myself, I concur. The only thing I'd add, Hetty, is that God says, "kill and eat" to Peter (both imperative verbs, Acts 10:13). If killing and eating animals was as bad as you make it sound, God would be to blame as well! Perish the thought!
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
I think the difference there, Dan, is that lavish perfume was used on Christ, like Eric said. On the other hand, spending lavishly on ourselves is very hard to justify biblically.
Posted in: Biblical Tension, Biblical Unity
Hi Douglas, thank you for your comment. In my view, doctrinal purity consists of two primary components. 1) doctrine that is as close to the text of Scripture as possible (which, I think the Three Forms of Unity are as good as any at that). 2) A church that agrees, as much as possible, on that doctrine. Of course, there will be minor quibbles about theological minutia (not meant as a derogatory term!) like how to interpret the seven bowls of Revelation or the infra/supralapsarian debate. But, in terms of the daily life of the church, the church agrees on all those essential doctrines. Of course, people draw the line of "essential doctrines" in very different places, but in the CRC we don't have to worry about drawing lines because the confessions do that for us.
I'm thinking primarily about the LGBTQ discussion as a primary instance of doctrinal purity being at issue. But there are myriad examples. How we are saved; whether the Bible is inerrant; how the Church is to be run; what constitutes sin; who Jesus/the Trinity is; etc.
To know whether it's absent, one (or both) of the two conditions above must be unmet. If the doctrine in question (say, LGBTQ activity) is not in line with Scripture, or the church doesn't agree with it, there is a church that lacks doctrinal purity.
Posted in: The Three Minds and the Third Way
Anton, unity isn't unanimity. Just because we all (should) believe that we should offer up our sexuality, doesn't mean we will all do so in a unanimous way. We all have our own struggles and temptations. Just because I don't have a struggle with SSA, doesn't mean I don't have different struggles which are just as deadly. Also, many SSA Christians reject your line of reasoning. Many say that their decision to give up a SSA lifestyle is *not* a bigger sacrifice than what a cis gendered person has to give up. I think you think that way because you've bought the cultural lie that your sexual orientation is the most important thing about you. It isn't. There are many SSA voices out there who disagree with you. Are you listening to them as well? Watch this video in which three SSA Christians argue against living homosexual lifestyles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tMpmsiS7VY
Posted in: The Three Minds and the Third Way
Dear Dale, thank you for your comment. As the CRC prepares for Synod 2023, we should look to Synod 0001. Paul recounts it in Galatians 2. He says that Peter was enacting a “local option.” He thought it was OK for Jews to eat with Gentiles, but when the Jews came to town, he would capitulate to their doctrine that it was not OK. He would eat with the Jews and let the Gentiles eat alone. If Paul were like so many in the CRC, he would allow for Peter’s position, or the Jewish position, and say “let’s have a conversation about it.” He would be afraid of hurting the feelings of Peter and company. But, Paul wasn’t like that: “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned” (Galatians 2:11). Paul strongly opposed Peter’s local option because the Jews and the Greeks must be unified—they need to eat at the same table. They should be so unified that individuals should be willing to restrict their diets, without theological necessity, so that they can all sit together. There was no “local option” because local options divide. Paul commanded that all Christians should believe the same thing.
Posted in: The Three Minds and the Third Way
Dear James, I understand your sentiment here. I certainly agree we should think hard about how we send our message. But, we also should think hard about whether we get to alter the message God sends. If God says certain types of sexuality are sinful, we should think about *how* we send *that* message. Not whether we should send it at all. I think the reason we are in this boat is because we have forsaken true Christianity for its Satanic counterpart—cultural Christianity. For too long we have believed and taught that Jesus is a supplement to our lives, rather than the Savior. If Jesus is just a "tack on" then He can't determine my every move. But that is not Christianity. Rather, “No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.” (1 Cor 9:27, NIV) “knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;” (Romans 6:6, LSB) “I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.” (Galatians 2:20, LSB) “Now those who belong to Christ Jesus crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” (Galatians 5:24, LSB). In light of the multitude of passages like these, is it really so hard to believe that God wants SSA people to deny their sexual desires? If we are to be crucified to the world (Gal 6:14) does that not include our sexual activity? Is sexual orientation so foundational to who we are that God doesn't get to determine how it is used? After Jesus experienced the white hot wrath of God for our sins, is offering up our sexuality in grateful response too much to ask of us? Is there anything that is "too much"? He deserves everything. Including what we do with our genitals.
Posted in: Jesus Isn't Autistic—A Response to Sarina Moore's "Autistic Jesus"
Hi Sarina! Thank you for your kind comment. I'm sorry you didn't see this until now. I should have sent this to you but I did assume you'd get it since I tagged your article. But, I'm glad you have some thoughts and will be responding. I look forward to reading it!
Grace and peace,
Rob
Posted in: Thinking About a 'Third Way' – Is the CRC Uniquely Qualified to Forge a Middle Path?
Brother, this is a breath of fresh air. I've been voicing concerns like this and as I do, I always feel like a fish out of water. I take some classes at CTS and I voice my view when the topic arises. I've never heard another male with the same perspective. A few times, however, after class, men will say they agree with me. Though we have "two positions" only one is culturally acceptable. Thank you for speaking on principle and not cultural convention. I agree that our third way with women in office sets a precedent for what we see today. Lord willing, I'll post something along these lines soon.