Hi Rob. Lots of good stuff there, and an evergreen warning. I think the challenge is severalfold:
Defining luxury or riches. As a sliding scale, it's hard to pin down. You talk about "expensive foods". Is McDonald's expensive? Well, yes, much more expensive than eating a simple sandwich at home. What defines a "luxury" car? The poles are plain, but the in-between ground is hard to pin down. In the Reformed tradition we have typically rejected asceticism. But anything beyond asceticism could be potentially described as luxury. Can't any vacation or hobby really be described at some level as a luxury?
Applying this to ourselves mainly, and not projecting on others. The easy tendency is to dismiss our own choices and look over at the richer person and judge their choices. This is likely true of all sin - we prefer not to judge ourselves against the perfect God-man, but rather in comparison to our (we think) more sinful neighbor.
In light of these challenges, I think it best that we speak more about the condition of our hearts, where we find our comfort and security, and whether we practice hospitality and generosity rather than seeking to parse the morality of any particular item like an $800 guitar. I shoot an $800 shotgun when I hunt ducks. Could I have a $350 shotgun? Certainly. But I don't, for a number of reasons that could be examined. Do I think that is sinful? Not at all. In contrast, if I brought you to my home and showed off my extensive collection of never-used expensive guns, expressing my pride and security that I find in that collection (while also demonstrating a lack of care or generosity for those in need), I think I would be giving evidence of the sort of opulence and luxury condemned in Scripture. In the end, it is likely that we are all doing some level of self-justification for our choices, as that is indeed the nature of our sinful hearts. May God grant us the will and wisdom examine our hearts and choices regularly.
Thanks for engaging. I can't speak for "you all" about guns, but I can speak a bit about my guns and hunting. I'd be interested to know if you are a vegan. If not, I might echo you and wonder aloud just what the chicken, pig, or cow ever did to you for you to have them killed and used for your benefit. Are you uncomfortable with me killing to eat but comfortable with yourself killing by proxy? In reality, I don't think that is the right question at all. I would never posit that a duck, goose, or deer has done anything to me, but I will assert that they have done something for me. They have provided me and my family with sustenance.
And along the way I have done what is good for my soul: I have entered into nature, felt the harsh elements, immersed myself in the sights, sounds, and smells of creation, praised God for his glory displayed in the Marsh Wren, Sandhill Crane, Burr Oak, and the mosquito, and have respectfully pursued for harvest the birds and animals that God has indeed given to us for food. Now, this pursuit (with gun or bow) will not be for everyone, and I would not try to talk you into hunting. But neither is weightlifting, tatting, watching movies, baking, gardening, playing basketball, quilting, etc. meant for everyone. We gravitate toward the pursuits that are healthy and fulfilling for us.
I have several guns for several reasons. The gun one uses for duck hunting is the not the same gun one uses for antelope, which is also not the same gun one uses for rabbits, which is also not the same gun one uses for target shooting, etc. Different guns for different purposes. I have no concerns or thoughts about Armageddon. My guns serve a utilitarian purpose.
I don't carry a gun to church, but I also don't begrudge those who do. I've never judged someone by their watch, but I would offer that under the discussion offered by Rob, a reasonably priced gun for personal protection is more morally defensible than a luxurious watch.
Hopefully this reply sheds a bit of light on a topic perhaps not matching your interests. Thanks again for engaging.
Certainly, Rob. I agree wholeheartedly that the Church ought to regularly exhort in this arena, particularly in the N.A. context where luxury abounds and independence/hoarding/selfishness are cultural touchstones. What will be helpful for us, I think, is when the church leans hard on the principle and leaves the application to the hearer. We tend to get into trouble when we err in either over-specificity in application or under-emphasis on the principle. So, the pastor who never works in a plea/call for sacrificial living and rejection of selfish opulence is erring, just as is the pastor who feels it necessary to impugn any congregational members with a lake cabin or more than one car. Thanks for stimulating us to reflect on these things and the seriousness of the call for us to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Christ.
Hi again, Rob. If absolutely necessary, I think it best that examples be quite general or common to the human experience, so as to avoid the appearance of targeting. So, if one particular member of the congregation drives a Cadillac Escalade, a pastor (or elders) would be wise not to use that particular example (did I just use that example?!?).
I do wonder if specific examples are necessary to get the point across. I think that more common language and explanation than "opulence" can be used, and I think the principle can be applied directly to questions of our heart motivation, security, comfort, etc. without using specific examples of things that the pastor judges to be too far - unless of course the pastor wants to use his own judgment of his own life and decisions as an example. This could be thorny too.
No matter how the question of examples is approached, I think we want to approach the overall topic with urgency, seriousness, conviction, and self-examination mixed with grace, humility, pastoral wisdom, and non-judgmentalism. May God grant us wisdom, humility, and the repentance for the heart-work necessary in this area. Thanks for the conversation. May God bless you and keep you.
It's also perhaps worth reminding ourselves that Jesus was contrasting his limited time remaining on earth with the continued presence of those struggling in this broken world, as opposed to suggesting any indifference to the needs of the poor. The fact that the poor will always be with us is a continual reminder of two things: First, the consequences of sin in this world; and second, the continual call for us to show Christ-like, sacrificial love to our neighbors.
Hi again, Hetty. I ran across a recent article that expands on some of what I was angling at in my response. It doesn't say everything (nor have I), but it is helpful in providing additional perspective.
I would also note that while organizations like PETA get a lot of publicity, the North American model of conservation (the most successful in the world) is radically and intentionally driven by hunters, fishers, and trappers - they are the original environmentalists, before it was cool. Public and conservation land acquisitions and protections are driven largely by (self-voted) taxation on sportsmen (used generically) and by volunteer conservation dollars of sportsmen - we put our money where our mouth is regarding conservation because we have a tie to, appreciation of, bond with, and love for the land and its creatures. This love is formed, fed, and fueled in our times in the field.
I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood you. I thought you were looking for conversation and greater understanding, as you asked a question in response to me. I don't need reasons and arguments to support what I do, as if to justify my actions as I might if I was proposing to eat children. If you would yet like conversation at some point, I'm glad to engage further with you.
Thanks for this reflection, Rob. These are wise and helpful words, and they are particularly helpful because they are rooted in spiritual realities, not psychological appeals. May God bless your ministry.
The argument that human harm or damage must be identifiable in order for something to be sin misses the vertical component of sin. Sin is not first and foremost against other people, but against God. When David confesses his sin in Psalm 51 he realizes that though he has used and abused a woman and killed a man, it is first and foremost against God that he has sinned (verse 4).
Sin is any thought, word, or deed that violates God's holy standard, whether we can see damage or not. Suppose that I privately worship idols. Nobody is hurt. There is no external damage. But it certainly is sin against God. Or suppose my wife and I are into spouse swapping with another couple who also consents. Where is the harm? We might even say that it strengthens our relationship because it teaches us unconditional trust and helps us explore our truest desires. Your line of reasoning would seem to render this arrangement acceptable.
Thanks for responding. I am glad to have conversation with you. You start your response by asserting something, but you place the locus of my purported judgment on the human testimony or judgment, which I reject. I would reply with the words of Isaiah 8:20 - "To the law and to the testimony." This is the crux of my pushback to you. I would judge each marriage not first or primarily on the testimony of the partners, but on God's testimony concerning his righteous standard.
The other scenarios I bring up are not distractions at all, because they help illustrate that the "lack of perceived harm" standard for determining sin cannot be relied on as our standard. An even more poignant example can be found in the fall in Genesis. Scripture records: "So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate."
Notice how Scripture describes the apple in humanly appealing terms: good for food, delight to the eyes, and desired to make one wise. It's just fruit and it has all these benefits! What's the harm?! That question was asked to me on the floor of Synod last year, with the same implication that you have, that if I could not name some human harm then I should reconsider Scripture (again). If God says it damages our relationship with him, that is all that matters. We don't get to trump God on this. Notice that Satan also made the same appeal that contrary to damaging Eve's relationship with God (you will not surely die), eating of the fruit would make Eve like God, knowing good and evil.
In the end, then, it is not that I am taking the testimony of a straight couple over that of a gay couple. Rather, I trust that God knows best, even when it strikes us a terribly difficult. Yes, that applies to me first and foremost. I must continually look at my life and see what things I may be allowing to remain that God has said must be put to death. I may enjoy them. I may think I am not doing any harm. I may even find that they are deeply personal and embedded. But God comes to me in my weakness and promises strength through Christ to achieve victory, even though the struggle will never be over this side of the grave. I proclaim with the Apostle Paul in Romans 7:25 - "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"
I think you are close to what I am saying, but I would phrase things differently. First, I would note that I am always willing to re-evaluate (on a personal level). Such evaluation and re-evaluation is kind of an ongoing process for many (most? all?) people as we struggle our way through life. But official re-evaluation for doctrinal statements cannot be an ongoing, never-ending process, or our life together will be chaotic. Second, I would say that what I am really driving at is that perceptions of harm are insufficient for understanding sin. There need not be an identification of harm in order for something to be understood as sinful. It is enough for God to declare something sinful, even if we do not understand why or see what we believe are harmful repercussions.
I would note further that in light of what many believe is earthly evidence the CRC has just re-evaluated Scripture. But, as noted earlier, that re-evaluation cannot be unending for the sake of the health of the church. A re-evaluation does not mean that things necessarily change. Sometimes we confirm what we have always believed.
I am grateful for the opportunity to converse with you and will be glad to hear of further thoughts you have. I think we may be on the same page in a recent statement I saw you make in another context: "I sometimes wonder if it's better to skip the niceties and state the obvious. The CRCNA is not prepared to make space for those who will continue to view things differently than Synod 2022." I agree with that statement with caveats. May God bless you and keep you.
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
Hi Rob. Lots of good stuff there, and an evergreen warning. I think the challenge is severalfold:
In light of these challenges, I think it best that we speak more about the condition of our hearts, where we find our comfort and security, and whether we practice hospitality and generosity rather than seeking to parse the morality of any particular item like an $800 guitar. I shoot an $800 shotgun when I hunt ducks. Could I have a $350 shotgun? Certainly. But I don't, for a number of reasons that could be examined. Do I think that is sinful? Not at all. In contrast, if I brought you to my home and showed off my extensive collection of never-used expensive guns, expressing my pride and security that I find in that collection (while also demonstrating a lack of care or generosity for those in need), I think I would be giving evidence of the sort of opulence and luxury condemned in Scripture. In the end, it is likely that we are all doing some level of self-justification for our choices, as that is indeed the nature of our sinful hearts. May God grant us the will and wisdom examine our hearts and choices regularly.
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
Hi Hetty,
Thanks for engaging. I can't speak for "you all" about guns, but I can speak a bit about my guns and hunting. I'd be interested to know if you are a vegan. If not, I might echo you and wonder aloud just what the chicken, pig, or cow ever did to you for you to have them killed and used for your benefit. Are you uncomfortable with me killing to eat but comfortable with yourself killing by proxy? In reality, I don't think that is the right question at all. I would never posit that a duck, goose, or deer has done anything to me, but I will assert that they have done something for me. They have provided me and my family with sustenance.
And along the way I have done what is good for my soul: I have entered into nature, felt the harsh elements, immersed myself in the sights, sounds, and smells of creation, praised God for his glory displayed in the Marsh Wren, Sandhill Crane, Burr Oak, and the mosquito, and have respectfully pursued for harvest the birds and animals that God has indeed given to us for food. Now, this pursuit (with gun or bow) will not be for everyone, and I would not try to talk you into hunting. But neither is weightlifting, tatting, watching movies, baking, gardening, playing basketball, quilting, etc. meant for everyone. We gravitate toward the pursuits that are healthy and fulfilling for us.
I have several guns for several reasons. The gun one uses for duck hunting is the not the same gun one uses for antelope, which is also not the same gun one uses for rabbits, which is also not the same gun one uses for target shooting, etc. Different guns for different purposes. I have no concerns or thoughts about Armageddon. My guns serve a utilitarian purpose.
I don't carry a gun to church, but I also don't begrudge those who do. I've never judged someone by their watch, but I would offer that under the discussion offered by Rob, a reasonably priced gun for personal protection is more morally defensible than a luxurious watch.
Hopefully this reply sheds a bit of light on a topic perhaps not matching your interests. Thanks again for engaging.
Eric
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
Certainly, Rob. I agree wholeheartedly that the Church ought to regularly exhort in this arena, particularly in the N.A. context where luxury abounds and independence/hoarding/selfishness are cultural touchstones. What will be helpful for us, I think, is when the church leans hard on the principle and leaves the application to the hearer. We tend to get into trouble when we err in either over-specificity in application or under-emphasis on the principle. So, the pastor who never works in a plea/call for sacrificial living and rejection of selfish opulence is erring, just as is the pastor who feels it necessary to impugn any congregational members with a lake cabin or more than one car. Thanks for stimulating us to reflect on these things and the seriousness of the call for us to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Christ.
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
Next time you find yourself in the position to pour out expensive perfume on the King of Kings, you take that chance, Dan! ;)
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
Hi again, Rob. If absolutely necessary, I think it best that examples be quite general or common to the human experience, so as to avoid the appearance of targeting. So, if one particular member of the congregation drives a Cadillac Escalade, a pastor (or elders) would be wise not to use that particular example (did I just use that example?!?).
I do wonder if specific examples are necessary to get the point across. I think that more common language and explanation than "opulence" can be used, and I think the principle can be applied directly to questions of our heart motivation, security, comfort, etc. without using specific examples of things that the pastor judges to be too far - unless of course the pastor wants to use his own judgment of his own life and decisions as an example. This could be thorny too.
No matter how the question of examples is approached, I think we want to approach the overall topic with urgency, seriousness, conviction, and self-examination mixed with grace, humility, pastoral wisdom, and non-judgmentalism. May God grant us wisdom, humility, and the repentance for the heart-work necessary in this area. Thanks for the conversation. May God bless you and keep you.
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
It's also perhaps worth reminding ourselves that Jesus was contrasting his limited time remaining on earth with the continued presence of those struggling in this broken world, as opposed to suggesting any indifference to the needs of the poor. The fact that the poor will always be with us is a continual reminder of two things: First, the consequences of sin in this world; and second, the continual call for us to show Christ-like, sacrificial love to our neighbors.
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
Hi again, Hetty. I ran across a recent article that expands on some of what I was angling at in my response. It doesn't say everything (nor have I), but it is helpful in providing additional perspective.
More than just meat | Christian Courier
I would also note that while organizations like PETA get a lot of publicity, the North American model of conservation (the most successful in the world) is radically and intentionally driven by hunters, fishers, and trappers - they are the original environmentalists, before it was cool. Public and conservation land acquisitions and protections are driven largely by (self-voted) taxation on sportsmen (used generically) and by volunteer conservation dollars of sportsmen - we put our money where our mouth is regarding conservation because we have a tie to, appreciation of, bond with, and love for the land and its creatures. This love is formed, fed, and fueled in our times in the field.
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood you. I thought you were looking for conversation and greater understanding, as you asked a question in response to me. I don't need reasons and arguments to support what I do, as if to justify my actions as I might if I was proposing to eat children. If you would yet like conversation at some point, I'm glad to engage further with you.
Posted in: How Is God So Joyful When The World's So Sad?
Thanks for this reflection, Rob. These are wise and helpful words, and they are particularly helpful because they are rooted in spiritual realities, not psychological appeals. May God bless your ministry.
Posted in: The Three Minds and the Third Way
Hi Anton,
The argument that human harm or damage must be identifiable in order for something to be sin misses the vertical component of sin. Sin is not first and foremost against other people, but against God. When David confesses his sin in Psalm 51 he realizes that though he has used and abused a woman and killed a man, it is first and foremost against God that he has sinned (verse 4).
Sin is any thought, word, or deed that violates God's holy standard, whether we can see damage or not. Suppose that I privately worship idols. Nobody is hurt. There is no external damage. But it certainly is sin against God. Or suppose my wife and I are into spouse swapping with another couple who also consents. Where is the harm? We might even say that it strengthens our relationship because it teaches us unconditional trust and helps us explore our truest desires. Your line of reasoning would seem to render this arrangement acceptable.
Posted in: The Three Minds and the Third Way
Hello Anton,
Thanks for responding. I am glad to have conversation with you. You start your response by asserting something, but you place the locus of my purported judgment on the human testimony or judgment, which I reject. I would reply with the words of Isaiah 8:20 - "To the law and to the testimony." This is the crux of my pushback to you. I would judge each marriage not first or primarily on the testimony of the partners, but on God's testimony concerning his righteous standard.
The other scenarios I bring up are not distractions at all, because they help illustrate that the "lack of perceived harm" standard for determining sin cannot be relied on as our standard. An even more poignant example can be found in the fall in Genesis. Scripture records: "So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate."
Notice how Scripture describes the apple in humanly appealing terms: good for food, delight to the eyes, and desired to make one wise. It's just fruit and it has all these benefits! What's the harm?! That question was asked to me on the floor of Synod last year, with the same implication that you have, that if I could not name some human harm then I should reconsider Scripture (again). If God says it damages our relationship with him, that is all that matters. We don't get to trump God on this. Notice that Satan also made the same appeal that contrary to damaging Eve's relationship with God (you will not surely die), eating of the fruit would make Eve like God, knowing good and evil.
In the end, then, it is not that I am taking the testimony of a straight couple over that of a gay couple. Rather, I trust that God knows best, even when it strikes us a terribly difficult. Yes, that applies to me first and foremost. I must continually look at my life and see what things I may be allowing to remain that God has said must be put to death. I may enjoy them. I may think I am not doing any harm. I may even find that they are deeply personal and embedded. But God comes to me in my weakness and promises strength through Christ to achieve victory, even though the struggle will never be over this side of the grave. I proclaim with the Apostle Paul in Romans 7:25 - "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"
Thanks again for engaging.
Posted in: The Three Minds and the Third Way
Hi again Anton,
I think you are close to what I am saying, but I would phrase things differently. First, I would note that I am always willing to re-evaluate (on a personal level). Such evaluation and re-evaluation is kind of an ongoing process for many (most? all?) people as we struggle our way through life. But official re-evaluation for doctrinal statements cannot be an ongoing, never-ending process, or our life together will be chaotic. Second, I would say that what I am really driving at is that perceptions of harm are insufficient for understanding sin. There need not be an identification of harm in order for something to be understood as sinful. It is enough for God to declare something sinful, even if we do not understand why or see what we believe are harmful repercussions.
I would note further that in light of what many believe is earthly evidence the CRC has just re-evaluated Scripture. But, as noted earlier, that re-evaluation cannot be unending for the sake of the health of the church. A re-evaluation does not mean that things necessarily change. Sometimes we confirm what we have always believed.
I am grateful for the opportunity to converse with you and will be glad to hear of further thoughts you have. I think we may be on the same page in a recent statement I saw you make in another context: "I sometimes wonder if it's better to skip the niceties and state the obvious. The CRCNA is not prepared to make space for those who will continue to view things differently than Synod 2022." I agree with that statement with caveats. May God bless you and keep you.