Kevin DeYoung's Blog, page 115
February 14, 2013
Put a Ring On It
In his book The Meaning of Marriage, Tim Keller warns against becoming “a faux spouse for someone who won’t commit to you” (215). While some relationships move too quickly, many others drag on for years with no signs of deepening or progressing toward marriage. Keller observes that some people (usually men, I’d say) are content to experience a relationship with the opposite sex that yields many of the benefits of marriage (companionship, someone to talk to, someone to bring to social functions) without any of the commitment.
Tim poignantly, and humorously, explains how this very phenomenon was occurring in his relationship with Kathy at one point.
[T]here came a time in our relationship, after we had known each other for several years, when Kathy saw that this was exactly what had happened, and so she gave what has come too be known in our family as the “pearls before swine” speech.
Though we were best friends and kindred spirits, I was still hurting from a previous relationship that had ended badly. Kathy was patient and understanding, up to a point, but the day came when she said, “Look, I can’t take this anymore. I have been expecting to be promoted from friend to girlfriend. I know you don’t mean to be saying this, but every day you don’t choose me to be more than a friend, it feels as if I’ve been weighed and found wanting–I feel it as rejection. So I just can’t keep going on the same way, hoping that someday you’ll want me to be more than a friend. I’m not calling myself a pearl, and I’m not calling you a pig, but one of the reasons Jesus told his disciples not to cast pearls before swine was because a pig can’t recognize the value of a pearl. It would seem like just a pebble. If you can’t see me as valuable to you, then I’m not going to keep throwing myself into your company, hoping and hoping. I can’t do it. The rejection that I perceive, whether you intend it or not, is just too painful.”
That’s exactly what she said. It got my attention. It sent me into a time of deep self-examination. A couple weeks later, I made the choice. (216)
Now listen, don’t do anything rash on Valentine’s Day. The emotions may be running just a bit too hot. But there is probably someone reading this blog who needs to make their “pearls before swine” speech. And just as likely there are probably more than a few folks who need to make up their minds. Think about it. If you’ve found a pearl, don’t lose it.
February 13, 2013
To Follow Christ Is to Love Them When They Hate You
There are two difficult realities you must accept if you are to live faithfully as a Christian in the world. (1) You will have enemies. And (2) you must love those enemies. Jesus taught both things quite clearly.
Matthew 5:43-45 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your father who is in heaven.”
Matthew 10:21-22 “Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.”
Accepting either one of these truths is challenging enough. Embracing both of them takes the work of the Holy Spirit.
Some people can accept that they will have enemies in this life. They understand the world may hate them, so they prepare for the worst and get ready for battle. They know that the world is not their home. They expect to be hated for their Christian beliefs. And in fact, they feel some confirmation they are on the right track when they accumulate opponents. They are fully prepared for enemies. But there is little in their demeanor that wants to love those enemies. They are always in battle mode and have no interest in forgiving their enemies or praying for the spiritual well being of their enemies. These folks exhibit lots of courage and little compassion.
On the other hand, some people are just the opposite. They believe in love with all their hearts. They know they must turn the other cheek and accentuate the positive. They care deeply for the feelings and hurts of others. They want people to get along. They try to minimize conflict and find common ground. They are fully prepared to love. But they don’t have a very robust view of love. They equate love with unconditional affirmation or think love means we don’t challenge faulty assumptions. They are always in bridge building mode and no stomach for ever upsetting someone. These folks exhibit lots of compassion and little courage.
We need both. If you are going to be a faithful Christian in a fallen world you better prepared for people to hate you, and you better prepared to love them nonetheless. Even to the point of death.
Ours, of course, not theirs. That’s the way of Jesus. Tell the truth. Be hated. Love. Die. Live again.
February 12, 2013
How Denominations Come to Tolerate, Accept, and then Endorse Homosexuality
Tom Oden, writing in his book Requiem way back in 1995, explains how it happens.
The first step is always a study committee.
In response to claims for moral legitimization of behaviors widely thought displeasing to God, each of the mainline denominations has dutifully appointed elaborate study commissions to report back to the general legislative body on how the church might respond to this form of sexual orientation, practice, and advocacy. (152)
If the first study committee comes back with a traditional reading of the text, or if the legislative body dismisses the committee’s progressive interpretation, you can always assign another study committee amidst outcries that the recalcitrant conservatives suffer from “homophobia and reactionary stupidity” (153).
And if the traditional view cannot be overturned right away, try dismissing the whole controversy by telling people (with no small amount of chronological snobbery) that saner Christians understand this is nothing worth fighting over.
The fact that homosexual practice is not a weighty moral matter was asserted by the United Methodist Sexuality Report as a “consensus among Christian ethicists,” yet without any evidence to support this curious assertion. All the conspicuous Christian teachers who have resisted same-sex intercourse (John Chrysostom, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other consensual ecumenical teachers) are weighed in the debate less heavily than selected modern proponents of moral relativism and utilitarian permissivism. (153)
The next step is admonish “the people of God to wait for a firm ‘scientific consensus’” on the matter (154).
Then some leading lights in the denomination can offer new exegetical avenues for avoiding the traditional understanding of familiar texts. Three evasions in particular are quite popular.
The first evasion is that the normative moral force of all biblical texts on same-sex intercourse may be explained away by their cultural context. This leads to the conclusion that any statement in the Bible can be reduced to culturally equivocal ambiguity and indeterminacy on the premise of cultural relativism…
The second evasion hinges upon a strung out interpretation on Romans 1:26-27…
The third evasion argues that when Genesis 1:27 declares that God created male and female, the text has no normative significance for how sexual behavior is to be understood, since it is merely a distinction with no further moral meaning. (154-55)
If all else fails, the final step is to announce triumphantly and with a terrific celebration of grace that “Christ is, in an amoral fashion, the end of the law” and charge others with legalism if they don’t share in your antinomianism (156).
Sadly, Oden’s warning has been prescient. With a lesbian minister installed in an RCA classis in New Jersey, more than twenty open and affirming congregations, a prominent professor at our more conservative seminary publishing a new revisionist book on homosexuality, and a number of overtures heading to Synod asking for new study committees, we in the RCA find ourselves in the middle of so much that Oden lamented.
February 11, 2013
February 8, 2013
The Marks of a Moderate Man
When John Witherspoon was implored by the New Lights in New Jersey to leave Scotland and come lead struggling Princeton, it was chiefly because of his reputation as a defender of Reformed orthodoxy that they wanted him. And this well-deserved reputation was owing in large part to a satirical work Witherspoon had written lampooning the left wing off the Church of Scotland.
By the middle of the 18th century Presbyterians in Scotland were divided into two parties: the more liberal Moderate Party and the evangelical Popular Party. Witherspoon, siding strongly with the evangelical wing, published (anonymously) biting satire called Ecclesiastical Characteristics (1753) in which he laid out twelve (and later added a thirteenth) maxims for becoming a moderate man. It’s not a long work, but quite humorous and surprisingly contemporary at many points
Here are some Witherspoon’s best maxims for becoming “fierce for moderation.”
Maxim 1: All ecclesiastical persons of whatever rank, whether principals of colleges, professors of divinity, ministers or even probationers, that are suspected of heresy are to be esteemed men of great genius, vast learning, and uncommon worth; and are, by all means, to be supported and protected
Maxim 3: It is a necessary part of the character of a moderate man never to speak of the Confession of Faith but with a sneer; to give sly hints that he does not thoroughly believe it; and to make the word orthodoxy a term of contempt and reproach.
Maxim 5: A minister must endeavor to acquire as great a degree of politeness, in his carriage and behavior, and to catch as much of the air and manner of a fine gentleman as possibly he can.
Maxim 11: The character which moderate men give their adversaries of the orthodox party must always be that of “knaves” or “fools;” and, as occasion serves, the same person (if it will pass) may be represented as a “knave” at one time, and as a “fool” at another.
Maxim 12: As to the world in general a moderate man is to have great charity for Atheists and Deists in principle, and for persons that are loose and vicious in their practice; but none at all for those that have a high profession of religion, and a great pretense to strictness in their walk and conversation.
Years later when Witherspoon confirmed that he was the author of the Characteristics, he defended himself by saying “A satire that does not bite is good for nothing.” Not a bad rule of thumb. Satire should not be the first weapon chosen in defense of the gospel, but it does have its place in the battle.
February 7, 2013
2013 Magnify Conference
For several years our church has partnered with other churches in the Lansing area to host the Magnify Conference. This year’s conference will be at University Reformed Church on April 5 and 6.
I’m absolutely delighted that Alistair Begg will be our keynote speaker. I starting listening to Alistair on the radio when I was in college. He is a wonderful expositor and wonderfully Scottish to boot!
You can register for this brief, inexpensive conference here.
And to entice you come, here’s a snippet of Alistair preaching on Mark 10 and the self-assured rich young man.
Get Low
You will never be a Christian until you accept that there must be bad news on the way to good news. We will not know our only comfort in life and in death unless we are willing to see our misery. The goal in Christian preaching is not to have us all wallow in condemnation. But the question is this: How am I to live and to die in the joy of Christ’s comfort? The answer to that question begins with knowing your misery.
If you do not know that your sin is serious and significant and sustained, and that you stand guilty before a holy God, you will never cry out to God for deliverance. You never fall on your knees before the Savior and say, “You’re all that I have in life and in death, and all I plead is your precious blood. All I have to stand on is your mercy alone. O Lord Jesus, comfort and save a wretch like me.”
Oh that we might utter these words as our own!
And yet such cry will not explode out of your heart because a perfunctory religious ritual. God must do a quickening work in our hearts. He must mortify in order to vivify. He must bring us low to lift us up. When we kneel before God as a miserable offender, he comes to us with the sweetest balm and the richest healing and the highest hope.
February 6, 2013
Director of Ministries Opening
First Bryon Center CRC is looking for a Director of Ministries. Here is the job posting:
The Director of Ministries is responsible for coordinating, managing, and evaluating the ministries and staff of the 1st Byron CRC. Responsibilities include day to day administration of the church’s ministry and participating with 1st Byron’s leadership, especially the Senior Pastor and Executive Committee in developing, promoting, and implementing 1st Byron’s vision. A more detailed list of responsibilities and qualifications can be found on the church website at www.firstbyroncrc.org.
This is a solid church with a very good pastor. They annually host the PCRT for the Grand Rapids area. I encourage you to check out their materials if you or someone you know is looking for this type of position.
Calvinist Convictions in Our Founding Fathers
The Federalist Papers is a classic work that too few Americans have ever heard of, let alone have read. Written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers were an important series of articles promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution. Today marks the anniversary (February 6, 1788) of one of the most well known articles, Federalist 51, which was written by Madison to explain the necessity of checks and balances between the different branches and departments of government.
James Madison studied at Princeton under the evangelical Presbyterian minister John Witherspoon. How much of Madison’s political theory came from Witherspoon is difficult to prove, but he certainly received a strong dose of Reformed anthropology from his mentor. The Scottish parson more than once remarked rhetorically “What is the history of the world but the history of human guilt?” In lectures that Madison would have sat through, Witherspoon argued that we “certainly discover in mankind” a “disposition without restraint to commit errors of a gross nature.” And in his famous sermon leading up to independence in 1776 Witherspoon observed, “Nothing can be more absolutely necessary to true religion than a clear and full conviction of the sinfulness of our nature and state.”
Whether directly from Witherspoon or not, this understanding of the human condition was a bedrock conviction for founders like Madison. Thus Federalist 51:
But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attach. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of man must be connected with the constitutional right of the place.
It may be a reflection of human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
In other words, the best government is the one designed to check its own inherent tendencies to tyranny, just as a prudent political philosophy embraces the realities of our fallen condition and plans accordingly.
