Kevin DeYoung's Blog, page 79

When Learning to Pray, It’s Okay to Borrow and Steal

The following is a revised version of Martin Bucer’s prayer of intercession from the Strasbourg Liturgy (1539). I changes the pronouns from singular to plural, removed thees and thous (from older English translators anyways), made the language for governing authorities appropriate for my context, and switched things around in the last paragraph.

Almighty, heavenly Father, thou has promised us through your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, that whatsoever we ask in his name, you will grant unto us.

You have commanded us to petition you for all men, and especially for those in authority: we do therefore beseech you, dear faithful Father, through your Son our Savior, for our President and Governor, for all representatives and senators, judges and justices, and also for the magistrates of this city. Grant your Spirit and a godly fear to those whom you have set over us as rulers in your place, that they may administer their office to your honor and according to your will, in order that your children everywhere may lead calm and quiet lives, in all godliness and propriety.

We pray for all whose duty it is to proclaim your holy Word and be pastors of your Church. Grant them your Word and Spirit that they may serve you in such a way that all of your elect may be gathered unto you, and that those who already bear your name and are counted as Christians may live agreeably to your call, to they glory and the edification of your Church.

We pray also for those facing sickness and adversity. Enable them to perceive your gracious hand and accept discipline for their improvement, that in your grace you may impart to them comfort and help.

We pray for those who do not yet apprehend the holy Gospel, but remain in error and depravity. Enlighten their eyes that they also may recognize you as their God and Creator, and be converted to your will.

Heavenly Father, we pray also for ourselves who are gathered here. Grant that we may be gathered in your name. Drive from our hearts and souls all things which displease you. Enable us to understand that we live and move and have our being in you, and that our sins are so great and so abominable before you that neither your grace nor life could have been restored to us except through the death of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Enable us to grasp by true faith the love you have for us, in that you gave your dear Son in death for us, so that when we believe in him we shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Merciful God and Father, draw our hearts and souls to this your Son, so that we may receive his love with living faith and eternal gratitude, and therefore die to all evil more and more each day, grow and increase in all goodness, and lead our lives in all propriety, patience, and love toward our neighbor.

Greatly comforted by your holy Gospel, we do now and always call upon you, our God and Father, and pray to you as our Lord has taught us to pray, saying: “Our Father…” (Adapted from Bard Thompson, Liturgies of the Western Church, 173-75, 177)

Besides being a wonderful instrument for guiding our own prayers, Bucer’s intercession teaches us much about prayer itself.

We see the four main categories for intercession used by the early church and revived by the Reformers: the civil authorities (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Tim. 2:2); the Christian ministry (Matt. 9:36-38; 1 Tim. 2:1-2); the salvation of all people (1 Tim. 2:1, 3-4), and the afflicted (2 Cor. 1:3-4, 11; James :13-18). Are our prayers animated by the same concerns?
We see sin confessed with strong language. Do we speak of it in the same way?
We see a burden for holiness. Are we burdened for the same?
We see that prayer was a part of the service that took time and took preparation. Can we say the same of the role of prayer in our services?

Bucer’s prayer was only meant to be an example, a template to guide our prayers and to be expounded upon. But nonetheless it is impressively spiritual, in the truest sense of the word. My prayer life, both personally and corporately, has been immensely helped by reading old prayers like this one from Strasbourg.  It’s not that our ancestors did everything right or that we should pray just like they did or just as long. But they almost surely thought more about prayer, especially in the corporate worship service. Read The Valley of Vision. Use Hughes Oliphant Old’s big book on prayer. Check out Liturgies of the Western Church. Glean the best bits from the Book of Common Prayer. Prayer is hard work. There’s no sense going at it all on your own.

How to Lead a Good Prayer Meeting

Several years ago–I can’t remember if it was three or four–we experimenting with turning one Sunday evening service a month into a prayer meeting. I’m happy to say the experience stuck and these monthly prayer services have become a highlight of our life together as a church.

Over the past couple years, and especially over the weekend after I tweeted something about our prayer service, I’ve had people ask me what we do at these prayer meetings and what they look like?

In general, the service is 60-75 minutes long. We usually start with a hymn and then have a brief (15 minute sermon). We haven’t always included the sermon–and there is a danger of the sermon eating up all the time for prayer–but we’ve found that a brief sermon gets the heart ready for prayer and is also helpful for non-Christians who may be visiting. The rest of the service is set aside for prayer, which is normally led by me, or sometimes by one of our other pastors. Rather than go into a blow by blow of this past week’s service, I thought it would be helpful to share some lessons we’ve learned about planning for and leading an effective prayer meeting.

1. Establish a regular and attractive time for the service. If you don’t currently have a prayer service, you will have a hard time starting one up at a new time. People are already overbooked. No matter how much you exhort people, it’s hard to get a good turnout for prayer on Friday night or some early morning. We have a 30 minute prayer meeting on Tuesday mornings which is faithfully attended by a few church members. It’s a great time for those of us who make it a priority. But it’s rarely more than 10 people. By putting our prayer service in a regular church slot–which for us was Sunday night, but could be Wednesday night or some other time–we not only made it possible for more people to attend, we sent a signal that this was important. To be fair, our Sunday evening attendance is not anywhere near our Sunday morning attendance, but I bet we had 125 people at our prayer service last night. That’s a lot better than nothing.

2. The pastor has to be involved. I lead most of our prayer services. Rarely does anyone besides one of our three pastors lead. That’s not because others are incapable of leading well. They are and some have. But we want people to see that this is not a throw away event. The pastor does not have to be the best prayer warrior in the church or the only champion for prayer, but I’m convinced he has to take ownership of the prayer meeting if it is to succeed.

3. Use variety. Our prayer services are always different. We’ve used lots of different forms and approaches, including: singing prayers, reading prayers responsively, praying through Scripture, being led in prayer, praying as a large group, praying in small groups, praying through old liturgies, praying through old prayer manuals, praying through confessions, and taking prayer requests. This past week I led the congregation in praying through Martin Bucer’s prayer of confession (with periods of silence) and his prayer of intercession (with periods of small group prayer), both taken from his Strasbourg Liturgy.

4. Include children. This has been one of the unexpected delights of our prayer meeting. We have lots of children in our church and many in our worship services. They are full participants, often praying out loud when we huddle in small groups of 8-15.

5. Celebrate. We share a meal after our prayer services. Some churches may be too big for such fellowship, but most are not. Having pizza and ice cream together gets the kids excited and sets apart the evening as anticipated fellowship event as well as a time for prayer. Prayer is hard work, so put your best foot forward.

6. Be patient. Praying out loud is difficult for some people. Praying for 30-60 minutes can feel awkward at first. Keep at it. I think we’ve grown a lot in praying together as a church, but it takes practice.

7. Keep up the pace. Maybe in some churches and in some cultures God’s people can linger in prayer for hours on end, but in my experience in this country, we need to keep things moving. A half hour of prayer can seem daunting, until you break it up into 3 minutes of silent prayer, 4 minutes in led prayer, 5 minutes in read prayer, 8 minutes in large group prayer, 10 minutes in small groups praying through five separate items.

8. Plan, plan, plan. Can I say it again. Plan! The biggest human difference between a vibrant, effective prayer meeting and a dull, ineffective one is planning. I learned this from Ben Patterson, both from his teaching and from his example. Many churches gave up on the prayer meeting because no one knew how to plan one. Asking people to popcorn prayer for 30 minutes will not sustain most people’s interest.  People need categories for prayer. They need models for prayer. They need theological boundaries for prayer. The pastor must spend significant time preparing to lead his people in prayer.

9. Remember. Be expectant when you pray. And when God answers prayer, remember to thank him. I will never forget that it was soon after starting our monthly prayer service that God started opening the doors for us to buy our current church facility. I don’t think anyone who was at the service will forget the time of prayer we had for a college student with cancer and his newlywed. We’ve prayed for little babies and old saints. We’ve seen some people get better and some go to be with the Lord. Of course, every church prays for these sort of things, but we’ve been blessed to be able to pray for them together.

10. Don’t forget to pray. Taking prayer requests for 25 minutes and praying for 5 minutes is nice, but not really a prayer meeting. Having your calling pastor do a traditional service for old people may be a wonderful idea, but it’s not a prayer meeting either. And singing four hymns, preaching for 30 minutes, and then praying through the sick list for 10 minutes is not what we’re talking about. Make sure your prayer meeting is full of prayer.

Whom Shall You Fear?

For years I carried around in my wallet a little card folded up with a quote from George Müller (1805-1898), the man of faith who prayed in funds for his orphanage in England. The quote I had with me at all times–until he shriveled to pieces–was this:

There was a day when I died, utterly died — died to George Müller, his opinions, preferences, tastes, and will; died to the world, its approval or censure; died to the approval or blame even of my brethren and friends — and since then I have only to show myself approved to God.

I wrote that down, not because I felt I was living like that, but because I knew I needed to. For everyone there is some friend, some sphere of influence, some colleague, some journal, some peer, some big shot in your profession, some one somewhere you so respect, or so fear, that you can bear the thought of disappointing them.

That fear must die. For if the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, the fear of man is the beginning of misery, compromise, and disappointment.

You will not last as a Christian–and you will not be truly happy–unless you fight to be dead to the approval of the world and live to show yourself only approved unto God.

Why Elder Subscription Is a Good Idea

Let me establish some givens:

You care about the spiritual health and theological fidelity of your church.
You have some kind of membership process in your church, including a basic statement of faith to which your members must adhere.
Your church is governed by a plurality of elders, and these elders are to care for the flock of God by teaching what is true and training up the body of Christ in the whole counsel of God.

With these three assumptions in place, let me pose an important question: should your elders subscribe to a confessional document more comprehensive than the statement of faith you use for church membership? If the bar for membership in the church should be roughly the same bar for membership into heaven, should there be a higher doctrinal standard for the leaders of your church?

Let me make the question more explicit. In some Reformed or Presbyterian denominations, no church officers, other than the pastors, must subscribe to the confessional standards. In the Reformed Church in America (RCA), for example, there are no additional theological requirements for elders and deacons and no confessional vows to make.  By contrast, more conservative denominations like the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP), and the Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRCNA) require their elders and deacons (as well as pastors) to subscribe to the denominations confessional standards (the Three Forms of Unity for the Reformed and the Westminster Standards for the Presbyterians). The United Reformed Church in North America (URCNA) requires  officers AND members to subscribe to the Three Forms, but we’ll set them aside for another day.

At first glance, there is something attractive about only requiring pastors to subscribe to one’s confessional standards. Even the staunchest Presbyterian and Reformed folks can likely think of gifted, devout, theologically minded, pastorally sensitive brothers who–though a bit squishy on all five points of Calvinism and not really convinced of infant baptism–have proven to be faithful servants and effective in ministry. It’s easy to picture dear friends and think, “I know he’s not all the way Reformed, but he really could be a great addition to our elder board.” I’m sympathetic with this inclination, not least of all because I can see many wonderful Christian friends and terrific church members in that picture. As a pastor, I’d rather tell visitors how inclusive we are as opposed to disappointing good people who have a genuine desire to use their gifts in leadership in the church.

And yet, I’m convinced–as most branches of the Reformed and Presbyterian trees have been–that asking elders (and deacons for that matter, but let’s stick with elders in this post) to subscribe to their denomination’s confessional standards is a good idea.

Here are five reasons why:

1. Elders must be apt to teach (1 Tim. 3:2). As teachers in the church, they must have a broader and deeper knowledge of the doctrine of the church. When Paul tells Titus to make sure the elders in Crete “hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that [they] may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Tit. 1:9), he envisions a doctrinal precision not required of every church member.

2. In good Presbyterian or Reformed polity, the pastor is a “first among equals” with his lay elders. Whether you believe pastor and elder are two different offices, or that the office of elder can be divided into teaching elders and ruling elders, we should all agree that God instituted a plurality of elders, not a single bishop, to lead the church. When the pastor has to subscribe to documents his fellow elders can believe or disbelieve, it can lead to awkward tensions. If the lay elders have an equal vote to the pastor (or ruling elders to teaching elder), why would the latter have doctrinal requirements the former can ignore? Even more awkwardly, what’s to prevent the elders from being seriously out of step with their pastor’s theology–theology he has made a vow to uphold? Do we really want everything outside of a simple six or seven point statement of faith to be up for grabs with every turnover of the elder board?

3. It’s hard to make Presbyterian polity work at a regional level without elder subscription. The elders at a local Reformed or Presbyterian church are not just shepherds for their specific church, they comprise the membership of the classis or presbytery as well. How can the denomination be true to itself, its stated convictions, and its mission in the world if it does not know, and has no control, over the beliefs of the members of its assemblies?

4. One of the great advantages of belonging to a confessional church is that people know what to expect. True, there are still differences in worship style, and the feel and make up of any given church can vary greatly, but if your church belongs to a confessional tradition there should be a sense that you know what you are doctrinally going to get. Creeds and catechisms serve as a public confession announcing, “This is who we are. This is what we believe. This is what we are going to teach.” The confessional nature of a church is hampered when technically only one person in the whole congregation has to subscribe to the confessions. But when the officers of the church must uniformly subscribe to the same standard, the congregation inside and the world can have greater confidence that they know what the church stands for and what it will promote.

5. The confessions provide the leadership’s hopes for the congregation as a whole. That is to say, when the church officers all subscribe to the same thing it tells the rest of the church, “This is what we think is important. This is what we hope you will also come to understand and believe.” Of course, some of our church members may never grasp the finer points of the Canons of Dort or embrace infant baptism as spelled out in the Westminster Confession of Faith, but still these documents can, as Carl Trueman puts it in The Creedal Imperative, “represent the church’s doctrinal and pedagogical aspirations” (177).

And when the leaders of the church all subscribe to the same thing, it not only sets the theological direction for the congregation, it also delimits the power of the church’s leaders. If the elders subscribe to nothing, then potentially anything is a make or break issue in the church. But if they have all made vows to the Westminster Standards, for example, then to demand from the church member a certain view on Obamacare is to require something they did not sign up for and could not reasonably expect. Making our doctrinal commitments more fixed actually allows for the appropriate kind of flexibility. As Trueman puts it, “Creeds and confessions establish boundaries of belonging and, by implication, of exclusion. Both are necessary if the church is to have a meaningful corporate identity and unity” (184-185).

 

NOTE: In an earlier version, I stated that the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) was like the RCA in not requiring its officers to subscribe to the confessions. This is not correct. The EPC requires its ruling elders and deacons to “receive and adopt” the Westminster Standards as containing the “system of doctrine” taught in Scripture. My friends in the EPC tell me that the enforcement of this provision is more lax than in the PCA or OPC and can vary greatly from church to church. Interestingly, the EPC requires its officers to “affirm and adopt the ‘Essentials of our Faith‘ without exception.”

Monday Morning Humor

A Watchman on the Walls

It is not the work of the pastor to say whatever seems relevant or whatever seems noncontroversial or whatever is especially interesting to itching ears. Our responsibility, before God and for the sake of God’s people, is to declare the whole counsel of God (Acts 10:27).

The teachers of the church must disclose all of the glorious parts in Scripture and all the hard parts, all the promises and all the warnings, all the blessings and all the curses, all the parts that make us smile and all the parts that make us wince.

While we do not like to upset people and we do not wish to be thought uncouth, we answer to a higher authority. It is the solemn task of the preacher–weak and failing though he may be–to stand fast as a watchman on the walls. We cannot shrink back from the uncomfortable bits in the Bible (Acts 20: 20-21, 25-32). If we see the sword coming upon the land and refuse to blow the trumpet, the blood of the perishing will be upon our hands (Ezekiel 33:1-6).

It should make us shudder to think about some churches and pastors and what sort of judgment they might fall under when all they did was give people what they wanted to hear, instead of speaking to them of righteousness, self-control, and the coming judgment (Acts 24:25).

“Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” is what the Good Shepherd and most loving man who ever lived once said (Luke 13:3).

People may not want to hear hellfire and brimstone sermons. But as a pastor, I don’t want to face hellfire and brimstone for failing to preach as a dying man to dying men.

For the watchman on the walls must give a warning; he must speak of this judgment which is to come; he must herald the glorious salvation found in Christ alone; he must share the glad tidings of peace on earth and good will toward men; he must tell the hard news that we need a Savior, the unpopular news that there is only one Savior, and the unimaginably good news that there is one who actually saves.

O shepherds, may it never be that someone sitting under your preaching or someone subject to your elder care could stand before God on the Day of Judgment and say, “No one ever told me I needed a Savior.”

The Importance of Simplicity in Preaching

John Witherspoon, in his Lectures on Eloquence, with wise words on the importance of preaching with simplicity:

Another character which should distinguish pulpit eloquence is simplicity.

Simplicity is beautiful everywhere; it is of importance that young persons should be formed to a taste for it and more disposed to exceed here than in the opposite extreme, but if I am not mistaken it is more beautiful and the transgressions of it more offensive in the pulpit than any where else. If I heard a lawyer pleading in such a style and manner, as was more adapted to display his own talents than to carry his client’s cause, it would considerably lessen him in my esteem, but if I heard a minister acting the same part I should not be satisfied with contempt, but hold him in detestation.

There are several obvious reasons why simplicity is more especially necessary to a minister than any other.

(1) Many of his audience are poor ignorant creatures.

If he means to do them any service he must keep to what they understand, and that requires more simplicity than persons without experience can easily imagine. It is remarkable that at the first publication it was a character of the gospel that it was preached to the poor. In this our blessed master was distinguished both from the heathen philosophers and Jewish teachers, who confined their instructions in a great measure to their schools, and imparted what they esteemed their most important discourses to only a few chosen disciples.

(2) Simplicity is necessary to preserve the speaker’s character for sincerity.

You heard before how necessary piety is, which is proper parent of sincerity, in the pulpit. Now it is not easy to preserve the opinion of piety and sincerity in the pulpit when there is much ornament. Besides the danger of much affected pomp or foppery of style, a discourse very highly polished even in the truest taste is apt to suggest to the audience that a man is preaching himself and not the cross of Christ.

So nice a matter is this in all public speaking that some critics say that Demosthenes put on purpose some errors in grammar in his discourses that the hearers might be induced to take them for the immediate effusions of the heart, without art, and with little premeditation. I doubt much the solidity of this remark or the certainty of the fact, but however it be, there is no occasion for it in the case of a minister, because preparation and premeditation are expected from him, and in that case he may make his discourses abundantly plain and simple without any affected blunders.

(3) Simplicity is also necessary as suited to the gospel itself, the subject of a minister’s discourses.

Nothing (is) more humbling to the pride of man than the doctrine of the cross; nothing (is) more unbecoming that doctrine than too much finery of language. The apostle Paul chose to preach “not with the words which man’s wisdom teaches” (1 Cor. 2:13)—and again, “not with excellency of speech or of wisdom” (1 Cor. 2:1), which though I admit that it does not condemn study and sound knowledge, yet it certainly shows that the style of the pulpit should be the most simple and self-denied of any other.

If the choice is preaching in such a way as to be thought intellectually and rhetorically impressive or preaching in a manner as to be understood, we must always choose the latter over the former. In preaching, clarity is king, and simplicity is his servant.

Book Briefs

David Helm, Expositional Preaching: How We Speak God’s Word Today (Crossway, 2014). This little book is simply outstanding. It’s the best short book on preaching I’ve read. Helm’s advice is unfailingly wise, theologically informed, and extremely practical. If there is a theme running throughout the book is it Helm’s salutary warning against “blind adherence to contextualization.” Read the book and find out what he means. Preachers new and old will learn much from this quick read.

Charles Murray, The Curmedgeon’s Guide to Getting Ahead (Crown Business, 2014). In this engaging book by the renowned, much cited, sometimes controversial sociologist, we get frank advice on everything from writing to workplace etiquette to the emptiness of fame. As an agnostic, Murray’s exhortations do not always square with Christianity (e.g., “Don’t ruin the love affair with yourself”), but the author’s unbelief also makes his insistence on taking religion seriously all the more intriguing. For a Christian well-grounded in the faith, this can be a fun book with a lot of common sense, common grace good advice.

Kevin D. Williamson, What Doomed Detroit (Encounter Books, 2013). Whether you agree with this book will likely depend on the political instincts you bring to the book. Williamson argues that Detroit failed because it embraced a model of government predicated on the assumption that that post-war industrial boom of the 1950s and 1960s would last forever. Conservatives will agree with Williamson’s summation. It would be interesting to see some kind of debate between a good faith liberal and a good faith conservative on “what doomed Detroit.” Surely there are important lessons to learn.

R.C. Sproul, Everyone’s a Theologian: An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Reformation Trust, 2014). I haven’t read the whole book, but what I’ve seen is, not surprisingly, robust and readable. I’m always on the look out for introductory text books in systematic theology from a Reformed perspective. This is a most welcome find.

 

Carolyn Mahaney and Nicole Whitacre, True Beauty (Crossway, 2014). My wife and I both read this book and found it refreshing, the kind of book we would recommend to women of all ages. Here’s our blurb: “This book is a wonderful example of combining the eminently practical with the deeply theological. Carolyn and Nicole have give us a work that is both terrifically up to date and rooted in God’s unchanging Word.”

Paul Lake, The Republic of Virtue (University of Evansville Press, 2013). I’m not sure I’ve ever purchased a book of new poems before, but I heard good things about this collection so I did. I was not disappointed. I’m not adequate to judge the poetry as poetry, but I found the substance of what Lake was saying to be alternately touching, humorous, and provocative. Lake likes to tweak academia with his poetry, especially the strand of academic life that is sure about political correctness and unsure about the meaning of words. In this short book, there is a wide variety of topics, from death and aging to Wile E. Coyote to Jesus with a feminist woman at the well. Worth a look, even if you don’t normally look at poems.

And What About Divorce?

After last week’s post on gluttony, a host of similar comments bubbled up about divorce. Isn’t it hypocritical of Christians to protest so loudly about homosexuality when the real marital problem in our churches is divorce? Over many years debating these issues in my own denomination, I’ve often encountered the divorce retort: “It’s easy for you to pick on homosexuality because that’s the issue in your church. But you don’t follow the letter of your own law. If you did, you would be talking about divorce, since that’s the bigger problem in conservative churches.”

A Smokescreen

When it comes to debating homosexuality among Christians, the issue of divorce is both a smokescreen and a fire. It is a smokescreen because the two issues-divorce and homosexuality-are far from identical.

For starters, there are no groups in our denominations whose raison d’etre is the celebration of divorce. People are not advocating new policies in our churches that affirm the intrinsic goodness of divorce. Conservatives, in the culture and in the church, keep talking about homosexuality because that is the fault line right now. We’d love to talk (and do) about how to have a healthy marriage. We’d love for that matter to spend all our time talking about the glory of the Trinity, but the battle right now (at least one of them) is over homosexuality. So we cannot be silent on this issue.

Just as importantly, the biblical prohibition against divorce explicitly allows for exceptions; the prohibition against homosexuality does not. The traditional Protestant position, as stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith for example, maintains that divorce is permissible on grounds of marital infidelity or desertion by an unbelieving spouse (WCF 24.5-6). Granted, the application of these principles is difficult and the question of remarriage after divorce gets even trickier, but almost all Protestants have always held that divorce is sometimes acceptable. Simply put, homosexuality and divorce are different issues because according to the Bible and Christian tradition the former is always wrong, while the latter is not.

Finally, the “what about divorce?” argument is not a good as it sounds because many of our churches do take divorce seriously. I realize that many churches don’t (more on that in a minute). But a lot of the same churches that speak out against homosexuality also speak out against illegitimate divorce. I’ve preached on divorce a number of times, including a sermon a few years ago entitled, “What Did Jesus Think of Divorce and Remarriage?” I’ve said more about homosexuality in the blogosphere because there’s a controversy around the issue in the culture in the wider church. But I’ve never shied away from talking about divorce. I take seriously everything the Westminster Confession of Faith says about marriage. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman (WCF 24.1). It is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord (WCF 24.3). Only adultery and willful desertion are grounds for divorce (WCF 24.6).

As a board of elders, we treat these matters with the seriousness they deserve. We ask new members who have been divorced to explain the nature of their divorce and (if applicable) their remarriage. This has resulted on occasion in potential new members leaving our church. Most of the discipline cases we’ve encountered as elders have been about divorce. The majority of pastoral care crises we have been involved in have dealt with failed or failing marriages. Our church, like many others, takes seriously all kinds of sins, including illegitimate divorce. We don’t always know how to handle every situation, but I can say with a completely clear conscience that we never turn a blind eye to divorce.

And Undoubtedly Some Fire

Having said all that, it’s undoubtedly the case that many evangelicals have been negligent in dealing with illegitimate divorce and remarriage. Pastors have not preached on the issue for fear of offending scores of their members. Elder boards have not practiced church discipline on those who sin in this area because, well, they don’t practice discipline for much of anything. Counselors, friends, and small groups have not gotten involved early enough to make a difference in pre-divorce situations. Christian attorneys have not thought enough about their responsibility in encouraging marital reconciliation. Church leaders have not helped their people understand God’s teaching about the sanctity of marriage, and we have not helped those already wrongly remarried to experience forgiveness for their past mistakes.

So yes, there are plank-eyed Christians among us. The evangelical church, in many places, gave up and caved in on divorce and remarriage. But the remedy to this negligence is not more negligence. The slow, painful cure is more biblical exposition, more active pastoral care, more faithful use of discipline, more word-saturated counseling, and more prayer–for illegitimate divorce, for same-sex behavior, and for all the other sins that are more easily condoned than confronted.

Monday Morning Happy