It's not up to you [3]

The last time I wrote about this was way back in March, and I was on a roll because of a thing or two I had been reading - mostly about people who had marriage problems or relationship problems. For anyone who wants to know, there is a part of me that gets sick-angry over failed marriages, and there's another part of me that is heartbroken. If I could do anything in the world besides lead everyone to Jesus (and I’m not doing that yet – not hardly!), I would save every marriage that's being driven on the wrong side of the road from its clear path of destruction.

And that said, I've already told you that the church has a responsibility to make a big, noisy sound of encouragement and discouragement to anyone in a failing marriage - because, as I have named these posts, it's not up to you to decide what marriage ought to be about. Marriage ought to be not just fidelity but covenant-keeping, and demonstrating our identity in Christ - that is, we keep our promises because of who we are. We do not break them because we have can not decide that the promises aren't who we are anymore - or who we think we ought to be. Thus: encouragement to keep the vow one has made before God and our fellow believers from the church.

But what about "discouragement"? I say that here to mean that there is a part of this that is up to you - which is, you personally. It is up to you to be conformed to God's word - especially if you are a Christian. In Romans 6-7-8, Paul makes the extraordinary case that we might sometimes do things we don't want to do, and that sometimes there are things that we don't want to do that we do, but guess what? You are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

If you are alive in the Spirit, your body ought not to be dead in sin. Said another way, you won't have a hard heart - especially to someone to whom God has joined you. Because specifically, it is your hardness of heart that will not allow you to stay with that other person.

That's what Jesus said, isn't it? "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives". But what else? "But from the beginning it was not so."

"But cent, you insensitive Baptist slob," comes the reader who has been offended, "my spouse left me. My spouse is cheating on me. The Bible and Christ say without a doubt that I am off the hook, right? Or are you going to look down your nose at me for being the one who was violated?"

Listen: it is unequivocal that Jesus himself said that in the case of adultery, there is something else going on; Paul also said that if an unbelieving spouse leaves a believer, let him (or her) go. So it seems that cent's big mouth is bound to get him in trouble again, and I am sure it will. That being obvious, before I make my next two points, let me offer some caveats:

[1] if you are already divorced, and you divorced over adultery (one way or the other), I am not talking to you. I can't change the past, and neither can you. End of story.

[2] if you have been divorced by an unbeliever, I am not talking to you, either. Again, what's done is done, and you can't control somebody else - and you can't expect an unbeliever to act like a disciple of the living God.

That said, think about these examples for a second: how does Christ define adultery? Is it a very nuanced definition of adultery which includes all manner of sensual gymnastics, but excludes kissing, hugging, moon eyes, hand-holding and whatever? No: it's a sharp-edged definition that takes all doubt out of the picture --

27"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

31"It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' 32But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Completely brutal! Where's the love in that, right? Your sin is in your heart, in your motives, in your lustful thoughts - so every man reading this blog is an adulterer, and many of the women are, too.

"yeah, but ..." right? Yeah, but that's not the same to me as if my spouse made kissy-face with another person, or worse.

Listen: it's not up to you, remember? It's not up to you to decide what the definition of adultery is. So on the one hand, it's not up to you to decide if your spouse is unfaithful, and on the other hand, it's not up to you to decide if you yourself are unfaithful.

It's not up to you. See: this is why this post is not for people already divorced. This advice has to start way in front of the place where you're trying to decide which lawyer you're going to call, or how you're going to goad your spouse into divorcing you.

The problem in marriage – which we will all have to deal with eventually – is that your heart is hard. You. You are the one with a hard, sinful heart. And the solution to hardness of heart is only one thing: Christ-likeness.

Wives: the church is the body of Christ, and submits to Christ the way His body ought to submit to Him. (Eph 5:23-24) Think about what a statement that is! In what way did Christ’s body submit to Him? It suffered an ignominious death when it in fact deserved glorious exaltation. Christ was obedient in spite of injustice and scorn from those who ought to be worshipping Him.

Now, the alarmist is going to say, “cent, you’re advocating that women stay with their husbands until they are killed by their husbands, aren’t you? Aren’t you saying that because a woman is a sinner she deserves to die at the hands of her husband to show her Christ-likeness?”

No, in fact, I am not. I’m not arguing about the extreme cases of violence and brutality, either physical or mental: I’m arguing about the average Joe-and-Mary cases of divorce which are, for the most part, for the emotional and social expedience of one or both of the people involved. These divorces are because of the hardness of the heart of one or both spouses, and they are a disgrace.

And that said, men, Paul has much more stern words for you: Love your wives as Christ loves the church, as you would love your own bodies. That is, love her in spite of what you think is sinful or offensive. Love your wives for the sake of sanctifying her. But notice: that’s not a love of attrition where you love her by correction and denial: it is a love of example (Eph 5:2), and sacrifice (1 Cor 15:3), and patience (2 Pet 3:9), and intention (Acts 2:14-41). Christ loves the church by giving himself up for her. What about you? Do you give up a round of golf for your wife, ever? How about even 10 minutes of TV at night?

What that takes is not a square jaw and a steel-eyed determination: what that takes is a heart of flesh which is willing to be poured out on purpose. That’s not a soft, soppy, effeminate view of the Gospel – because a soft, soppy man doesn’t have the heart to be a living sacrifice for his wife. He’s just a wet rag.

So my point is this: if you actually understand the Gospel, divorce ought to be out of the question. And be clear that it’s not out of the question because your spouse, by heavens, needs to be reformed. It is out of the question because you yourself need to be reformed, and the best place to do that is seeking Christ-likeness inside the bounds of the union God has established.

Marriage is the place for you to see what the love if Christ is really like by learning to demonstrate it to another human being. Can you do it? With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

That's what I'm tawkin' abowd

Controversy starts here.

HT: Bill Hubbs

Who thinks this is funny -- besides iMonk?

After sufficient hoo-ha has been raised, I'll post my e-mail to Bill here in the meta.

Good Morning

Not so much the rest of the day. I have a project at work due today that impacts about everybody I work with, so I have to get off my blog and do that all day today.

I have a short list of things I want to blog about this week, and if you want to be prepared for them, you should read these posts:

This one on marriage (which I wrote 3 months ago)

This one on separation, which was written by a pretty smart guy

That's all for today. Have a nice day.

As if ...

I was policing the blogosphere's baptisms and confessions of faith when I ran into this post and read it with fear and trembling.

A few comments, in no particular order:

Yeah, Andrew Peterson can't sing a lick, but somehow all his CDs break my heart. I'd call him the CCM Bob Dylan if I didn't think that was an insult. He's not even 1% the phony Bob Dylan is.

Todd Agnew? pheh.

He listed Sara Groves and not Ginny Owens. What the ... ? Dude: I think that's some kind of blind-ism -- how do you say "is biased against jazzy blind white girls" in Greek?

GLAD dates you, iMonk.

the Watermark thing is killing me, even if they are nutty charismatics.

Caedmon's Call has gone soft, and Derek Webb somehow goes too far and not far enough, as if he's become the personification of CCM/CBA/ECPA; his problem is that he WANTS TO be the CCM Bob Dylan. Pheh.

Shane and Shane are playing at our church's summer picnic this year, and I'm completely Marcia Brady over it. Anyone who gets that joke is older than iMonk.

Note to Tim and Doug

I greatly want to have this discussion, so it is important that I front-up the disclaimer that if I say something here which appears to be mean baptistic intransigence, it probably is -- but it's not more than that. OK? :-)

You and I agree that God has not put a big gold fishy on all of the elect, right? That is to say, evangelism is not a matter of looking for the mark of Christ on others as if we were in a Tim LaHaye novel. In that respect, we agree that "God hasn't revealed the elect".

Problematicly, I think the Bible says that God has, in fact, revealed the elect. It's not (without getting mired in Enlightenment categories) in an a priori sense (which we agree on, above), but it is in an a posteriori sense. That is: we don't know ahead of time who is and is not elect, but we can know by their example or witness who they are. Hebrews 11 & 12 say as much.

For example, Heb 6 was turned over a few times in the JW/DW debate (as I remember – I should review it if we are going to chat about it some more) as evidence for both sides. And the irony is this: I think both sides agree that this passage talks about being inside the bounds of the church and then leaving those boundaries. The question is whether or not being inside the church constitutes the covenant boundaries of the New Covenant as the writer of Hebrews is expounding them.

See: from the intransigent baptistic hermeneutic, we want you to agree with us about something – the work of Christ is not about a series of covenants (plural) which are nested inside each other like matryoshka dolls: it is the new and everlasting covenant (singular).

It seems to some that DW’s view is that there is a covenant which establishes the church, but that covenant doesn’t necessarily save; then there is the covenant which actually saves, but its relationship to the church is where a lot of people get hung up. For example, it seems that a lot of people think that DW is advocating that if you break the church covenant, you are unequivocally out of the saving covenant – that there’s a causal relationship from “church” to “salvation”, thereby rendering to him the charge of being a works righteousness guy.

But – and this is the basis of my plea to please agree with me about one covenant – I don’t think that’s what DW believes. I think he believes that the covenant which establishes the salvation of the elect establishes the ground of the church. That is, a primary, time-and-space result of the new covenant in the blood of Christ is called out people who gather together in an orderly way because God is a God of order, and gather in a celebratory way because God is a victor and King who is generous and gracious and has poured out his gifts for us. But the basis for that order and celebration is, of course, the covenant which saves.

For as often as we – who are gathered together, right? – eat this bread and drink the cup, we proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. “We”. The problem which seems to be looking for a solution is this: how do we reconcile the “we who are gathered” with the fact (which none of us would deny) that some gather who are frankly not saved?

I think a very generic baptistic response would be, “the church is a light on a hill, and some people get in in spite of our best warnings and circumspection to present a spotless bride to Christ because it really is a good thing. Some people gather not because of election or sanctification but because it seems to feel good for a season.” No reference to the one covenant which saves except that to admit that this one covenant has a really good effect on the world in the community it creates, and that can attract some people for mundane rather than salvific reasons.

And let me go on-record here to say that it would be a generous Baptist who would say such a thing. The average Baptist at Liberty University probably would be mad as hell to hear someone say that not all Baptists are Anabaptists who are constantly culling the flock to make sure we have achieved the right level of separation, but at the same time we’re not winnowing our roles because you know, the best prospect list for the church is the church rolls. Let me join you in saying “pheh! Baptists!” to such people.

That said, DW’s response is that there is a covenant which creates the church which is the result of God’s promise of salvation. That covenant is fulfilled by God because he is covenant-faithful, but that’s a two-edged sword. God is the one who also reprobates the unsaved, and they manifest that by being covenant breakers in the necessary effect of the church. In that way, God promises to do what he does, and he does it, and the cause and the effect are all part of the self-same one covenant.

Whew!

Now, why go through all of that? Why not just break out the Baptist discipline canes and start administering the merciless beatings? Because what is at stake here is this matter of “what is church”. There is so much that we agree on that to simply start calling you and DW baby-baptizering heretics is grossly unjust to both your position and to mine – and to the huge expanse of actual agreement we share in this matter.

You may, in fact, be baby-baptizering heretics. But it’s not because you’re careless, thoughtless louts who spit on Christ in both active and passive disobedience. You do it because you frame the scope of the covenant as inclusive (in an objective sense, without flirting with universalism) and inviting, whereas I (the Baptist party-crasher) frame the scope of the covenant as exclusive (in the objective sense, particularly to avoid universalism) but yet still inviting.

And all that to come back to the matter of the a posteriori revelation of the elect. See: I think you and I would agree that the non-elect really don’t belong in the church. Why? Because you and I would both agree that they get themselves into “more trouble” by being there. You would say that they bring the right judgment of being covenant-breakers upon their own heads, which frankly they wouldn’t have to be worried about if they just joined Kiwanis instead, and they’re not going to get the final glorification anyway. I would say that the church is supposed to be called out, and in being called it is actually culled by the effectual calling, and the culling is the culling of the elect from the non-elect in order to actually manifest the list of blessings Heb 6 gives us. I may be wrong about your view here, but I think in the end, theologically, you don’t really think that unbelievers belong inside the church even if we allow them inside the church.

So, again, I think this is about a pretty narrow point of contention which gets blown out of proportion a lot of times for sectarian reasons. Some people on both sides go too far, and we should be a little steely-eyed toward them as far as that is necessary or useful.

In that, let’s all spend the Lord’s day in the Lord’s house with the Lord’s people – and let’s pray for each other as we seek to do what God wants us to be doing thru his church.

Amen?

Beer plus Wine (rabbit trail)

Just as a point of reference, beer sales in the U.S. make up about 60% of all sales of alcoholic beverages. Wine is another 15%, and hard liquor is the balance at 25%.

We need to think about something in those stats: more than half of the fermented beverages sold in the U.S. have less than 6% alcohol by volume, and 75% have less than 11% by volume. If we don't try to pick nits over whether 1st century wine was 5 proof or 3 proof and concede that it was watered down, more than 60% of the alcoholic beverages consumed in the US today are in that same range -- and another 15% are in striking distance.

Which is fine, I guess -- the problem for the prohibitionist is that if 40% of all alcohol being sold in the U.S. is in the category of "strong drink", why aren't 40% of all drinkers causing sociol-political havoc? Not to put too fine a point on this, but 40% is a pretty big minority. The alcohol industry is a $100 billion industry -- meaning that on-average, $333 is spent every year (about a dollar per day) in the U.S. for every man, woman and child inside our borders.

How can it be that, with that much hootch sloshing around, there are only 0.63 traffic accidents per 10,000 motor vehicles registered in the U.S.? How can it be that less than 2% of the total population suffers from alcohol-related liver damage?

The argument that beer and wine are causing social havoc is unsustainable -- because there's no havoc. It is certain -- indisputable -- that alcohol abuse causes some social instability. The question is whether or not someone who uses alcohol is more likely to become a danger to society and a moral scofflaw than not -- and it is equally indisputable that the vast majority of alcohol users are not alcohol abusers. They do not become reckless abandoners of families, and missers of work, and vehicular homocidal maniacs.

But how can this be? Isn't it possible that there's some moral force keeping them from choosing to abuse a privilege? You know: the same one which keeps most of them driving at safe speeds, and practicing ball with their kids in open fields, and eating hamburger rather than Frankburger?

To be as specific as possible, isn't it likely that one of the reasons people can have a drink or two over the course of a couple of hours and not let themselves get blown away is the fruit of the spirit which includes the astounding virtue of self-control -- and against such a thing there is no law?

Think about that. More later.

Housekeeping

Hey: readers. Especially Arkansas readers.

We get a lot of traffic on this blog from Prairie Grove, AR (which I think I understand), Rogers (which I also think I "get"), but then our #3 reader point-of-origin is Subiaco, AR.



Subiaco? Listen: I can tell you your IP addresses, but that doesn't really mean anything to me. Who is reading this blog from Subiaco? Who knew Subiaco was a hotbed of reformed baptist insurgency?

Use of Alcohol (1A)

esterday in the meta, one of my fine feathered friends asked these questions:

Frankturi0n,

On the Convention level, if we argue that there is no biblical precedent to propose said resolution does this not also apply to the local church? In other words, if we are looking at this as protestants a la sola scriptura, then on what basis does anyone make rules binding the consciences of men?

Also, the Convention could just pass another resolution saying that only members of churches with abstinence covenants are elligible for leadership positions. This would take out some of these arguments as they could then just appeal to the local church.

Bro. Mark

jM’s question is a pretty good one, so let’s think first about resolution #5. For example, it cites Proverbs 23 as an admonition against the use of alcohol. And there is no doubt that one kind of use of “wine” is here – but what kind of “use”? A glass of wine at dinner? No – it is the “use” of wine that the “drunkard” makes of it. And it is this pervasive conflation of “use” and “abuse” which is at the core of the problem with the resolution at it stands.

But jM’s question is this: “cent, if that’s the case, why can you admit that your church requires its employees to be alcohol-free and it not be a violation of the authority of the Bible?” There are at least two good reasons why.

[1] My church doesn’t make the case that the use of alcohol is forbidden by Scripture, or that all “uses” of alcohol are the same. It’s one thing to say, “we covenant together in ministry and promise each other not to use alcohol,” and another to say, “all uses of alcohol are the same according to Scripture, and Scripture warns us against any drinking-use of alcohol, and all Baptists should campaign against the beer, wine and hard liquor industry.”

[2] My church also doesn’t take a zealot-like vow to campaign against the use of alcohol outside the church or even outside the ministry: our ministers and their staff don’t drink. You can ask the question “why”, and they can give you the weaker-brother explanation which makes sense in our community and our city, which is in a dry county, btw.

The authority of the Bible may give us the liberty to do a lot of things, but that liberty comes with the responsibility to preach the Gospel and be all things to all people in order that some might be saved.

The scope of the SBC resolution is too broad and requires too much of too many. While its advocates seem to think that they are 100% inside the Biblical case regarding alcohol, they seem to overlook that the Bible was not written as a bartender’s handbook but as the revelation of almighty God which strongly warns those in church authority against binding people’s consciences with moral burdens that are unnecessary.

The same would go, btw, for your second question, jM: the resolution to think of churches with abstention covenants only as the “truly Baptist” (pheh) is equally too much for too many – it again overlooks the purpose and nature of church government, and the responsibility inherent in liberty in the life of the believer.

And just to make a point here which I have made a few times since I have started on about this, I find it incredibly ironic that the people pushing this resolution out are somewhat-obsessed about the factualization of man’s freedom in choosing salvation, and that salvation would be anything but holy and just and wonderful unless man chooses it of his own free will, but a glass of beer? Good heavens man! You can’t use your free will to have only one beer – or half a beer, or use a beer in cooking Italian sausage with onions and green peppers – and demonstrate that you have a good conscience by demonstrating restraint in your enjoyment of a beverage which is clearly of the same alcoholic content as “oinos”.

All adults have the freedom to drive, but we don’t lump driving at double the posted speed limit in the same category as driving at a reasonable speed. All adults have the freedom to play baseball if they want to, but not to set up batting practice that is knocking holes in our neighbors’ windows. All adults have the freedom to grill meat and eat it, but not to be cannibals. Eating is not the cause of cannibalism; baseball is not the cause of vandalism; driving is not the cause of traffic accidents.

Until the advocates of resolution #5 can recognize these issues, they are not even lecturing: they are posturing, which ignores justice, and mercy, and faithfulness.

The use of alcohol (1)

Really, this topic wears me out. Here’s what I don’t think: I don’t think it’s very sophisticated or modern or hip or whatever to have a positive opinion of alcohol. You’re not a hick if you think that the use of alcohol can and does hurt people.

I have a friend who (a long time ago; like a decade ago) used to drive a beer truck, and while I haven’t asked for his permission to use his testimony, he was actually saved in the back of a beer truck – heard the Gospel for the first time, realized that Jesus was Lord and Savior, and asked God for forgiveness for his sins and for a new life in Jesus Christ.

That’s good stuff, no? But there are some who would then ask the question, "so when did he stop driving the beer truck, cent?" because the answer "like a decade ago" is not good enough for them, and I would answer, "shortly after getting saved."

And some of those people are clever – because then they would say, "AHA! He quit driving the beer truck because he got saved," and I would say to that, "yes, that is a fair interpretation of the facts."

And yet again they would say, "AHA! So because he wanted to be more holy and live a clean life, he wanted to steer clear of the alcohol industry and stop selling licker for a living!"

"Why yes," I would say, "that is a very fair interpretation of the facts."

"AHA! So why is it then, cent," comes the closer, with the thought that I have not considered my argument very well, and where exactly are we having brunch after service this Sunday, "that you are so angry at the SBC for resolving to do everything in its power to jump-start Prohibition?"

That’s a great question! I’m glad you asked.

Let’s think about something for a minute. Let’s assume, for example, that you are driving a beer truck in Albany, NY, and your major stops are SAM’S Club, BJ’s Wholesale, and Hannaford Supermarkets. You make a nice living, and for the most part what you see are somewhat-educated upper-middle income people shopping and buying things including beer which you were glad to sell to your retailers at the state-required prices, and you get paid with a check that day. Booyah. Middle-class Americans make everybody happy.

That is to say, it is extraordinarily obvious that selling beer in Albany NY is not hurting anybody on a statistical basis – the ones who drink in NY drink less on average than the ones in Georgia, Tennessee and Texas (for example). Georgia and Texas, btw, also report more people who are heavy drinkers than NY as a percent, so you don’t worry about it very much. NY also has the lowest rate of deaths due to alcohol per million when compared to AR, GA, TX and TN (TN and AR have nearly 3 times as many deaths per million; you can that info from this pdf and population info from census.gov) – and the lowest population of Baptists of the 5 states. Isn’t that astounding?

So a guy selling beer in NY doesn’t have the problem of, say, the guy selling beer in Little Rock or Memphis or Atlanta or Dallas who knows for a fact that the people buying his beer are 2 to 4 times more likely to be problem drinkers, and the median income of those folks (except maybe in GA and TX in urban areas) is significantly lower than the educated, well-heeled class in Albany NY.

The guy in these predominantly-baptist states has the problem of considering that he is actually doing harm because he knows who is buying his beer, and they are not one-beer-with-dinner drinkers. So the question is not, "what about the demon likker?!" but "What about my weaker brother?"

When my friend who was a beer driver in one of these states realized he was a stumbling block for people he ought to be helping – lower income, more likely to binge, more likely to drive when drunk – he ought to have quit. But does that mean that nobody should drink alcohol?

Here we have covered the statistical reasoning. Next time, we will cover the comparative reasoning. And the biblical/moral reasoning is also forthcoming.

Stay tuned.

So you say

On Friday, I wrote about some trouble I’m having personally with understanding this fellow who is pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Mark Driscoll. As I wrote it, I knew two things were going to happen:

[1] Some people were going to be mad at me for bringing it up because Mark Driscoll is not that bad.

[2] Some people were going to be mad because Mark Driscoll is not really that good.

Seems to me this is what happened, but it turns out I am a lot more unhappy about it than I started out to be. I also caught a big dose of conviction on Sunday while I was in Sunday school and then again in church listening to my pastor preach (which I may yet blog about – we’ll see), so I’m going to do this.

Here is the link to podcast Mars Hill. You listen. My personal feeling is that you are going to hear something you don’t hear every day, one way or the other.

And you can put your thoughts in the meta of this post to see what people think.