Marrying folk who are living together:

I suppose it is the pastoral equivalent of a lady hearing someone say, "Have you lost weight?  You look great!"  Someone recently commended me for "speaking the truth in love."  The conversation this friend spoke of was one that took place some years ago.  Two adults were living together without being married.  They had plans to be married--some five months in the future--and without thinking about it very much, they thought that made their present cohabitation OK.
I need to make known that I wasn't an outsider sticking my nose into somebody else's business.  On two levels (maybe more) I was being asked to be a part of the live-together now, marry later arrangement.  I remember swallowing hard just before I said, "I have a problem with that."
After I turned on the flashing red light in the room, I gave the couple an opportunity to end the conversation.  I know that the fact that I have a problem does not necessarily mean that I have a right to impose my standard on others.  The couple said little, but their eyes, and more the fact that they stayed seated, said, "Go on."  It's not a time for a complicated, long-winded, hard to follow tirade.  I used a one-verse observation to, as my friend, said, "Speak the truth in love."
There is nothing complex here, but it might be something that will help others who desire to lovingly speak the truth about a difficult problem in our culture.

Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge."  (Hebrews 13:4)

Use the semicolon in the verse above as the dividing line.  Before the semicolon the verse is marked by honor.  God says that what is going on here is to be held in honor.  Whatever is going on after the semicolon is something that makes one subject to God's judgment--hardly honorable.  The mention of the "marriage bed" is a tip-off.  If one were to make a video of what is going on in the marriage bed (something I very much don't recommend), and if a video were made of the activity that is described as fornication and adultery, the content of the videos would be identical.  So here the very same activity that in the front end of the verse is honorable, in the back end of the verse places one in the uncomfortable position of being the subject of God's judgment.
"So," I asked my friends, "what makes the difference between the two ends of the verse?  What has changed?"
The obvious answer is marriage.  At the beginning of the verse a married couple is being contemplated.  At the end a couple who are unwed.

Generally this scriptural observation/exhortation doesn't have the positive result that it had on this day.  I've been told that such matters are none of my business.  Frequently, I'm met with a look of incredulity, that eloquently says something like, "I can't believe that you believe (or "still believe") that."

I do believe it.  Further I don't believe it is just an arbitrary standard that God sent down from on high.  The sexual standard of the Bible is really rather simple.  Sex is to take place only between a man and a woman who are married to one another.  God gave us this standard because it is in line with the way that He made us.  Adhering to this standard leads to the greatest possible human flourishing.  Allowing it to erode does no one any favors, and for those of us who are given the responsibility to speak for the Lord, to fail to uphold this standard is sinful.

Here is where I have problem with some of my colleagues.  For too many of my fellow-pastors, this is the elephant that fills the room yet is politely ignored.   I'm  asking you to acknowledge the pachyderm.  It is tough, very tough, but I am convinced that if we are going to maintain our integrity we have to deal with it.
I appreciate the position that some pastors I know have taken:

• The pastor of a mega-church in California says to couples who inquire about marriage, "If I am going to work with you in doing this wedding you need to enter into this commitment of purity.  I'm not going to judge you about the past, but I need for your to commit to a standard of purity (chastity) from this point until your marriage."
• When confronted with the usual "problem,"
  "We can't get married now, we have to book a DJ, buy a dress, schedule a venue, etc. etc. etc."  Sometimes all of this is complicated by the claim that "we can't afford to live apart."  Leaving aside for a moment the fact that a family of six could live for a year on all they money they are proposing to spend on the big wedding, my friend offers the couple two alternatives:  Somebody needs to move out, or our church will help you put together a wedding.  It has to take place within two weeks.  (To those who would say that one more night is no different than another year, I would say, There is a difference.  My friend is encouraging the couple toward a commitment to do what is right, rather than what looks fabulous.)
• Another uses a questionnaire to begin a conversation about what the couple really wants.  If what they really, really want is to do as they jolly well please in spite of what the Word of God says, what business do we as "Men of God" have in being involved?

Guys, we can help one another here.  If a couple says, in essence, "We really don't think that what the Bible says about marriage has anything to do with us."  Why should we be involved.  I tell couples, "I'm not in the marrying business.  I am, however, glad to help people build Biblical homes.  If we are going to do that, we need to start right now."

I'd love to hear from you.  I think a discussion--even an argument--could be helpful.

Balance--Make A Demon Miserable:

Roger Olson is, in a cyber sense, the friend of a friend.  He is the real deal.  I first become acquainted with him when I read The Spectrum of Evangelicalism.  Since then I have read his blog from time to time.  My friend recently blogged about one of Olson's posts, ”Totalistic, Aberrational, Christian Organization.” T.A.C.O. (here).  
The churches and ministries that Olson describes are sometimes admired for "for their dedication, intensity and outreach."  Yet these virtues are maintained by, or corrupted by behaviors that coalesce around power--leaders trying to seize and/or maintain power, or boards trying to take power from a leader, etc.  In these power struggles the people in the pew become pawns in battle, or worse fuel for the fire.  (At least that's my summary .  I encourage you to read the article.)  In forty+ years of ministry I've been tempted to be T.A.C.O..  Convinced of my righteousness and the utter necessity of seeing my agenda adopted, I became more interested in winning than in caring.  (It is another topic, but it needs to be said that not all battles are bad.  In fact a case can be made that it is sinful to allow evil to stand, when it is in our power to mount a realistic opposition to it, but, as I say, that is another topic.)  More often I have been accused of serving T.A.C.O.s.  Sometimes those accusations came from those who were guilty.  Yep, it's complicated.
A short time later Olson gave expression to the other  extreme.  He describes "Precious Moments Christianity" as the opposite danger to T.A.C.O.ism.  "They specialize so much in comforting the afflicted that they lose Christianity’s prophetic cutting edge. I call their brand of Christianity “Precious Moments Christianity” because they present the gospel as all comfort and calm, sweetness and light, with no conviction or accountability."
I think it was Warren Wiersbe who pronounced, "Blessed are the balanced."
Those of us in leadership roles need to be self-aware.  There is no doubt that Satan is aware of our tendencies.  I figure that somewhere in, to get Lewis-ish for a moment, the "lower-archy" there must be a demon with a database (Anyone want to argue about the hellishness of computers?).  Among the other characteristics there must be a column that identifies every ministry leader as either T.A.C.O. prone, or subject to the Precious Moments syndrome.

By God's grace let's make that imps existence more unpleasant.

Here are a couple of observations.  I would appreciate yours.

• When I react--especially in anger--I am apt to be T.A.C.O.-ish.
• Weariness leads to P.M.
• It may be trite, but the "Jesus, Others, You" acronym that we teach children is not a bad thumbnail measurement tool.
• If our ministries are doing what God wants done, then doing ministry will not conflict with growing in the Lord, and enjoying Him.  T.A.C.O.-ish ministry robs joy.  P.M. style organizations tend to do little, but doing it feels good.
• (fill in)

As I said, let's give the database demon a hard time. 

"I don't get it your Undership.  These P.M.s are becoming downright warlike, and these T.A.C.O.s are caring about their comrades.  I'm proposing a new designation--"Enemy operatives to be feared."

Andy Naselli has some worthwhile things to say about a related subject, legalism.  Here is a post.  Click the links to follow his thoughts.

More on Death

As is often the case, I found much more for tomorrow's message than I'll have time for.

Here are some quotations that speak to the subject of death:

Christ conquered death. He took upon himself our nature ‘so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil’ (Heb. 2:14). The devil’s power is subject to God’s overruling (Jb. 2:6; Lk. 12:5, etc.). Satan is no absolute disposer of death. Nevertheless death, the negation of life, is his proper sphere. And Christ came to put an end to death. It was through death, as the Hebrews passage indicates, that he defeated Satan. It was through death that he put away our sin: ‘The death he died he died to sin, once for all’ (Rom. 6:10). For those who are apart from Christ, death is the supreme enemy, the symbol of our alienation from God, the ultimate horror. But Christ has used death to deliver people from death. He died that believers may live. It is significant that the NT speaks of believers as ‘sleeping’ rather than as ‘dying’ (e.g. 1 Thes. 4:14). Jesus bore the full horror of death. Therefore, for those who are ‘in Christ’, death has been transformed so that it is no more than sleep. ‘If a man keeps my word,’ Jesus said,‘he will never see death’ (Jn. 8:51).^[1]

Scripture closely associates death with the malevolent activity of Satan, whom Jesus labeled a “murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44 HCSB). The entrance of death into the creation came through the cunning temptation of the Serpent (Gen. 3:1–6). The writer of Hebrews ascribes to the evil one the “power of death,” namely a paralyzing and universal fear of death, from which believers are liberated by the atonement of Christ (Heb. 2:14–15).^[2]

We should understand death as something that involves the whole person. We die, not as so many bodies, but as people, in the totality of our being. And the Bible does not put a sharp line of demarcation between the two aspects. Physical death, then, is a fit symbol and expression of, and unity with, the more serious death that sin inevitably brings.^[3]

The biblical portrait of death is not that of a normal outworking of natural processes. Instead, the Bible presents human death as a reaffirmation that something has gone awry in God’s created order. The Scriptures do not, however, picture death as a hopeless termination of human consciousness but instead brim with the hope of resurrection. ^[4]

Although physical death is sometimes compared to sleep (Deut. 31:16; John 11:11; 1 Cor. 11:30; 1 Thess. 4:15), Scripture does not teach that one’s consciousness lapses after death to reawaken at the day of resurrection and judgment. Jesus promised the repentant thief on the cross that He would see paradise the very day of his death (Luke 23:43). Paul teaches that, for believers, being absent from the body means being present with Christ (2 Cor. 5:8).^[5]

Paul, having established death as the consequence of a universal human depravity, heralds the resurrection of Jesus as pronouncing the death knell for death itself (2 Tim. 1:10). Proclaiming that the end times have come in Christ as the “last enemy” is destroyed in the resurrection of the Messiah (1 Cor. 15:26), Paul mocks the power of death in light of the victory of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:55). He assures believers on the basis of God’s resurrection of Jesus that the same bodies buried in the graves will be raised to life in the new creation (1 

Cor. 15:35–49). Believers, therefore, have no reason for despair in the face of death (1 Thess. 4:13–18).^[6]

(Paradise, Luke 23:43, 2Cor. 12:4, Rev. 2:7)

Acts 7:59, Stephen dying.

Paul’s expectation, Phil 1:21-24, 2 Cor 5

---

^[1] L.M. (1996). Death. In D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer & D. J. Wiseman (Eds.), New Bible dictionary (D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer & D. J. Wiseman, Ed.) (3rd ed.) (267). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

^[2] Moore, R. D. (2003). Death. In C. Brand, C. Draper, A. England, S. Bond, E. R. Clendenen & T. C. Butler (Eds.), Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (C. Brand, C. Draper, A. England, S. Bond, E. R. Clendenen & T. C. Butler, Ed.) (406). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.

^[3] L.M. (1996). Death. In D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer & D. J. Wiseman (Eds.), New Bible dictionary (D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer & D. J. Wiseman, Ed.) (3rd ed.) (265). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

^[4] Moore, R. D. (2003). Death. In C. Brand, C. Draper, A. England, S. Bond, E. R. Clendenen & T. C. Butler (Eds.), Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (C. Brand, C. Draper, A. England, S. Bond, E. R. Clendenen & T. C. Butler, Ed.) (405). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.

^[5] Moore, R. D. (2003). Death. In C. Brand, C. Draper, A. England, S. Bond, E. R. Clendenen & T. C. Butler (Eds.), Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (C. Brand, C. Draper, A. England, S. Bond, E. R. Clendenen & T. C. Butler, Ed.) (406). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.

^[6] Moore, R. D. (2003). Death. In C. Brand, C. Draper, A. England, S. Bond, E. R. Clendenen & T. C. Butler (Eds.), Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (C. Brand, C. Draper, A. England, S. Bond, E. R. Clendenen & T. C. Butler, Ed.) (406–407). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.

Debate on marriage:

I recently shared two messages on the definition of marriage.  
You can find audios, mp3, here, and video here.

To Rad or not to Rad, apparently, that is at least one of the questions.

There has been a profitable, I think, conversation going on about books like Crazy Love and Radicals.  A couple of younger friends of mine brought the conversation my way.

Here is an article in Christianity Today:  http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/march/here-come-radicals.html
Here is Ed Stetzer commenting on and interacting with that article:  http://www.edstetzer.com/2013/05/radical-christianity-a-cause-to-live-or-a-call-to-legalism.html
And here is Ed interviewing Francis Chan: http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/videos-for-pastors/167677-francis-chan-responds-to-ct-article-on-radical-legalism.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=clnewsletter&utm_content=CL+Daily+20130517b

I remembered an older conversation, with Francis Chan, that overlaps with this one.  Since it came pre-controversy, at least this controversy, it is worth thinking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3p-SYMis0-w

The main reason I am putting this post up, though, is so I can post one of my young friend's email's.  I think my former intern, Daniel Cook has some things to say that are worth considering.  The rest of this post is from him.  I post it with his permission.

I read the books mentioned in the article (Crazy Love, Radical, Not a Fan...). I did enjoy the books, but I took them at their purpose, and I know others that take them whole-heartedly beyond what their purpose is. I also read the article in CT, and I actually really liked it and agreed with it. 

First, let me say why I liked the books. As mentioned in the article, these books speak to the many Christians we all see in church who attend one service on Sunday morning at least 2-3 weeks a month. They are not involved in serving in the church or are only involved in minor serving roles. We all have a desire to see people fully embrace and grow in their faith and truly experience it. These books speak to that desire and to our own desire to grow in our experience and spiritual maturity. These books seem to also be well-recieved by the youth and young adults who long to be part of something bigger and see themselves becoming major players, even heroes of the faith. 

This is where I agree with the article. I want my teens to desire to be a part of something bigger, to see the big picture of the Kingdom of Heaven. See an excellent book that discusses this "The Explicit Gospel" by Matt Chandler. However, what that role in the Kingdom looks like is what I take issue with. Whether Chan admits it or not, many youth (and adults) will take these books a little too far and will not be satisfied with taking a role in the kingdom that is any less than a successful evangelist, political figure for social causes, front-lines warrior for social justice, inventor of the cure for cancer... What happens when many do not reach that role? What happens to the ordinary people like myself. 

I will illustrate this in two ways from personal experience. For most of my life until right before I graduated high school, I wanted nothing more than to be an officer in the military. Around 12 years of age, I settled on fighter pilot. Every decision I made from then on was taking me towards becoming a fighter pilot in the US Air Force. I was on the mailing list for the Air Force Academy at 12. I joined the Civil Air Patrol (auxiliary of the Air Force). I got advice from active and retired Air Force servicemen. I had Embry Riddle Aeronautical University as my backup. I read books.... I found out however that only 1% of the entire Air Force actually fly any aircraft whatsoever. That means that 99% of all those who serve in the Air Force are actually acting in support to the pilots who actually do the flying. Yet in all the promotional posters they only show the 1%. Most do not aspire to be a mechanic, cook, or other seemingly mundane worker in the Air Force. What's more, I found out that many who joined the Air Force also worked all their lives to become pilots, but they ended up taking different roles. I talked to one fighter pilot who never wanted to be a pilot, but was in the right place at the right time and was approached by an officer who invited him to be one. I think these books rightly promote becoming the 1% of "pilots," but don't really talk about the reality that most of us will be in the 99% category. What's more, it doesn't really demonstrate the virtue of serving where you are at and being content in being in that 99%. I see very often that people volunteering in my own church don't feel needed or important because they are serving in a minor role like the nursery or just following kids from station to station during VBS. Also, I see the negativity on church boards when they feel like we aren't making a big difference as a church. But we are making a difference in many lives in small (or even unseen big) ways. 

My second illustration, (sorry this is a long message) goes back to my college days at ABC. At the end of the year, they would give out awards in chapel. Some of them were to encourage spiritual maturity and involvement. These awards always went to the students that seemed to pray the most and loudest during chapel on National Prayer Day, who went on missions trips during the summer to exotic places, and who did as the books described it, "radical" things. Than there were people like me who had to work a full-time job plus overtime during the summer in a worldly construction-job environment in order to pay for college. People like me who did ordinary things were not viewed as "spiritually on-fire." However, the greatest spiritually growing times in my life were those times where I was just an ordinary guy working with ordinary unsaved guys and being salt and light. During one of those summers I led a hispanic man to Christ and handed out half-a-dozen spanish Bibles and tracks at their request to legal and illegal immigrants from South America. My bosses talked to me frequently about faith. I was of the only representatives of Christ that they came into contact with, and I earned their respect. 

In summary, I enjoyed the books and think they make good points. But the CT article also points out weaknesses or areas that are overlooked by these books. I agree wholeheartedly with the CT Article and think more Christians need to hear that message too.

The Face of Evil:

(I posted this over at STTA, but it is one of those that kinda fits both places, so I am posting it here as well.  Maybe somebody else will find it that way.) What does the face of evil look like? We see it all around us, but most often we see it in silhouette, if you will.  In fact, often as we sort through the aftermath of grotesque wickedness, like the law-enforcement investigators in Boston, we see the horrendous aftermath, but we don't see the face that perpetrated the crime.    The fact is, evil wears different masks:  They are found all across the spectrum from the distortion of extreme righteousness, so called, as was the case with evil on that first Good Friday, all the way to the just out-and-out, unadulterated badness, that too often stalks our streets.     The Bible is clear that evil is here.  The Devil is not merely a personification; he is a real, spiritual person, Satan, Lucifer, the Dragon, and he gets around, and gets a lot done.  In the book of Job, he describes the territory he has marked with his foul scent:  "I've been 'roaming about on the earth and walking around on it.'"   (Job 1:7)  In the New Testament he is described as the "Prince of the Power of the Air."  (Ephesians 2:2)--no more localized than the air we breath.  He is not the evil opposite of God.  He lacks, for instance, the omni attributes: omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence. He does get around, though, he is cunning and powerful, and he does have help.  His network is so widespread and effective that John says "The whole world lies in the power of the wicked one."  (1 John 5:19)    Not only are these spiritual entities busily spreading evil, you and I, the Bible makes clear, have evil in our core, and in the same way that the physical ecosystems of our world are degraded, the moral spiritual realm is polluted.  (Read Romans 8, and Ephesians 2:1-10 for both description and hope.  An evil tempter, tempting people with a propensity to sin, in a world that is skewed in an evil direction--there is a recipe for a mess.   Carnage, like that in Boston, gets our attention and causes us to cry out for answers:   "Who?" "Why?" "Where is God?" As to the last question, I assert that God is both here, with you, and in Boston.  The Bible teaches that He doesn't take coffee-breaks.  Look here, here, and especially here to see some things I have written after past tragedies. The face of evil is sometimes sanctimonious, at other times on fire with raw hatred.  It often is heavily colored with selfishness.  If you look around the eyes you can detect deception.  Ironically, and in a way that troubles me the mouth on the face of evil is often seen to be grinning.   I guess what troubles me most about thinking of the face of evil is I sometimes see it looking back at me from the mirror.   It's STTA.

Wading into the swamp of Family-Relations and trying to lead others through . . .

April 7, here at Covington Bible Church, Pastor Doug Williams and I started a series on the family.  Doug's message on Husbands Who Love Like Christ can be found here.  My message on Colossians 3:18 is here.
Last night I decided that it would be good to give a chance for folk to ask questions, and attempt to offer some answers, based on these first two message, not that the concept of husbands being given the
responsibility of loving leadership and wives being instructed to "be subject" is controversial or anything.
I am posting this blog to do a couple of things:

1. I want to clear up a possible misconception from the Q&A time, and maybe even apologize.
2. I want to offer some material that is good for further thought, and continuing in this vein,
3. I hope some further discussion will take place here.

 Part of my answers last night (If I'm able to do some editing I may post some of those answers.) were along the line of a person unfamiliar with a particular type of automobile asking,

"How do I start this thing?"

My answer was akin to giving the person a lecture about the combustibility of gasoline and the construction of an internal combustion engine.

What they really wanted to know is, "Where is the place where you insert the key on this particular model?"

A couple of the questions centered around The Question--The 800 pound gorilla question:

Does the concept of husband-leadership, and wife submission in the home require that a woman endure abuse?

If my answer did not indicate a clear and unequivocal "NO!" I apologize.  I give that simple unequivocal answer here.  No.

I do not believe that the teaching of scripture is such that it condones any kind of abuse--in this case the question has to do with that way too prevalent sin of husbands abusing their wives.  I do not believe that kind of  behavior is right or acceptable (I'm glad to say that I don't any responsible preacher or teacher who maintains that such behavior is right for husbands.) and I believe that where it takes place relief should be sought.  Furthermore, I believe the church should be at the top of the list of those who offer assistance.

I was right, to indicate that this question has a great many complexities to it.  If I didn't clearly state that simple answer, I am sorry.

A couple of morning after thoughts on those complexities:

• The maintenance of ethical/moral/behavioral standards is often difficult in extreme situations.
  The position that Doug and I take--which was reflected with our dealing with husbands first--is that wives submitting to their husbands ought to take place in a context of husbands giving themselves for their wives.  So, what is a wife to do in a situation where the "leadership" in the home is not at all Christ-like?
  These quotations from the book Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, acknowledges  this stress in taking what could be called a "general principle" and applying it homes that are outside the realm of what should be going on. I think the authors point us in the right direction.
  "Submission refers to a wife's divine calling to honor and affirm her husband's leadership . . . it is not an absolute surrender of her will."  (41)  "No submission of one human being to another is absolute." (21)  All of us who struggle with this issue would say "Amen," to "We are not claiming to live without ambiguities." (62)
  Throughout the text, the authors make plain that submission does mean that one should be forced into sin.
  The book gives a helpful word on page 196.  This thought is born-out in other places in the text.  What the authors of the book, what I, and what Scripture writers are talking about is an attitude--"Submission is an inner quality of gentleness that affirms the leadership of the husband."
  (The website of the group that produced this book, The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, is referenced below.)
• I hold to an ethical system known as non-conflicting absolutism.  I believe it is possible to respond to the situations life throws at us without sinning, or without becoming the judge of which ethical standard takes hierarchy over another.  Often these judgments are difficult.  One of the maxims that was shared with me back in college is that hard cases make bad ethics.  It is appropriate to work hard to make sure our ethical system covers the extremities, but in doing so, we should not negate the good that a particular standard does in the vast majority of cases.  In this case, the fact that some husbands distort the concept of leadership, and abuse some wives who, perhaps, have a faulty view of submission, should not prevent us from teaching a Biblical principle that is of benefit to countless homes where proper leadership and submission is being practiced.
• We need to exercise caution in "taking sides" when this gets out of the theoretical and into a real home.  Words like "exercising leadership," or "abuse" are notoriously slippery.  What some consider leadership is harsh and abusive.  What other refer to as abuse may be merely an inability to get their own way in a minor matter.  The culture in which we find ourselves has a great impact on how we see these matters.  Our goal should not be to justify our personal preconceptions and cultural prejudices by the use of the scripture, but to bring our behavior into alignment with the teaching of the Word.
• I'll leave further bullet points for commenters. I hope this will bring about a conversation.

In the question-answer last night I referred to two positions on the view of the relationship of men and women in general, and particular on wives and husbands.  You can find out more about these two positions at the websites below:

(If readers know of other website that reflect the two positions more accurately, or clearly, please let me know.)

     

The Egalitarian Position is the represented by those who, by and large, play down male female differences.  It is an over-simplification, but this position is sometimes described as Christian-Feminism.
You can find out about this position from Christians for Biblical Equality.

The Complimentarian Position--the postion to which Doug and I hold--is represented by the book I quoted above and this website: Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.