Tag Archives: sanctification

Unknown's avatar

What the Packers and Seahawks teach us about grace

by

For those who opted to stay up late to watch the Monday Night Green Bay Packers vs. Seattle Seahawks game, you were rewarded with perhaps the worst call since the infamous Bert Immanuel catch (#5 on the NFL’s most controversial calls,which mind you, prompted a rule change; the “tuck rule” was never amended after Tom Brady’s fumble that wasn’t). 

If you didn’t see it, Packers defensive back M.D. Jennings came down with the final pass of the game in his hands. Seahawks receiver Golden Tate had one hand on the ball but was rewarded with the game winning catch. Things got so bad that some packers considered drastic measures like kneeling down every play until the replacement refs are sent back to the high school and Pop Warner fields from whence they came. 

To make matters worse, Golden Tate blatantly shoves down another defensive player, completely taking him out of the play. That is called “offensive pass interference” in most people’s “books,” though admittedly is rarely called at the end of games.

So Golden Tate was rewarded with the touchdown, even though someone else secured that possession for him. Tate received something good, because of the work of someone else. He received the fruit and credit for the labor of another.

Not only that, but he clearly disqualified himself by pushing down another defender in order to try and secure possession of something that was clearly out of reach. He should have received a penalty. Instead he is rewarded and blessed.

Does this sound like something that has happened before? It should.

It’s the gospel. It’s grace. Getting something good when you deserve something bad. Getting something good because the real winner chose to lose and take the bad for you.

Philippians 3:9

“….and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith…”

 Colossians 2:13-14
   13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,  by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 
  
The Seahawks clearly were the recipients of grace in some form.

In a Jim Rome interview, one player felt particularly angered. But anger boiled up in this man not primarily because of the bad call, but because of the Seahawks disdaining the grace bestowed upon them. Instead of owing the victory to grace, several Seahawks claimed that this was simply the result of hard work, dedication, and drive.

Quarterback Russell Wilson claimed someone “made a play.” Coach Pete Caroll affirmed that it was the right call. Golden Tate wouldn’t fess up to his shoving the other defensive back to the ground.

That’s what angered this player so much. Taking credit for something it is clearly grace.

A few thoughts:

1.) Grace does make people mad, particularly those who think they’ve earned something. The older brother in the Prodigal Son story was angered by grace. He didn’t get anything good despite how “good” he thought he’d been. If you believe grace, preach grace, show grace, you will make people angry. If you tell them that they need grace, or still need grace, you will make people mad. We’re a messed up bunch, but we don’t like to hear that!

2.) On the same note (“G” for Grace), when you recognize your own need for grace, folks will find something offensive, much more attractive. It would have done much to disarm the situation if several Seahawks simply said, “Yep, we were given a gift tonight.” Grace was offensive, but it would have disarmed a lot of angry people to admit they needed it. If we preach grace to “people like you, people that really need it, people like _____,” then we will inevitably get an angry “You think you’re better than me?” But if grace is for people like “us,” well then, that goes a long way. It’s good theology as well. Romans 3:23.

3.) We ought to get as upset with ourselves as the Pack did with the Seahawks when the latter denied the grace that had been shown to them. It made me sick to see how much credit Seattle took for their victory. Does it bother us as much when we forget that any spiritual victory is the work of Christ in us? It’s His work in us that we celebrate. He has taken possession of salvation for us and now puts the “ball” in our hands. Only we rejoice with Him who has taken possession of what we could never hope to possess.

Unknown's avatar

Bringing the gospel to your kids without being a Grace Nazi

by

My wife and I have been reading different parenting books. I just finished Our Covenant with Kids while Amy and a number of women at Redeemer are working their way through Give Them Grace by Elyse Fitzpatrick. The former focuses on theology and application of that covenant theology within the family and church. The latter focuses on teaching kids grace, instructing parents specifically how to craft phrases and take full advantage of gospel speaking opportunities. It doesn’t deal with how grace plays itself out within the covenant structure simply because her theology isn’t covenantal. Can’t blame her for ignoring that part!

While not having read Give Them Grace, other than snippets and reviews, I can see Fitzpatrick does a great job of challenging parents to begin to saturate the kids with the gospel at a very young age. And of course, to think gospel-centered, is to think counter-cultural and counter-instinctual. Thus it can seem awkward at the start.
 
I’m thankful for parents willing to re-think parenting in light of the gospel. Because grace is more of a salmon than a tuna (swimming against the current as opposed to going with it-thanks Jerry Seinfeld), we need to intentionally recapture the gospel and apply it to parenting. And if the gospel doesn’t take center-stage in our parenting, being involved in the results or lack thereof, we’ll go neurotic. 

Here’s how the gospel has helped me in my short time as a parent. I have a feeling I’ll only cherish it and need it more and more as the kids grow.

1.) Our ultimate goal is not the behavior of the child. I pray often that my kid will be nice to his friends, not bite, hit or spit. But my main goal as a parent and as a pastor overseeing children is that the kids would know the gospel, cherish Jesus, and connect with a church when they leave the home. 

In the past several days, a few well meaning folks have told me, “I’m glad I got to spend time with your kids because it makes me feel better as a parent.” Now that could be offensive if I didn’t believe the gospel for them. My ultimate goal is not good behavior-though I do want that-but for them to believe the gospel: that will produce behavior consistent with the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22). And when my kids disappoint me, I have to believe the gospel for myself. My kids’ behavior is not my righteousness. Their behavior, successes, or lack thereof are not the solid rock on which I stand. My kids’ performance does not give/take away any meaning to my existence. Jesus and all that he did for me is my righteousness, and that is something which never ebbs or wanes. Now believing that is of course much harder than writing or communicating it to others. But that’s why grace is so important in parenting. Both for you and for your kids.

2.) I try to be a good parent. I pray. I read books. But I think I stink sometimes. Now I love my kids, and because I do, I pray for protection not just from the world, but from themselves and from their parents. I’m certain God can protect them from my failures. I’ve seen God do it before with absentee parents, so I trust him to do it with flawed “presentee” parents. We need the gospel.

3.) The question is then how to do it. That’s one thing Give Them Grace really seeks to accomplish. But that is never an easy, thoughtless, or confession-less thing to do. When the gospel becomes a part of who you are, how then do you instruct and train your kids in such a way that it becomes part of who they are? Here’s what Amy and I have been doing. It may be helpful, or it may not. Still, it always helps me apply the gospel to whatever I’m doing when I see how others apply it to what they are doing. From one flawed parent to another.

  • Speak often in terms that reinforce the gospel. We don’t ask Connar, “Were you a good boy or bad boy?” That seems to indicate a change in standing based upon behavior. We like to say, “Did you listen or not listen?” We tell him that only Jesus makes him good, and that God still loves Him when he does “bad sins.” His position isn’t based upon performance. Sins are still bad, but he knows that God still loves him just as much when he fails to listen.
  • If you speak often enough in terms that reinforce the gospel, you don’t have to analyze every single thing you said or did and wonder, “Did I reinforce the gospel?” That can become draining. Did I teach grace there or only teach the law (of course I realize you have to teach law in order to get to grace)?  To borrow another Seinfeld term, you don’t need to be a “grace Nazi” to yourself or others. If you can’t ever encourage your child in a good behavior, there is probably something wrong. You like encouragement when you have done something well. If my kid listens at school I encourage him and celebrate it! Most of the time we say, “Jesus helped you to listen. Yay!” Or we could say, “Jesus loves you just as much regardless, but we are excited because that shows love to your teachers.” But sometimes we don’t, or sometimes we forget. Yet because we couch most things in the gospel we don’t have to be “grace Nazi’s.” If I tell him, “Good job,” he knows who empowers “good jobs,” and that he, like his Mommy and Daddy, are in need of grace how no matter how good of a job it was. If all you do is celebrate behavior, you will teach moralism. If you saturate your kids with grace in the morning, afternoon, and evening, then what they are going to hear is grace, even if you don’t say it every, single time.
  • The only way to know your kid is getting the gospel and not simply behavioralism is to ask questions and listen to them pray. We can speak about grace until it is coming out of their noses, or ours, but until we hear them speak grace back to us, we don’t know what they really think. If they open up in prayer, “Jesus, only you can change my heart…” or  “I know Jesus that you’ve already obeyed for me so I can relax and follow you….,” then that’s probably a good indication that the gospel is at work.

It is only by grace that anything good comes out of us and out of our kids. Even at 4 years old, my little boy understands and prays for other people’s hearts. When he recognizes that he needs the gospel as much as his friends and parents do, watch out. Good things will happen.

Please share any things you do as a parent to make the gospel part of your parenting in the comment section.

Unknown's avatar

Fall "season-ette" or "mini-season" reflection

by

Fall just sprung upon us this Saturday. It comes every year, and aside from my neighbor’s leaves falling in my yard-and then their raked leaves ending up in my yard as well- I really do like it. I like the cooling temps, the colors, and the lower power bills. And of course there are other things of which Fall should be commended; Fall, to quote The Doobie Brothers, “Is just alright with me.”

But I do take issue with calling Fall a “season.” I don’t know that this designation is entirely accurate here in West Virginia. I did just read Paul’s instruction to Timothy not to “quarrel about words” (II Tim 2:14) this morning so I won’t be dogmatic about this. But consider my concern. We technically do have four “seasons” here in West Virginia. But this is somewhat misleading because we have a 4 month long winter, almost 4 month long Summer, leaving just 2 months for Spring and Fall each. Do Spring and Summer really deserve the title “season?” I would prefer to call them “season-ettes.” They resemble seasons, but don’t have the duration to really deserve the title of season. 2 Seasons. 2 Seasonettes or “mini-seasons.” We have mini-series on TV. Why not “mini-seasons?”

With that off my chest, let me share a Fall “season-ette/mini-season” reflection:

I don’t like Winter. Primarily because I don’t like the power bills. That’s most of it. That and not being able to wear flip flops. So when Fall is here, winter is just around the corner. I think many other folks wish Fall were afforded more prominence in the seasonal rotation as well. And sometimes that desire can actually keep us from enjoying the season. Yeah, this is nice, but it is so short…..

The same thing goes with seasons of life. Some seasons seem to last longer than others. Sometimes in life, just like in WV, “winters” last much longer than Fall. But can I appreciate those “season-ettes,” those shorter respite periods that I wish would last just a little longer? Like kids behaving (hypothetical for me!), weekends, vacations, dinner’s with spouse, sunsets, periods of general blessing? Can we rejoice in the proverbial “Falls” without dwelling on the harsh winters looming ahead?

In preaching through Ecclesiastes a number of years ago, I found this reminder. Enjoy the temporary blessings, despite any potential or obvious “winter” arrival. Fall is meant to be enjoyed, no matter how long the winter lasts. So bring on the Fall, short though it may be.

Unknown's avatar

Love of money is bi-partisan

by

I will be glad when this election is done. Though I do love the “smear” ads on TV where a campaign pays for a supposedly neutral common man to blast the opponent, and then ends with, “I approve this message,” I think I’ll be ready for one man to win. But my personal favorite is the unbridled optimistic “buy in” from “party homers” reminiscent of the promises made by Pedro from Napoleon Dynamite, guaranteeing the celebration of the “holy santos” and more tater tots.

Several years ago someone asked me, “Did you see Obama’s speech?” I replied that I had not. “Well you should.” Yes, because every politicians pep rally speech becomes reality soon after he’s elected to office. That’s how it works, right?

Anyhow, sorry for the rant.

I’ve been reading I Timothy in the morning these days and came across the well known, but probably often misquoted passage about money found in 6:10-11: 

“But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation…For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils….”

It wouldn’t hurt for both political parties, or rather for all of us, to consider how we display a “love of money.”

Democrat: I don’t want to work, or rather can’t work (that’s what doctors have said, can’t you read this report?), so give me my money. You owe me.

Republicans: I worked hard for my money, so I want to give as little as possible. I built this. I’m voting for someone who will tax me as little as possible so I have more money. And this will fix the economy too.

While one side seems to be painted as the side who wants to hoard money, and the other side as the one who wants to give it away, I think both parties really do love money.

Maybe this is an overly simplistic caricature? But in the midst of mudslinging, disgust, frustration, sadness, over either sides’ recent convention (and you have every right to partake in the latter three), it would do us all well to consider how we-not simply the other side-loves money just as much. Perhaps just in different ways.

Sometimes we love money because it brings security. Sometimes we love it because I can buy cool stuff like a new-or rather refurbished-Mac. I just did. Sometimes we like the power it gives. Sometimes we like the prestige and place in the community. But all of us love it for some reason. It’s not just money we’re after.

Yet Paul reminds Timothy, “But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content.”

Ouch. Yeah, that’s not me, at least not much of the time. But the good news for the Christian, or for those who will one day put their faith in Christ, that’s Jesus to a tee. And his record counts as mine. Fortunately. Not only that but he came poor that we might become rich. Not rich by simply having more money and indulging in our idolatry, but rich because we are lavished with grace and promised a future richness (mansions in a New Heaven and New Earth), that I imagine will one day be even more tangible than a big house.

Jesus is why we can be more content tomorrow than today. And he is why/how we can critique another political party without ignoring the fact that the love of money will always be bi-partisan. I’ll vote the Republican, and I’ll challenge that the other side loves money too, probably just as much. But only Jesus can/has done/will deal with our love of money.

Unknown's avatar

That nuerotic parent just might be you

by

Just like every August for the last, well 20 years or so, the Little League World Series, has come and gone. With it another crop of kids thankful to play at such a high level, and others wishing they had just played one more game. Aside from the missed family vacations, the LLWS probably does more good than bad.

But one group which stuck out in my 15 minutes (total) of watching the LLWS was the parents. Numbers of parents had photograph face cut-outs on popsicle sticks of their kids. No doubt their kids names and numbers were on their mini vans as well. Neither activity is necessarily bad, but possibly more often than not, inform the world what these parents live for: their children’s sports success.

Parents can be really neurotic about their children’s success, and sometimes its very easy to diagnose that neurosis it others. And consequently it’s very easy to be disgusted when you see it. My wife couldn’t stomach the LLWS after seeing those popsicle sticks. I get disgusted when parents when parents will stop at nothing to make their kid front and center. 

But today I reflected upon my similarity to that neurosis I hate so much in others but often fail to see in myself. I had told someone recently that Connar was the best kid on his Tee ball team at the first practice. But on Tuesday he was hitting the tee, and actually throwing the ball “like a baby” (that’s the most apropos comparison I could muster). On one occasion, instead of throwing to first base, he simply rolled it! Another kid, a 5 year old, hit better, threw farther and fielded better.  Connar wasn’t the best anymore and I couldn’t take it.

So what did I do? I went out and bought a soft Teeball the next day. When Connar hit the stitches off the ball, I went out and bought a bag of balls. At what point do I want him to be the best, and “try his best to honor God,” for my sake, and for my glory. I was no different than those parents that made me sick: I need him to be front and center. I had already become (actually a while ago) the parent I had so quickly critiqued.

Here are some things I learned and may prove helpful

1.) Remember what is good about our kids performances. It is good to practice. After all we develop our spiritual gifts by practicing as well. Performances, whether in school, sports, plays, teach discipline and give us opportunities to do all things for the glory of God (I Cor 10:31). Praying, reading the bible, and telling people about Jesus are not the only “spiritual” things we do.

2.) Repent regularly. I think as parents we cross back and forth over the lines of my glory/kids glory/God’s glory all the time. Therefore we need to reflect, repent, and rest in Christ often. Very often.

3.) Listen to ourselves talk. One way to examine our motives is not to look at other people’s mini-vans, but to listen to our own words. Do we talk an inordinate amount of time about our kids interests or about Jesus? We talk about what we cherish (channeling my inner John Piper now). And we teach our kids by talking about what we cherish. 

4.) What REALLY is my primary goal?  Is it a scholarship for my kid? That would be great, but I’m not planning on that happening. As long as my son wants to practice hitting and fielding every day in our front yard, I’ll keep pitching fastballs to him. Yet my primary goal is for him to walk with Jesus and connect to a church when he leaves the house. If that really is my goal, it will be reflected in my conversation, prayers, time spent, and even my dreams. I don’t think it hurts to regularly remember and recast that vision to yourself and your spouse time and time again.

When these things are in place, I can get back to coaching, practicing, and simply enjoying and delighting in my child as the great gift from God he is. Regardless of his performance. That’s how God looks at His children, so I figure that’s probably a good model.

I can have a cut-out (though I doubt I ever will), I can put his name, number, and sport on my minivan (though I know I never will), when I remember who God is and who my child is not.

Unknown's avatar

Risk, failure, and the gospel

by

This Fall at Redeemer, we are planning on launching 4 new CD (community/discipleship) groups, plus a morning bible study for ladies and a Reformed theology class on Monday evenings. We have plenty of folks not involved in anything outside of corporate worship. And the Lord has blessed us with a healthy visitor stream since the gift of our building. So we really do need more places for discipleship, community, fellowship, and service to happen. 

We could play it safe, and just add one group at a time. But as my life begins to enter into a busy season (only one in Tee ball now, but it won’t be long for another…), I’m more sympathetic to how busy folks with families are. Therefore it is essential-if you can-to offer a plethora of opportunities that fit within schedules and rhythms of life.

The “danger” in offering so many opportunities is that it could be harder for one particular group to launch. One group could fail to get the necessary number to really sustain itself because another time slot works better (or only works) for more folks. And you really don’t know which will work until a leader commits. So one group could “fail.” Is it worth it?

I think the deeper question is, “Is it worth risking something so big that unless God is in it, will fail?” To that I give an unequivocal yes. Here’s why.

1.) Risking is always better than not risking and remaining comfortable. Most people did not want to enter into the Promised Land because it was too big of a risk. God is always calling His people to risk and trust Him. If you’re not risking, it could mean you’re not following Jesus very closely.

2.) To risk is to put yourself in a position where you could fail. What happens in situations where you could fail? You pray more. You have to really trust God in the midst of uncertainty. Your faith grows in such situations. I think those three things are probably pretty good. While it may feel more comfortable to remain safe, your prayer life and faith will not grow without risking failure.  

3.) Risking failure gives you a chance to believe the gospel. The gospel tells us that there is no condemnation in Christ (Romans 8:1). None. Nada. When are we tempted to feel shame or condemnation? When we fail. Yet for the Christian, failure gives you an opportunity to say, “My worth before God and others is completely dependent upon Jesus’ work and not on my ability to gather folks (although it is possible there aren’t enough folks able/willing to come-which has nothing to do with you). Regardless, Jesus loves you just as much in your “failure.” Do you believe that? You have that opportunity when you fail.

4.) Taking risks demonstrates you are currently believing the gospel. Faith is not merely an intellectual exercise. We demonstrate to others, and even the spiritual realm, that we believe the gospel when we step out in faith and risk failure. The one who knows he is free to fail will not be afraid to fail. But if we have a shallow grasp of the gospel, we will always stay put.

5.) Even though we are more than conquerors, I think God does really want us to fail some times. I’m not talking major stuff here, but if you believe you’re God’s gift to humanity, He will see that you fail. For your own good. When you become a self-reliant parent, pastor, friend, co-worker, Sunday School teacher-I can say with confidence-God does want you to fail! When we fail, we run to Him and find comfort not in anything that we have done or failed to do, but only in what He has done for us in the gospel. Sometimes failure is God’s gift to us.

Of course risk for the sake of risk is ridiculous. It can be foolish without prayer, counsel, discernment, and encouragement. But risk, regardless of the outcome, doesn’t simply demonstrate your devotion to Christ, it recalls His faithful devotion to you.

Ultimately, I use the world “fail” tongue in cheek because we can’t fail when we’re stepping out in faith. And since Jesus stepped out in faith for us, he now works that same faith in us. I’m thankful for leaders who will step out in faith with me this Fall. Regardless of outcome, I think God is honored.

Unknown's avatar

What to do with personalities?

by

Yesterday I continued my slow sermon series through the Beattitudes, landing on “Blessed are the peacemakers….”

I mentioned the ways our personalities tend to get in the way of real peacemaking, primarily because our personalities more often than not, become our starting point for peacemaking. We tend to either be peacefakers (ignore the truth) or peacebreakers (ignore the love). Sometimes I find myself fluctuating between the two, and I think that might be common as well.

I call this personality-based peacemaking, which is often not real peacemaking. 

But then two questions may arise (at least in my mind): 1.) What role should our personalities play in peacemaking2.) To what extent CAN or SHOULD our personalities change?

1.) What role should personalities play? Whether you tend to fall into one of these two camps, or fluctuate back and forth, it is necessary to honestly examine your own tendencies. We naturally run from conflict or run over “conflicters.” So self awareness is key.

Here’s a practical difference it can make in your relationships. 

Ken Sande’s The Peacemaker encourages folks at times to “look over” an offense. Because the gospel is the motivation, you can now do so. How do you know when to do so? Consider your personality. If you are naturally someone who enters into the fray, often times with your “truth guns” blazing, it’s probably wise to not voice every concern you have. Even if you’re right. Why not overlook or keep quiet at times? Like George Costanza, who chose to do the opposite of what he naturally thought (he realized he was always wrong) why not consider doing the opposite of your natural reaction? There’s a good chance you could be mistaking the Holy Spirit for your personality. If you tend toward peacefaking, then it might be wise to pull the trigger a bit quicker, because you know you’re tendency is to say nothing.

2.) What extent CAN or SHOULD your personality change? Unlike Lady Gaga or Oprah, Christians never make “just being ourselves” our highest aim or standard since we are now honest about ourselves: the thoughts of the natural man/woman are “only evil continually (Gen 6:5).” Now of course Christians have had hearts of stone replaced with hearts of flesh (Ezek 36:26), but we still have left-over sinful residue. So just being yourself is never the goal. 

However, personalities that are tainted with sinful residue still bear the image of God and so some parts should not change. Only you can be you and only you can image God in a unique way. So when the gospel is applied to a personality, the sinful parts experiences tweaking. For instance someone very timid may tend to overlook all offenses (because of fear), but that same person can and will speak up when necessary (now having a Spirit of power). And it’s beautiful when that happens. The gospel has now freed that person from their personality constraints (always peace-faking) and enabled them to speak truth humbly and gently. And yet its that person’s personality, now freed and highlighted by the gospel, which makes them a great truth teller when they need to be.

So personalities can provide limits on what we naturally do, but when the gospel gets a hold of them, individuals can then uniquely image God.

How much can personalities change? For some folks, personalities are changed by the gospel in the same way a sprinter improves from race to race. Allyson Felix is fast. Allyson Felix has always been fast. But in the last two Olympics, she has only landed the silver. Through much training, she is now the fastest lady at 200 meters in the world. Sometimes personality changes but a “hundredth of a second.”

For other folks, who may have sinfully dominated personalities, the opportunity for change may look more like a distance runner. With much training, a 1500 meter runner, can improve by 5 seconds, whereas a sprinter may not change more than 5 hundredths of a second. Sometimes personalities can change a lot. 

Regardless, the gospel can redeem the sinful parts of our personalities and highlight those which best image God’s glory. And when it comes to peacemaking, a careful look at Jesus, then an honest look at oneself, can make a big difference than if you simply start with “that guy” who needs to change.

Unknown's avatar

Magic Mike, 50 Shades, and actually asking real questions

by
Perhaps a week or so ago, I came across an intriguing (the Jesuits taught us never to use the word “interesting,” but never suggested any alternatives!) article reflecting on the general issue of “Mommy Porn” in its specific expression through Magic Mike and 50 Shades of Grey
I commend the article to you, as a thoughtful and gracious resource to help women (though I think its helpful for men too) wrestle with in applying the gospel. Since God’s grace teaches us to say no to ungodliness (Titus 2:11-12), then we should not be surprised that the gospel, which gives real freedom, enables us to say no to certain books or movies. I was reading in Thessalonians 4 today and reminded him of God’s call to purity and abstaining from sexual immorality. Paul even reminds this group that “Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.”
It is no undocumented struggle that many men in the church struggle with pornography addictions. But to limit the struggle only to men looking at naked women is looking more and more foolish. Guys and gals don’t have to be naked in order to be objects of lust. For instance, one could look at a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue and not technically be looking at pornography. But the goal of looking lustfully on another woman not your wife is what is happening. 
When I was a youth director, I walked in the pastor’s office on two young gals looking at “hot guys” on the computer. They were fully clothed (both the gals and the “hot guys” that is). But what was the point? I can’t speak to what was going on in their heart, but I can speak to the tendencies of the human heart. I can ask the question, and I think I did-its been 12 years or so-how is that different than me looking at “hot babes” on-line? Whether an object of lust is wearing skinny jeans, jean shorts, no shorts, tankini, bikini, or no kini, the real issue is not what he/she is wearing but the heart of the observer.
Below are some of real questions that I think are overlooked in what we should/shouldn’t watch or how, or how much we should watch what we watch.
  • Are you going to that person/image to simply feel pleasure, meaning, purpose, release from a hard day? How much more so when that object feeds your lustful appetite? That is called an idol, and anyway you slice it-fellas or ladies-that is not good, because that is not God.
  •  “Why am I watching this?” Is it to look at “hot guys” and drool over them? Is it to be sexually stimulated by someone other than your spouse? I don’t see Jesus being OK with that. Do we really need a bible verse here?
If you can say that you are reading books, going to websites, staring at guys and girls and NOT doing so for sexual arousal and/or intimacy you should be getting from a relationship with Christ, your spouse, your church community, you may be OK (doesn’t mean it is wise though).
Clothes, no clothes (as in Magic Mike) are not the issue. The issue is you and what God’s will for you is: your sanctification (I Thess 4:3)
Now to apply the gospel, we have to get specific, don’t we? That always opens you up to the charge of being legalistic or pharisaical. But there are times when you need to stand up and say, “These are the issues, and to partake in such a movie/book/activity is nearly impossible to live consistently with the gospel you claim to believe.” I do believe this is such a time and am thankful for this bold young lass’s assessment.
There are also other times when things may not be as clear but the issue is still the same: why are you watching it, and does watching it move you to sin? This is a slightly different scenario where you can’t tell so and so not to watch something (pharisaical), but for you to watch something it would be sin (personal conviction).
For instance, I intentionally didn’t watch a popular show because of a certain lead actress (she just happens to be from WV). My friends could watch the same show and be OK, but I couldn’t. So I didn’t. I don’t say this as a pat on the back, but simply to show the fact that the problem is sometimes in the viewer.

Here’s a more recent example. I recently received the “Body Issue” of ESPN the magazine. I did open it up and saw a naked Patriots TE Rob Gronkowski holding a football over his ______. I almost vomited. But the pictures of women would have put quite different thoughts into my head. Amy suggested I throw it away and how could I not agree? You don’t have to throw away your “Body Issue,” but it wouldn’t be a bad idea to pose the question.

The scariest thing to me in the church as a whole right now is our relaxed sexual ethic. I’m not talking about being able to talk about sex, struggle through issues on premarital sex, bad sex, same sex attraction, etc…I’m talking about the fact that we have limboed our sexual standards so low that it seems we are competing with non-Christians. 
I wonder how often Christians actually ask the question: should I watch this (as opposed to “can” I watch this)? I’m more concerned about the question then the answers. If people honestly asked such questions, and allowed the gospel to shed light on the issues, we would be in a lot better shape. Challenging people to really ask the hard and heart questions will keep Christians moving toward holiness and away from both licentiousness and legalism.

Unknown's avatar

What Night Ranger’s "Sister Christian" teaches us about the gospel

by
Most 80’s “hair bands” have simply flamed out because, frankly, they were not very good. 4 chords and an electric guitar with overuse of a “whammy” bar does not necessarily make for good music. Lyrical content didn’t get much better. “Mocumentary” Spinal Tap really did a great job of making fun of how overtly sexual lyrics had become with songs like like “Sex Farm” and “Big Bottoms.” 
Now I say this with some nostalgia, as the first song I learned on guitar was Poison’s “Every Rose Has It’s Thorn.” I also learned the guitar solo, if that says something to you of the lead guitarist C.C. Deville. Nevertheless, still a good song.
Yet not all of these 80’s rockers were equally as bad. Guns N Roses comes to mind; of course they eventually got really bad and broke up. But I wonder if you thought Night Ranger was still rocking. Just saw this on foxnews.com.
Apparently front man Jack Blades is still rocking and putting out music. Some of his former band-mates have collaborated on his new project. If you’re like me-aware of many of these bands-you may only remember Night Ranger’s “Sister Christian.” But if you want to go see him, you needn’t fear. They haven’t forgotten what we remember most about them.
The album features special guests including his Night Ranger band mates Brad Gillis, Kelly Keagy, Joel Hoekstra, and Eric Levy.  He’ll reunite with them on the road with both Night Ranger and solo shows in store this year. And don’t worry, “Sister Christian” will be on the set list!
Unlike some folks who score big with a song of almost anthem-like quality like House of Pain’s “Jump Around”, and yet DON’T want to play that song in concerts because such artist feel they’re beyond it, Night Ranger is more than happy to sing “Sister Christian.” They don’t mind being identified with it. Perhaps even defined by it.
“How can you get bored when you look out at the audience and… just grins across their face, their eyes, happy, singing ‘Motoring,’ how can you not get into that?” he asks. “It’s been 30 years we’ve been doing this, and every night I get up there and play and it’s like my first night.”
For Christians, it is no different with the gospel. We can never get tired of singing the same song over and over. It’s what defines us; its what identifies us. Whether it be for 30 years or 90 years, the Christian is to know, be known, be identified with, and proud of the simple song of the gospel his/her whole life. Our whole lives involve regularly singing it and looking forward to hearing others “covering” it from the pulpit each week.
What I mean by this is that we need to regularly repent of ways in which we disbelieve that Jesus is more than enough to cover our sins and supply all of our deepest heart longings. And then we believe that Jesus still loves us just as much in our struggle to believe, as he does when we seem to “get it.” Jesus never repented because he didn’t have anything to repent from or for. But he did have faith, and fully submitted himself to the will of the Heavenly Father, and so that faith now counts as ours. 
I love “Sister Christian” and you can listen to it below. For Jack Blades, singing “Sister Christian” never gets old. May it be the same with the gospel. The gospel is a song that should be on our playlists every day.
Unknown's avatar

Are you as holy as the next person?

by
Yesterday I saw this post on personal holiness  from Mike Kruger. Though not Kruger, George’ boss on Seinfeld. He begins the article shocked by a P.C.A. pastor declaring to his congregation that “no one is more holy than anyone else.” 
Our living out the implications of our belief in the gospel is obviously God’s design for the Christian. 
When I was a humble youth director (my self given nickname-in jest of course), I took my first seminary class in a church in South Carolina. Then I decided to go to RTS-Orlando full time soon after. That class was taught by this man. The funny thing is that I really didn’t think he was all that friendly, so I never really had a great impression of him. God can certainly use people like that, as I really did enjoy his class on the Gospels.
The question that Kruger deals with is a legitimate one: can one person be more “holy” than the next? Practically speaking can a Christian justified by faith alone live differently from another Christian justified by faith alone in such a way as we would say one is living a more holy life?
The answer is yes, provided that you understand that the word holy or righteous can refer to someone justified, as well as someone growing in the process of sanctification. 
So, what exactly is a “righteous” person? Surely we cannot suggest that all these passages are simply referring to the imputed righteousness of Christ (as important as that is). No, it appears the Bible uses this category of the “righteous man” for believers who display a marked consistency and faithfulness in walking with God. Of course, this doesn’t mean these people are perfect, sinless, or able to merit their own salvation. It simply means that the Spirit is at work in such a way that they bear steady fruit in their lives.
 If so, then it is simply untrue to say “no one is more holy than anyone else.” Not everyone is equally sanctified. Some are farther along than others by God’s wonderful grace. Now, I am sure the pastor that I heard would agree with that. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I am sure he was only trying to say that when it comes to our justification no one is able to stand on their own righteousness: all are desperately in need of grace. No doubt, in his zeal to make this very good biblical point, he stepped too far and declared that “no one is more holy than anyone else.”

Here are some of my takes

1.) Category. I think we do need a category for describing a Christian that is walking closely with the Lord and bearing fruit as well as a Christian not currently walking with the Lord. The yahoos at Corinth were called “saints” and “holy.” But holiness is clearly something we grow in and seek (II Peter 3:11; Hebrews 12:14). If we can grow in holiness, we can thus live more holy or less holy lives. We can also live more more holy lives than the person sitting next to us at church.

2.) Comparison. While we need a category to talk about and think through the implications (or lack thereof) of the gospel in our daily lives, we need to be careful not to ACTUALLY compare ourselves with one another. As soon as you agree someone else already justified by faith might be living a holier life, or less holy life, you have the potential to compare. That leads to pride or despair. However, just knowing that not all sins are equal doesn’t make me think less of my lust (after all I haven’t committed adultery..so the the thinking could go, but doesn’t). We should nevertheless repent from lust as quickly as repenting from the act of adultery. All sins are bad. All people are Christ’s works in progress. The fact that some are farther along than others does not necessarily make you compare; but realize you are prone to it and remember Jesus calls us to a brokenness of spirit.

3.) The fact that this man heard something from a pulpit and then blogged about it is a bit sad to me. I think it would have been just as powerful if this part were left out. No pastor can say everything on a Sunday morning; he shouldn’t even try. Not just for time purposes, but for communicating truth. You can’t say anything if you’re trying to say everything. You don’t need to caveat every time you make a statement or else you’ll be there forever and your flock won’t be edified. I would doubt this mystery pastor would disagree with the thrust of his article. It’s best to present your opponents’ arguments in a way that they themselves would say, “Yes that’s what I believe.” I think Kruger misses on this one.

4.) Dr. Kruger sees a greater danger in honesty than I do. Perhaps we’re in different geographical and spiritual locations. But honesty about sin has never moved me to glorify sin but to feel I’m not alone in the struggle. It has moved me to glorify Christ and follow him more nearly in faith. In our area, we need more honesty: honesty that leads to deep repentance over our gospel replacements.

 Trying to make ourselves feel better about our sin. In recent years I have noticed that there are some very popular catchwords in some reformed circles. We are reminded regularly to be “real” and “vulnerable” and “open” about our sinfulness. And, in many ways, this is a good thing. We certainly want to confess our sins so that we can let the light of the gospel shine on them and allow our brothers and sisters to share our burden (James 5:16). However, this trend also has a danger. Elizabeth Elliot put it well:
The “openness” that is often praised among Christians as a sign of true humility may sometimes be an oblique effort to prove that there is no such thing as a saint after all, and that those who believe that it is possible in the twentieth century to live a holy life are only deceiving themselves. When we enjoy listening to some Christian confess his weaknesses and failures, we may be eager only to convince ourselves that we are not so bad after all. –The Hope of Holiness 

All in all, I’m glad Kruger wrote this. He brings some great points that we need to consider. In your pursuit of holiness, just remember that your sin springs from unbelief. Therefore we need to go back to truly resting in who Jesus is and what he’s accomplished on our behalf.