Tag Archives: Uncategorized

Unknown's avatar

The Bad Samaritan

by
One regularly sees on the news a story of a “Good Samaritan,” a innocent bystander who risks harm to himself/herself to rescue a person in need. The parable of the Good Samaritan comprises more theology and application than this, but certainly not less than less. 
Here is a story of some “Bad Samaritans.” A man decides to kill himself by jumping into San Francisco Bay. His mother, who for some reason was near, calls 911 and fire fighters show up immediately. But the problem is that they don’t do anything. For an hour. And then the lad drowns. 
If you watch the video you’ll see that policy and funding purportedly prevented firefighters and policemen from jumping in to help him. 
This is truly a bizarre and sad story where God’s image bearers display scars as well as small cracks where God’s image the light of his image breaks through.
1.) Policy and rules trumped life. Regardless of whether or not such men were allowed to jump in the water to save this drowning man, life always trumps policy. When two commands bump up against each other, the weightier one prevails. Saving life is more important than policy. The Pharisees blasted Jesus for breaking the Sabbath when he healed folks, but Jesus emphasized that life was more important. Even the life of an animal took precedent (Lk 14:5).
2.) The outrage. The anchor man asks the reporter, “Isn’t this a human being?” He has a right to life. You don’t have to be a Christian to believe this. In fact, most non-Christian Atheists believe this as well. They just have no real reason to believe it. In fact they have a reason not to believe it, as it goes against everything Darwinian. Regardless, the image of God shines through the cracks even when people suppress the truth. 
3.) Do we get to choose who has the right to be saved and who doesn’t? If you watch the video, one of the excuses is, “This man was trying to kill himself.” That issue is irrelevant. He is still worth saving. In addition, people sing different songs when they are gargling water and vying for their last breaths. He could have had a different outlook on life as he witnessed people risking their lives to save someone who actually tried to end his. All people are worth saving not because of what they contribute but because of their bearing God’s image.
4.) Excuses. Supposedly this won’t happen again because there will be new funding and new policy. In the end though, it might have been more self-preservation than policy. Statements like “he could have been armed” and “he was so big, that we could have drowned as well” started bobbing to the surface.
 
5.) Judgment. People are rightly angered by this incident, since you can argue that public servants like fire fighters and police officers have a higher civic responsibility. With such authority (guns, sirens, freedom to speed and go through lights), comes a responsibility to sacrifice. But on the other end, none of us know exactly what we would have done put in their shoes. We can certainly pronounce an action (or in-action in this case) to be wrong without pridefully saying “that could never happen to me.” Many times we are spared falling into sin simply because we’ve not had the opportunity.
In the end, this tragic incident serves as a good reminder that this kind of thing happens spiritually in the church all the time. It is always safer and easier to let someone drown in their own sin, even when they are clearly content in doing so. To go in after them can cost pain and time. I personally hate doing it. But perhaps if we considered the mess Jesus took on for us, we’d more regularly enter into the mess of others. Ultimately neither their mess nor ours can hold us under water for long.
Unknown's avatar

Oprah, Clout, and Us

by
Oprah will finally vacate the daily afternoon TV landscape but her presence will certainly not be lost. Her goal of success was never JUST about  money; it was about much more than that. It was  about clout. Clout, clout, let it all out in a Tears for Fears sort of way. That’s what she did. 
Clout can be used for good. And in a common grace (she’s made in the image of God and will do some culturally good things because of that) sort of way, she did. She had wells dug in Africa, she gave away cars to people in her audience. She did some nice things.
Clout can be used to make others’ famous. Oprah brought us Dr. Phil, and I can’t imagine where our world would be without Dr. Phil. Or Rachel Ray. Or Dr. Oz. Although I think we would be just fine without their celebrity.
Clout can also be used for personal gain (the aforementioned probably had some of this mixed in as well) in promoting propaganda. Oprah could arguably-and I don’t even know it is arguable-be the most influential person in America, and perhaps that may be one of her goals. She describes herself as “messenger” with a “message.” And that she is indeed. Below is an article snippet where she discusses her spiritual quest.
What I believe is that Jesus came to show us Christ consciousness. That Jesus came to show us the way of the heart and that what Jesus was saying that to show us the higher consciousness that we’re all talking about here…”
The content of her spirituality remains largely gnostic (though she has obviously spruced it up with other bits and pieces of existential philosophy, religions, opinions), a heresy which popped in the church not too long after Jesus folded his own crucifixion clothing. If general history doesn’t repeat itself, church history sure does.
Some folks want to rule the world with nuclear power. Some folks want to rule the world with their false spirituality. Regardless, the motive is still the same. Oprah and Kim Jong Il aren’t all that different. And honestly, sometimes Christians need to recognize that the same tendencies “freely” dwelling in these folks also dwell in us. They are not our masters, but they often do become counselors.
When we have been given clout or any kind of social influence, we need to take pains that in the end, our goal is that Christ rule in our hearts (Col 3:15) and rule in the world. It would be foolish to think that just because you are a Christian and want to teach, or have any sort of influence in the church, that your motives are pure. Mine definitely aren’t. Here are some questions which might prove helpful in your areas of influence, particularly within the local church setting.
Is your desire to rule or control (Col 3:15)? Is your goal that everyone would have the same convictions you do (Rom 14)? Is your ultimate goal that folks would follow you or follow Jesus (I Cor 1). How angry do you get when someone doesn’t believe something you teach or take the advice you’ve given them? The amount of anger can sometimes indicate you’re mad because you “lost” more so than righteously frustrated over someone else seeking a beverage from a broken well.
Like all idols, power is fleeting and is ultimately an allusion. Looking to Jesus and pointing them to Jesus and His gospel is not only freeing, but it is effectual. If you look to Him, you’ll change. If you point people to Him, and they look, they will change. They may look different than you expected, but ultimately Jesus is molding them in HIS image, not ours. And that’s good thing.

Never forget that you’re more like Oprah than you think, but Jesus loves us more than Oprah thinks. And that too is a comforting thought.

Unknown's avatar

A "vested" ignorance?

by
Like most college football fans-and that may be the only football we’ll be able to follow on TV this year-I received the shocking news that Ohio State Head Coach Jim Tressel resigned. You can read some more of why he “resigned” here if interested.
Tressel was/is believed by many to epitomize class, ethics, and faith. In fact he has written such books called The Winner’s Manual: For the game of life, and Life Promises for Success: promises from God on achieving your best.
I can’t comment about such books, whether or not they are rooted in the gospel, heath-and-wealth, or Oprah theology. They might be great reads. No clue or no care.
But for the man known affectionately, or not so affectionately by others, as “the Vest” (he always donned the sweater vest), being forced to resign amidst players selling memorabilia for tatoo’s and other things is not the way he would have drawn it up.
Here are a few of my takes. 
1.) Many of these violations seem minor in comparison to players or player’s families receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars like the Reggie Bush scandal at USC. And the NCAA rules about players getting jobs sounds archaic and unfair. But regardless, such rules are very clear and if you’re a college coach, you’ve got to play by the rules.
2.) The article seemed to highlight Tressel’s ignorance. Sometimes I like being ignorant. Ignorance is always easier at the beginning, but almost always more costly in the end. The more we know about ourselves and others is often more than we want to know about ourselves and others. Ignorance can keep us from entering into the mess of people’s lives (and our own issues/motivations as well). While we won’t need to often report it to the NCAA or even the church, we might be forced to call others to repentance and assist them in carrying their burdens. Neither are fun.
Exploring your own and others lives seems costly on the front end, but its far less costly to do it now than to do it later. How many relationships, marriages, friendships would have benefited from knowing more of the person (even their sins) and then repenting alongside of them, allowing both parties to experience and show grace to one another as a pattern of life from the beginning? In the end, it is far more costly to be ignorant. Tressel is but one of a plethora (that’s the 2nd Three Amigos reference by the way) of examples.
Love, both for God and others, includes both knowing and moving more toward Him and others, because He has first known and moved toward us in Christ.

3.) Tressel is not the first faith professing coach to have violations and won’t be the last. I don’t assume any coach in college, regardless of their “class,” ethics, or faith profession, knowingly runs a completely clean program. Where are the Tony Dungy type coaches in college today?

Unknown's avatar

Journalist turned pastor: Part II

by
This is a continuation of my last post, regarding the sports reporter turned pastor. Excited about his new transition, he describes it as such:
I will no longer be spreading the bad news on Sundays (the Raiders and 49ers went 21-59 under my beat-writing watch at The Chronicle. You find a nice way to put it).

Instead, I’ll be spreading the good news of the Gospels on my Sunday mornings. I get to tell how Jesus loves you more than Al Davis loves low 40-yard dash times, how God gives more second chances than the Giants give Aaron Rowand and Barry Zito, and how the Lord answers prayer even from faulty headsets in Seattle. 
Seventeen years in sports journalism has given me plenty of sermon material to work with. Jesus used parables about the partying son who went astray, and the obedient son who never left. I present to you former No. 1 draft picks JaMarcus Russell and Alex Smith.
If this guy puts up his sermons on-line, I think it would be worth a listen to see how he integrates sports illustrations into his preaching the Word. Provided he has a congregation filled with folks who “speak that language,” such illustrations can serve as what I like to call “coat-hangers” upon which to hang  truth and applications. 
I can imagine reporting on the 49ers and Al Davis’ Oakland Raiders would become quite cumbersome with all of their recent losing seasons. I can imagine it would be nice to tell people the good news of the gospel instead of reporting about the crazy coaching carousel in California. Still, since I like to write, and I love sports, it does seem like quite a good gig to leave behind. Yet, if that is the direction God is leading him, then I obviously understand. I even applaud him for entering into a rewarding but very challenging, potentially blood-pressure-raising vocation.
But I also applaud the many people who don’t leave their “jobs” to pursue vocational ministry. Such jobs are equally as important as mine as a pastor. I believe that and I think you must too.  This is actually not a point of disagreement with the journalist turned pastor, but just an error I think many folks embrace.
Has this lad not been doing the “Lord’s work” for 17 years, and only now has just begun to do the “Lord’s work?” Would it have necessarily been a bad, or a less God honoring thing for him to stay? Or in other words, are there vocations which honor Jesus less or more than others?
Neither the bible, nor my Reformed tradition has ever made a distinction between “spiritual” work and “secular” work. The world has, perhaps going back as far as Descartes, or even Greek Platonic philosophy, and unfortunately the church has often followed suit. But the Reformers emphasized the biblical truth that there is no distinction. In fact, Colossians 3:23-24 gives instruction to even slaves by explaining: “Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ.”
So whether you are serving in slave labor (or what feels like slave labor), or as a sports writer, businessman, in the assembly line, or manager, your works is still the Lord’s work. There are not levels of “holiness” in work. Provided your job isn’t distinctly sinful, let us all realize we are doing the “Lord’s work.” If you feel led to full time ministry, and have been affirmed in this area, then go. But if not, remember who the real Undercover Boss is: Jesus.
Unknown's avatar

Every Mother’s or (Rather Pastor’s) Nightmare?

by
Mother’s Day is coming early this year. I guess you could say it is as early as it could possibly be: the 8th.

I’m thankful for my mother. Very thankful for her prayers, her teaching, her love, her wisdom, her patience. I’m thankful for my mother-in-law as well. I’m thankful for my grandmother, who has been a grandmother to both me and my wife. And I’m thankful for those who served as surrogate mothers to me while I served as a single youth director.

While Fathers are supposed to lead at home, mothers have admirably led when the father has abdicated spiritual leadership. Timothy is the product of godly women, of a godly mom and grandmom: 
“I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well.” – II Timothy 1:5
So how do we honor them on Mother’s Day? How do we honor them in worship? Can we honor them in worship and keep the focus on Jesus? That’s the hard part. It can be a nightmare trying to discern the best way to honor them without cultural capitulation.
In regards to honoring them on Mother’s Day, I’ve canceled Sr. High youth group because some would rather have their children home. But I’m also having Jr. High youth group at our house, because some mothers would rather get a break: that’s how Amy and I think.
But in worship, should we do anything special? Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill in Seattle, gives 10 tips for things to do IN and after the worship service. Here are a few of those and my takes.
“1. Have a woman lead worship or help lead worship”-I don’t have a problem with women helping lead worship, but how much of what we do in worship should be done so that a certain group feels special?
“6. Dedicate lots of babies. Everyone likes to see babies on Mother’s Day.” Besides the theological differences in baptists and presbyterians, again, I just think this borders on worship as entertainment.  That’s not the point of worship-though I obviously believe it to be a joyous time and my favorite time of the week.
“8. For some women, infertility makes Mother’s Day a tough time. Invite them up after the service to be prayed for, that God would open their wombs.” On the front end this sounds good. I mean who doesn’t want prayer? But I don’t think any women who have tried tirelessly to get pregnant would appreciate being singled out on THIS hard day for them. Perhaps God’s design is for them to adopt? If a mother who was trying to get pregnant thought this were a good idea, I’d be OK. But I doubt-and of course this is speculation- it arose from such a person. Driscoll, who has been influential to me as far as big picture stuff goes, may not be doing the best job of putting himself in the shoes of those desiring to be mothers. I could be wrong-but that’s my take.
You can read the rest of the list here even though I probably wouldn’t recommend any of them.
I’m generally disappointed in evangelicalism’s Mother’s Day service in two major areas.
1.) Sensitivity to those desiring to be mothers, those mothers who’ve lost children, who have no mother, etc…I’m not the most sensitive person in the world. I’m growing in sensitivity, as I think we all must grow in this area. I was not aware how hard Mother’s Day was for some of the aforementioned until a class in seminary. The professor’s wife left town every mother’s day, largely in fact that there was such an in-your-face-emphasis at church that Sunday. I don’t mind offending people with the gospel, but not this.
2.) Worship is God-centered. When we give rewards for the youngest mother, oldest mother, newest mother, we take the focus off of Jesus. We lift up the created rather than the Creator. I’m not out on a crusade to call other churches out. I just want to explain why some churches refuse to do a blatanly specific “Mother’s day” service. It’s is NOT because we don’t treasure and value mothers. It is because we want all focus to be on Jesus. That’s why I won’t ever create a Veteran’s Day, Father’s Day, or Graduation day service.
What should we do? I don’t know what we should do, but here are some ideas that we’ll do at Redeemer.
1.) Children’s Church Mother’s day lesson
2.) Toddler Nursery craft for mothers.
3.) Pastoral prayer thanking mothers and spiritual mothers. Several women at Redeemer have no children, but have been a spiritual mother to Connar and Cade, and I’m SO thankful for them. They are a gift from our Heavenly Father.
Just my thoughts on how to apply Mother’s Day at church. 
The real question is can we honor, thank, recognize a group of people before God IN worship without drawing attention away from Him. That’s a hard one to answer, and I realize I may not be as consistent as I’d like to be with my vision. Honoring them after the service is much easier.
Unknown's avatar

Jesus: the actor who played him, and the actor who directed him

by
I watched the Passion of the Christ for the 2nd time during the Passion Week. I never thought I’d watch it a 2nd time, but I’m certainly glad I did. 
I wonder now, about 7 years removed from the completion of it, if old Gibby considers it his magnum opus or if he has any regrets in making it? Devoutly defending it with his words, Gibson has not done quite as good a job defending it with his lifestyle. Threatening phone calls, divorce, sexual activity outside marriage, alleged abuse….
How could this be? Here’s one possibility (another possibility is he might not be a true believer-but that’s too easy)
A Bull’s-Eye
No doubt Mel had a bulls-eye on his back. Promoting Jesus will get you a bulls-eye on your back. Promoting Jesus and abstinence before marriage on the basketball court, like Dwight Howard claimed such a desire to do, landed him with a kid out of wedlock and leading the league in technical fouls.
I for one am happy I’m not in the NBA. I would hate for cameras to focus on me after I made a bad shot, or complained to the ref’s. I would probably lead the league in technical fouls; it takes everything in me not to argue with church softball refs! And I don’t know what its like to have cheerleaders throwing themselves at me while I’m a single guy in my early 20’s. I don’t excuse Howard’s or Gibson’s behavior in the least. Both have hurt their witness because they chose to do so.
But I don’t know the same level of the public bull’s eye-ness as those guys know. With fame comes the bulls-eye.
In this article, Jim Caviezel explains how Gibson warned him that “You’ll never work in this town again.”
I think Gibson understood that there would be a bulls-eye, but he obviously didn’t understand the spiritual depth of such a bulls-eye. He understood the professional attack, but he didn’t realize how prone he was to real spiritual attack. The man who stood up for Jesus probably didn’t consider himself capable of such things (I imagine), just like Peter thought Jesus was loony when He predicted his denial. 
“It could never happen to me.” Famous last words, particularly for our witness.
Little did Mel know Satan cares far more about destroying your character than your destroying your career. If he can get two birds with one stone, then great. But when your witness and credibility is destroyed, as you could clearly say is the case with Mel, Satan can say, “It’s been a good year.”
But there is hope. In this article, Caviezel admits his career hasn’t recovered, but his witness, as far as I can remember from lack of “bad press,” wasn’t destroyed. He can still speak at a Mega-Baptist church and have some credibility.

How? For us who aren’t as famous, there is still a bulls-eye on our marriages, our families, our workplaces, where we live and play. But if you recognize that you could and would walk down Mel’s path if you pridefully forget you need Jesus every hour, then I think you will walk with the real Jesus. Alongside the actor who played Jesus in the Passion of the Christ.

Unknown's avatar

Mixed emotions

by
I got the news Osama Bin Ladin had been killed while watching SportsCenter as it flashed across the bottom ticker. Amy and I were thankful. Not really glad that he was dead, but more so that they had found that joker. I would have been just as glad had he been captured and not killed. 
 
 The next morning there were a zillion blog posts, facebook comments, and tweets. Jonathon Dodson gives a response to the various responses, cautioning people to digest, listen, and think through the various issues (and I think there really are a multitude of them) first.
Should I feel conviction about feeling some sense of satisfaction about justice, although only partial, being served? I’m not advocating throwing a party, but should I, or should we, only feel sadness at his death? We should probably feel a bit of sadness that someone chose to look at Jesus and say, “You aren’t God, and I will not submit to and trust you.” That doesn’t bode well for him, nor for billions like him. This gospel coalition post shaped and directed some of my thoughts the next day.
But should Christians simply mourn the death of a such an evil person and not thank God for justice? Should the soldiers who killed him in war, not thank God for such a deliverance? Should we not thank God for our soldiers doing their jobs well? I think our world and our emotions are far too complex for a simple answer. But I don’t think we should feel guilty for being thankful.
I’m also thankful for the boldness of people to post their reflections, which go against popular sentiment. My sense of justice, as I suspect with many, can sometimes-or rather often-border on a desire for personal retribution. And I did have to repent from being glad that Osama was now in hell. But I still think there is more to it.

Kevin DeYoung is definitely starting to grow on me. He writes:

In the end, though there are mixed emotions from last night’s announcement, at least one of the attitudes should be thankfulness for the bravery of the men who, with proper authority in a just cause, killed a man who deserved to die. I thought President Obama’s remarks last night struck the right tone. There was a sense of gratitude without gloating. The dominant theme was justice. In our every day lives in this squishy pomo world, we have a hard time with justice. As a nation we feel sorry for people better than we feel joy over justice. But sometimes we need to be reminded that we live in a moral universe where actions have consequences. And when deathly consequences are merited by despicable actions, we should be glad the world is working as God designed.
You can read more here
While I understand that I’m condemned for my sins and only have Jesus to look to, I don’t think it honors Jesus to not admit there could be no difference between your sins, those of your non-believing grandmother, and those of Osama. 
De Young writes in a more recent post

Like many popular adages, this one about all sins being equal before God is not entirely wrong. Every sin is a breach of God’s holy law. And whoever fails to keep the law in one point is guilty of breaking all of it (James 2:10). So any sin committed against an infinite God deserves punishment. We’re all born sinners. We all sin. Every sin deserves death. That’s why the truism is half-true.

But it’s also a lot not true. Over and over the Bible teaches, either explicitly or implicitly, that some sins are worse than others.
You can check out several of his scriptural references. This is a great post on moral equivalence.
Doug Wilson, who I rarely ever agree with, has a solid post, questioning the “well, we’re all sinners and deserve death” mentality, saying it actually hurts your evangelism. You can read more here.
In the end, I think we should have mixed emotions. Not celebrating in the streets, but not simple mourning either, nor self-righteously boasting that you are in the minority for your convictions (not calling out anyone but I do know that we’re prone to works-righteousness). I’m thankful for living within a community, albeit sometimes cyber-community where we can graciously disagree with one another. And I’m thankful for some of the pertinent questions which have been raised, as well as others like this one which has recently popped into my mind: what or how should we pray for when we pray for our enemies, particularly terrorists?
Unknown's avatar

Why some folks believe?

by
Some people believe in God for different reasons, or at the very least, find some evidences more compelling than others. Being primarily a pre-suppositionalist myself, and having submitted myself first to the biblical worldview, I find this approach makes more sense of reality than any other system of thought. However I do find some reasons like Blaise Paschal’s “greatness and wretchedness” principle-that man is capable of so much good and so much evil-one of the most intellectual satisfying (we are created in the image of God and yet fallen).  While Tim Keller takes a more pre-suppositional approach in the first section of A Reason for God he does give “clues” rather than “proofs” that God does in fact exist in the latter chapters. Whether a curious unbeliever or mature believer, who like most of us wrestle with doubts, this book does us both a great service. 
And yet outside of this intellectual framework or body of evidences, sometimes very small things “happen” to us which get our attention and serve as clues of God’s existence and presence. For instance, take running into someone at some place at some time, when only a combination of other events would allow such a “chance” meeting to happen. That’s why this guy says he believes in God.
Those kind of events which we believe couldn’t ever happen if God had not somehow ordered them to fall out accordingly never cease to amaze and affirm. But I’m not sure we can build our faith upon such events, and certainly we can’t use them to definitively give a “reason for the hope we have (I Peter 3:15).” After all, there are other “chance” meetings which turn out pretty bad. I’m sure plenty of folks, due to a series of unusual events, found themselves in the path of the southern tornadoes and died. 
The faith described in this article is personal, and I don’t necessarily question it (though I would probably not connect evangelical, Rob Bell, gay and lesbian award winner). I didn’t watch the video but just read the article.
Perhaps if we ever cross paths-and who’s to say that we couldn’t ever (we could both agree on that), I’d probably ask him to check out Keller’s A Reason For God. If nothing else, he might get a fuller picture of the gospel than with Bell.
Unknown's avatar

Judas in Hell?

by
I often find myself drawn to the CNN belief blog. I don’t necessarily find a ton of affinity for the particular expressions of Christianity presented, but I’m almost always thankful for the thoughtful dialog. Sometimes folks will raise questions I’ve never thought too much about. One such title is this: Is Judas in heaven or hell?
I, along with Dante, presume the latter, rather than the former. Not that I’m good company, but I think I’m in good company. 
But this hip young pastor has some interesting takes. I’ve summarized some and quoted another.
1.) He argues that both Judas and Peter sinned, and made a “mistake.” Both were filled with remorse. Peter just didn’t kill himself, so he lived long enough to see Jesus’ forgiveness.
  
Was Judas’ sin worse than Peter’s? Well, Jesus does tell Pilate that “he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin (John 19:11).” So I guess Jesus kind of squashes that thinking. And he does say, “it would have been better for Judas, “if he had not been born.” (Matt 14:21; 26:24). Still it doesn’t tell us where Judas is, only that it doesn’t bode well for him. But in my mind, 2 Corinthians 7:10 has always cleared up the difference between Judas and Peter in regards to sin, sorrow, repentance, and salvation: “For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.”
2.)  The bible doesn’t speak of Judas’ eternal state, so we shouldn’t speculate. How do even know who’s there and who’s not?
Speculation on who’s in and who’s out is never a good thing. Great point. We’ve simply been given parameters: have the Son=life/No Son=judgment and wrath. But those parameters are such that we shouldn’t throw up our hands and say, “God only knows.” It is true that God only knows, but God does more than just know, He gives us His trustworthy Word. If someone professes faith, displays faith, and perseveres until the end (or professes faith at the end-like the thief on the cross), we ought to have a level of confidence where that person is. The “God only knows” type thinking only celebrates unbiblical uncertainty for the sake of trying to make others more gracious and less dogmatic in gray areas. Noble goals, but there are better ways to reach them.
3.)  “It is easier to debate these issues and make speculations about others than it is to actually look at ourselves in the mirror. It is always easier to think someone else is worse off then we are. But maybe as we approach Easter, we can be reminded that for Christians, the cross and the grave should silence all of these debates. We all fall short and deserve death, but because of what Jesus did on the cross 2,000 years ago, we are able to have life. And I believe that where you end up, God only knows.”
I really like this paragraph, minus the last sentence. He draws us away from speculation because it only serves to take our gaze off our own sin and to stare at the sin of others. Beautiful. That is our tendency, to look at others sins’ as worse than ours; we all could make a good living if we got paid for that type of thing. Then the truth of the gospel-that Jesus died for those deserving death. Amen. Nailed it.
I could ask some more speculative questions like “What would repentance have looked like for Judas,” but I’ll take heed of the pastor’s challenge to see my sin and see my Savior. That should take up enough time.
Unknown's avatar

Is God really a gentlemen? Part II

by
This is take two on “Is God really a gentlemen?” I’ve already made the point that we need a God who intervenes in our lives, who does in a very real sense “force Himself on us.” So in that way, I would say, we don’t need or should want a gentlemen God.
However, I don’t think the term gentlemen is completely without merit. It all depends upon the picture you have of a gentlemen. In the movie Last of the Mohicans, one of the characters Duncan, plays the role of the perfect-or close to it-gentlemen. While his commitment to what is “proper” leaves those less anal about “proper” (particularly during a time of war) dissatisfied, one cannot completely begrudge him his mentality. There seems a consistent commitment to sacrifice for more than just his country under the surface of this military man.
He loves a woman who refuses to love him back. He would be happy to see the one whom she does love hanged, and even bluntly says so. But he leaves us no doubt that this is truly a gentlemen of gentlemen. When the Native American captures his “love”, they decide to burn this woman to atone for the sins of her father. And so he literally steps in, offering himself instead as a replacement sacrifice. 
He dies so that she can live, even though it meant her living and loving another man. That’s a gentlemen. Giving up his life for the good of another whom he wished could be his wife.
If this is a gentlemen, then we have a God who does even more. Jesus, as the perfect gentlemen, offers himself not to temporary flames but to God the Father in order to exhaust his burning hot wrath. And he does this to secure and purchase the hand of His bride, the church. For the joy set before Him, he willingly suffers and gives himself up for the joy of His bride. Because of his death, the two can now live in intimate relationship.

So yes, I think we can say, in some ways, God is a gentlemen.