The Gossip Rag of the Reformed World

I had an idea! What if I rebrand this site Reformed People and make it the gossip rag, the tabloid, of the Reformed world? This much is true: I would never run out of people to discuss and evaluate. Just last week I received emails or phone calls concerning at least five open and active people issues, celebrity issues, that I could write about. And those are only the ones I can remember a week later. I won’t rebrand, of course, but the point is, there could be a site dedicated only to gossip and people news that concerns our little corner of the Christian world. Worst of all, I think people might actually read it.

But hold on. Maybe it’s not quite so simple. The Bible offers strict warnings against meddling and gossiping. It warns against sticking our noses into issues that do not concern us. But at the same time it assigns to each of us the responsibility to guard others, to warn them about those who might harm them or lead them astray. There are times where I can or must speak out. There is apparent friction here, tension between the two extremes of broadcasting an opinion on every matter and an unwillingness to speak out on any issue at all. When are we to stay out and when are we to wade in? When am I to stay out and when am I to wade in, with the platform I’ve been given?

As I have considered when I can or should speak, I have gone searching for help and have discovered five godly desires I should have when it comes to speaking about other people (see Denny Burk for more).

Desire Peace. Romans 12:18 exhorts us to be at peace with all men. Whenever possible, we are to avoid controversy and quarrelling in favour of peace. I need to examine myself to see if I am using an issue for noble or ignoble motives and whether I do have that good desire to be at peace.

Desire to Protect. I owe it to my brothers and sisters to protect them from error or other kinds of danger, and to warn them when they may not see it.

Desire Repentance. My ultimate purpose in writing about controversial matters should not be exposure, but the repentance of the person who is in error. Even Paul told Timothy to command false teachers not to teach strange doctrines, he told Timothy that the goal in all this was to produce in the false teachers “love that comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith” (1 Tim. 1:5). The purpose is not to win a battle, but to compel change.

Desire to Use Controversy Carefully. Controversy generates visitors and, on the Internet, visitors are currency. I need to be certain I am not using another person’s misfortune to elevate myself. I ought to be known for whom and what I am for, not whom and what I am against.

Desire to Quiet the Unrepentant. Even while I address an issue, I want to quiet the unrepentant person rather than to elevate his platform. I should attempt to write in such a way that his profile is diminished rather than extended.

Let me pause for one moment here. One of the shaping experiences in my early days as a blogger was when the publicist for a very well-known, non-Christian author got in touch with me to ask if I would review this man’s latest book. When I pushed and asked why, it became clear that negative reviews from Christians would prove helpful in generating sales. Lesson learned: No press is bad press. One thing I have observed recently is that we can put people with a platform in the difficult position of being told that if they do not speak to an issue, it is proof that they are complicit in it. However, it may be that they are every bit as outraged as we are, but they believe their voice will make the problem worse, not better. They may well be right. (See also Bell, Hell and What We Did Well; and no, Bell was not the author in question.)

As I have thought about these desires, I have narrowed in on five criteria to help determine when or if I should speak out. I look for a combination of ability and responsibility, of can and should. The two big questions I ask are, “Can I speak to this issue in a way that will be helpful?” and “Should I speak to this issue?” Here are five criteria I consider:

Relationship. If I have a relationship with the person involved, I have a greater responsibility to speak to the issue because I have a greater ability to speak effectively. There is a greater should because there is a greater can. If the person is a friend and we have an established relationship, I can speak in a much more helpful and more pointed way than if he is merely a headshot on the back of a book. When possible I ought to speak to him before I speak about him.

Authority. My ability and responsibility increase where I have some kind of authority over the person in question. If he is a member of my family or a member of my church, there is a greater can and a greater should than if there is no dimension of authority in our relationship.

Proximity. My ability and responsibility increase where I have proximity to the person. This may be geographic proximity, but in a digital world it is more likely to come through tribal or other relational groupings. Both the can and the should increase where our circles overlap or where our voice reaches to the same kind of person.

Contribution. The ability and responsibility increase when I have something to say that may be helpful and may make a unique contribution. Sometimes I simply have nothing useful to say, and know I would be responding only out of a desire to gossip, or draw visitors, or hold off critics.

Urgency. My ability and responsibility increase where the person’s errors or actions necessitate an urgent response. If a person has apostatized so he is now teaching rank heresy, there is a greater should to the matter. If a person is putting others at risk in body or soul, I have a much greater responsibility to speak loudly and boldly than if he is merely being unwise or doing things that are unadvisable.

Those are five critiera I attempt to apply—imperfectly, no doubt—based on five desires I believe the Bible commends.

World, Get With the Program: Joy! Joy! Joy!

Isaac Watts wrote a book on logic and 750 hymns, including “Joy to the World.” That’s my kind of person! Lucid logic for seeing truth, and a living soul for feeling it and singing it. This is what we were created to be.

Watts wrote “Joy to the World” as Part Two of a meditation on Psalm 98. His title was: “The Messiah’s Coming and Kingdom.” Most agree he was writing about the second coming of Christ, not Christmas.

But it’s not that simple.

To be sure, Psalm 98:8–9 says, “Let the rivers clap their hands; let the hills sing for joy together before the L???, for he comes to judge the earth.” He is coming to judge. This corresponds to Watt’s “While fields and floods, rocks, hills, and plains, / Repeat the sounding joy.”

But there’s more. The song is indeed about the Christmas coming — and the present reigning, and the final future coming to renovate the world.

“Joy to the world! The Lord is come!”

We don’t usually say, “is come.” We say “has come.” So there it is: Christmas. He has come.

“Joy to the earth! The Savior reigns!”

Now. He reigns now because he came at Christmas, lived, died, rose, and was exalted to the right hand of the Father as Savior and King.

“He comes to make his blessings flow
Far as the curse is found.”

He reigns, but not merely at a distance. He comes now. He is turning back the effects of the curse now. Once we were under wrath (John 3:36), now we are not under wrath. No condemnation (Romans 8:1). Miraculous healings and medical advances are marvelous works of Christ pushing back the physical effects of the fall in places where they once held complete sway.

“He rules the world with truth and grace,
And makes the nations prove
The glories of his righteousness
And wonders of his love.”

Here is what the reigning Savior does now. He rules. He compels (makes). The second three lines unpack the first. “Righteousness” and “love” correspond to “truth” and “grace.” He rules with truth and grace. And he compels the nations to come to terms with the truth and rightness of all he does, and the ever-present, ever-offered, ever-wonderful grace and love.

What does “prove” mean? He makes the nations “prove” his glories and wonders. To prove something is to test it and see if it is reliable — as in “proving ground.” The king will not be ignored. He will compel attention. All men will prove him. They will judge him to be reliable or not. Sooner or later all the nations will face his grace and righteousness, either with faith and joy, or with rejection and misery.

Besides these four statements about the coming and reign of Christ (“is come,” “reigns,” “makes blessings flow,” “makes nations prove”), the song exhorts. It exhorts us and it exhorts nature.

Us: “Receive your King!” “Prepare him room!” “Employ your songs!” “Don’t let sins grow!”

Nature: “Heaven and nature, sing!” “You fields and floods and rocks and hills and plains, repeat the joy!” “You thorns, no longer infest the ground!”

This is not mere teaching and application. This is exultation. The logician has seen with lucid precision the glories of truth and righteousness and grace and love and kingly power. Now he is brimming with exclamation, exultation. The logic is on fire.

Jesus is King! Jesus is Savior! Jesus has conquered the curse! Jesus rules the nations! Ride on, King Jesus!

And, world, get with the program! Joy! Joy! Joy! Sing! Sin no more! Prove him! He is righteous. He is true. He is gracious. He is loving. He is coming.

Broken Vows, Broken World

A few years ago I unexpectedly, unwillingly, and at times ungracefully walked through the pain of divorce. And I'm thankful.

Of course, it wasn't that I wanted my former wife to commit adultery or that I was overjoyed to watch her walk out on me. It wasn't that I was glad to see my marriage end, either. It's just that I wouldn't trade what I now know of God's grace for anything in the world. Now more than ever, I am convinced God's goodness is higher and wider than this world's brokenness.

When the wound was new, Jesus was my only comfort. As I began to heal, God's Word guided me through the process of grieving and forgiveness. And as I began to move forward with my life, my heavenly Father directed my steps, drawing me closer to him—closer than I'd been before—in a world that now seemed so uncertain. I can attest that God is able to work all things for good and that he is a refuge in times of uncertainty and trouble. God's goodness in my life has been more extravagant than I could have imagined—as if the truth, beauty, and goodness of heaven were poured into my life from above.

Yet during the most difficult season, I experienced what I now refer to as the "murdered puppy phenomenon." It was like I had lost my dog—like he had dug a hole under the backyard fence and wandered out into the street only to be hit by a passing car. But instead of receiving sympathy and compassion for the loss of my dog, I heard sermons and platitudes from well-meaning people who suspected I'd left the back gate wide open. Mostly, they just wanted to make it clear they were against the murder of innocent pets.

It's not a perfect analogy, of course. And I wasn't a perfect husband either. The prophet Isaiah said our righteous acts and best efforts are nothing more than "a polluted garment" (Isa. 64:6) or "filthy rags" (NIV). This was true even during my best moments as a husband. Still, the fact remains that I was a faithful husband who tried with his entire imperfect being to honor Jesus in his marriage. Divorce wasn't something I sought or desired, but it came knocking all the same.

I understand what's happening, though. We live in a culture that condones and minimizes the damaging effects of puppy murder—er, divorce—while God intends for the marriage covenant to last a lifetime. When I arrive with leash and collar in hand but no puppy, people assume I agree with the culture. But of course, I don't. In fact, I know better than most just how tragic the shattering of a marriage can be.

Divorce is a third-rail topic, one about which there are a variety of opinions within evangelical circles. Gospel-centered people who love Jesus and his Word can draw markedly different conclusions on the issue based on the same biblical texts. While everyone would agree marriage is a good gift from God that should be upheld—defended from the inside by a husband and wife and protected from the outside by the local church and the broader Christian community—we're often unsure how to proceed when the brokenness of this world infects a marriage and it succumbs to the disease. Disparaging the existence of the morgue won't raise the dead, and it certainly won't bring comfort to those who mourn.

Even in writing this article, I realize some may interpret my words as being "soft" on the issues of marriage and divorce. I believe sin is always and necessarily to blame when a marriage ends in divorce. Every time. Without exception. However, divorce itself is not always sin. It can be sinful, of course, but not necessarily so. The problem comes when compassion for those who have experienced divorce gets squeezed out in an attempt to draw easy, clean lines of demarcation in the culture war.

This reaction is, in reality, a cousin of the health-and-wealth gospel—one in which we imagine Jesus has already and completely eradicated the effects of the fall for those who are counted as his bride. For months following my divorce, it felt like I was wearing a scarlet "D" on my chest in church. I imagine it's somewhat like walking into a prosperity-gospel church with holes in my clothes and a case of the measles. I can't be counted among the faithful if their theology dictates that faithful living means surviving unscathed.

Jesus will one day return and reverse the fallenness of this world. The effects of sin will be wiped from our hearts along with the tears from our eyes. But that day has not yet come. We still live with the consequences of sin. There is no utopia yet, no unspoiled promised land—not even in the church. Perhaps I needed the reminder more than most, and that's why God allowed me to walk through the valley I did. But let's remember we're not home yet, that we all walk with a limp this side of heaven, and that spurring one another on to holiness is an act of kindness, not a weapon in the culture war.

A Whole World Hangs on a Word

Sometimes a whole world — a whole theology — hangs on a word.

Consider the word “this” in Ephesians 2:8. Does it refer to “faith” or “grace” or both? Is faith a gift of God?

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not from you; it is the gift of God.

What does “this” refer to? “And this is not from you; it is the gift of God.” What is its antecedent? The question is not settled by the fact that in Greek “this” is singular and neuter, while “grace” and “faith” are both feminine. “This” is just as ambiguous in Greek as it is in English.

But consider these four pointers to seeing faith as a gift in Ephesians 2:8.

1. When Paul says “this is not from you, it is the gift of God,” he seems to be referring to the whole process of grace-faith-salvation. That may be why “this” is neuter and not feminine.

2. But more important than that is the way Paul uses the phrase “by grace you have been saved” back in verse 5. In verse 8, he says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith.” Back in verse 5, he said, “When we were dead in our trespasses, [God] made us alive together with Christ — by grace you have been saved — and raised us up with him.”

This is striking. Paul breaks the flow of his sentence in order to insert “by grace you have been saved.” And he does it precisely after saying, “When we were dead, God made us alive.” Why does he insert “by grace you are saved” just here?

Is it not because he wants to make clear the true nature of grace? He made you alive when you were dead — by grace you are saved! This grace is God’s free act of giving life to the dead. By inserting “by grace are you saved” immediately after saying “when you were dead, God raised you,” he shows that this saving grace is not caused by our participation. We are dead when it happens to us. This saving grace is resurrection of the dead.

So when Paul gets to verse 8, one of the reasons he repeats, “By grace you have been saved,” is to describe how we experience this divine miracle of being raised from the dead. He adds “through faith.” “For by grace you have been saved through faith.” In other words, the life God creates by grace out of death is experienced in our believing. Our believing is what this new life does that grace creates. So faith is the creation of grace. Therefore, it is part of the gift in verse 8 that is not from ourselves.

3. This is confirmed in verse 10 when Paul actually uses the language of “creation” to describe our new life as believers: “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus.” The language of “creation” confirms that when God “made us alive” (verse 5), we were not part of the cause.

Things that are created do not cause their creation. The existence of a new believer is a “creation in Christ Jesus.” And that confirms that this new believing is part of the gift in verse 8. Our faith is a gift of God.

4. Finally, consider that Paul says the same in Philippians 1:29 — that our faith is a gift: “It has been given to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake.” Literally: “It has been given to you to trust him.”

So when Paul says, “By grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you, it is the gift of God,” part of his meaning is that our faith is a gift of God. It is a divine creation. It is the work of grace when we were dead. It is not “from ourselves.” Therefore, our faith is the mark of being chosen by God. He chose to give us faith.

A whole world — a whole theology — hangs on a word. “This is not from yourselves.” “It is the gift of God.” That is, faith is not from yourselves. Faith is a gift of God.

To believe this changes everything. You live in a different world if you believe this. We will be discovering the wonders of this world for all eternity.

Leave This World a Better Place

I charge you never to neglect the duty of brotherly love, and practical, active, sympathetic kindness towards every one around you, whether high or low, or rich or poor. Try daily to do some good upon earth, and to leave the world a better world than it was when you were born. If you are really a child of God, strive to be like your Father and your great elder Brother in heaven. For Christ’s sake, do not be content to have religion for yourself alone. Love, charity, kindness, and sympathy are the truest proofs that we are real members of Christ, genuine children of God, and rightful heirs of the kingdom of heaven.

~ J.C. Ryle

Tract: One Blood

Can the World Still Feed Itself?

Stated that way, it sounds like it’s a set-up to say “no, we need less people on the planet,” and so forth. I don’t think that way, and only gave the post that title because it’s the title of a very interesting article in the Wall Street Journal.

And, the answer of the article is: “Yes, says Nestle’s chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, but not if we burn food for fuel, fear genetic advances and fail to charge for water.”

I agree that the world can continue producing enough food for a long, long time as advances in technology and so forth continue. I don’t have any fear that the resources of the planet are insufficient to meet the needs of a massive, growing population. And, for those who want to see the new heavens and new earth as populated as possible (as I do), the growth of world population (and the corresponding spread of the gospel) is a wonderful, excellent thing. Along with it, of course, we have a responsibility to be wise and smart (and ambitious!) in fighting global problems, chief among them poverty in the developing world.

Now, back to the article. What I found interesting about it, and what I hadn’t thought much of before, was the connection between hunger in the developing world and conversion of food into fuel.

Here’s the first part of the article, which talks about that:

As befits the chairman of the world’s largest food-production company, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe is counting calories. But it’s not his diet that the chairman and former CEO of Nestlé is worried about. It’s all the food that the U.S. and Europe are converting into fuel while the world’s poor get hungrier.

“Politicians,” Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe says, “do not understand that between the food market and the energy market, there is a close link.” That link is the calorie.

The energy stored in a bushel of corn can fuel a car or feed a person. And increasingly, thanks to ethanol mandates and subsidies in the U.S. and biofuel incentives in Europe, crops formerly grown for food or livestock feed are being grown for fuel. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s most recent estimate predicts that this year, for the first time, American farmers will harvest more corn for ethanol than for feed. In Europe some 50% of the rapeseed crop is going into biofuel production, according to Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe, while “world-wide about 18% of sugar is being used for biofuel today.”

In one sense, this is a remarkable achievement—five decades ago, when the global population was half what it is today, catastrophists like Paul Ehrlich were warning that the world faced mass starvation on a biblical scale. Today, with nearly seven billion mouths to feed, we produce so much food that we think nothing of burning tons of it for fuel.

Or at least we think nothing of it in the West. If the price of our breakfast cereal goes up because we’re diverting agricultural production to ethanol or biodiesel, it’s an annoyance. But if the price of corn or flour doubles or triples in the Third World, where according to Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe people “are spending 80% of [their] disposable income on food,” hundreds of millions of people go hungry. Sometimes, as in the Middle East earlier this year, they revolt.

 

The World Redeemed From Within

The redemptive-historical steps from John 1:1 to 1:12 are some of the most remarkable in all the Scriptures. The eternal God (John 1:1-3) became man to enter the world that He had created (v.10)–a world that had rebellion against Him (v. 10). He came to the nation He had created for Himself (v. 11)–a nation that rejected Him (v. 11). In that rejection He redeemed out of that nation and that world a people for Himself, to make them sons of God. Note John’s transitions:

“The Word was God…without Him nothing was made that was made…He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, but the world did not know Him…He came to His own (i.e. the Jews) and His own did not receive Him…But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.”

William Still put it so well when he wrote:

The preexistence of Christ is most plainly testified to in John 1:1, 2, 18; Phil. 2:6a; Col. 1:15; 1 John 1:1a…He is begotten, not created; the only and eternally begotten of the Father, before all worlds. With His coming, the eternal broke into time and became one with creation which had gone wrong, and which He could redeem only from within.

The greatest feat, drama and triumph in the history of all worlds is how God became Man, to be Man forever, and so do God’s job as Man without ceasing to be God, and yet as a true and proper Man. The Westminster Confession says that, ‘two whole, perfect and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition or confusion. Which person is very God and very Man, yet one Christ.’

It is only as we see the Man Christ Jesus thus that we understand what is happening in the Gospels and in the Acts, and what is being said in the Epistles and in the Revelation. If men would read the Gospels with this in view, they would find them, not full of problems, but full of answers to set them at rest about all their quibbles, engaging them in that “creative” thinking by the Holy Spirit which expands the mind and enlarges and inflames the heart until praise of Him pours forth spontaneously. 1

Still, William Notes on Galatians (Aberdeen: Didasko Press, 1972) p. 52