After spending July 4th weekend in Big Sur, and spending this weekend on the beach in Washington, I am struck powerfully by the incredible beauty of God's creation. Staring out at the immense ocean, seeing the beautiful flowers and grasses with a million different shades of color, watching the creatures of the earth and sea going about their God-ordained business, all of it really spoke to me very powerfully. It's times like these that Scriptures such as Psalm 19 really hit home. Or Romans 1:20, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
I guess I can't be too shocked when people exalt creation while denying the Creator. After all, I was one of those people, years ago. But now that the scales have fallen from my eyes, I just don't understand how I could have MISSED it, for all those earlier years. Again, the answer comes from Scripture, from 2 Cor. 4:3-4, we know that the god of this world (Satan) has blinded those who do not believe. BUT GOD in his infinite glory and mercy nevertheless chooses to save, and praise God for that!
I know that when I return home, the beauty of nature will still be present, albeit somewhat muted in my urban and suburban environs. Yet the reminders such as these are of great and lasting benefit, and I look forward to my next adventure out in God's beautiful creation.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
On the Death of Celebrities
Two very different people, one male, one female, one black, one white, one a megastar, one quite a bit less famous than that (but still famous). And yet both share in common something universal today:
Today, they were both face-to-face with the LORD.
I don't know a whole lot about either Michael Jackson or Farrah Fawcett. Of course, MJ's music was ubiquitous, and I remember a ton of his songs. But I was never really a fan, and when he started imploding personally, I guess I just felt sad for him. And as for FF, I never watched her show, and never really watched her movies, either. And after appearing on the scene like a comet, she just kind of flamed out.
And yet today, they were both face-to-face with the LORD.
I have no idea where they were spiritually. I have no idea whether or not they even heard the Gospel. I have to imagine they did, living in America as we do. Maybe it was a solid presentation, maybe it was the watered-down version that we hear so often in our materialistic and self-centered society. I have no idea at all.
Today, they were both face-to-face with the LORD.
I could go on and on about how it feels a bit surreal when I see so many people mourning who never even met them. It's not that I lack empathy, or understanding. I see some people genuinely in pain, and I do mourn with them, even if I am not personally affected. And I know that when an artist moves you, whether musically or sensually or viscerally or however, you can form a connection with that artist in your mind. I totally get all that.
But I guess the one feeling that stands out to me right now is that I really need to be more diligent in sharing the Gospel. Much more diligent. I am obedient, but am I passionate? Am I zealous?
The answer is, I am not. And yet I need to be, and I strive to be.
Because today, they were both face-to-face with the LORD.
Today, they were both face-to-face with the LORD.
I don't know a whole lot about either Michael Jackson or Farrah Fawcett. Of course, MJ's music was ubiquitous, and I remember a ton of his songs. But I was never really a fan, and when he started imploding personally, I guess I just felt sad for him. And as for FF, I never watched her show, and never really watched her movies, either. And after appearing on the scene like a comet, she just kind of flamed out.
And yet today, they were both face-to-face with the LORD.
I have no idea where they were spiritually. I have no idea whether or not they even heard the Gospel. I have to imagine they did, living in America as we do. Maybe it was a solid presentation, maybe it was the watered-down version that we hear so often in our materialistic and self-centered society. I have no idea at all.
Today, they were both face-to-face with the LORD.
I could go on and on about how it feels a bit surreal when I see so many people mourning who never even met them. It's not that I lack empathy, or understanding. I see some people genuinely in pain, and I do mourn with them, even if I am not personally affected. And I know that when an artist moves you, whether musically or sensually or viscerally or however, you can form a connection with that artist in your mind. I totally get all that.
But I guess the one feeling that stands out to me right now is that I really need to be more diligent in sharing the Gospel. Much more diligent. I am obedient, but am I passionate? Am I zealous?
The answer is, I am not. And yet I need to be, and I strive to be.
Because today, they were both face-to-face with the LORD.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Travels
Three weeks since my last post. Where has the time gone? I suppose that's just a rhetorical question, since I know where it's gone, at least in my case. Lots of traveling! Traveling for work, traveling for church, traveling for fun. It was great to see my mentor's daughter get married, and it was great to spend time with the saints, and it was great to be taking a work matter forward to help out my boss, who is busily working on a million other things.
One casualty of the traveling, however, has been my neglected blog. Well no longer! I am on a break from work so this will have to be a fast one, but I've missed writing and I've been looking forward to getting back into it.
I think part of the problem I've experienced is that my perfectionist nature -- and my pride, which is oh-so-closely linked to perfectionism -- often drives me to the mentality of needing to post something deep and insightful and LONG, or else not to post at all. This devolves into a cycle where the longer it's been since I've posted, the more deep/insightful/long I feel the post that "breaks the silence" needs to be.
I think I just need to get over that, and myself, and just go to it. And since I like to keep my breaks at work short, I think that'll have to do for now. :-)
One casualty of the traveling, however, has been my neglected blog. Well no longer! I am on a break from work so this will have to be a fast one, but I've missed writing and I've been looking forward to getting back into it.
I think part of the problem I've experienced is that my perfectionist nature -- and my pride, which is oh-so-closely linked to perfectionism -- often drives me to the mentality of needing to post something deep and insightful and LONG, or else not to post at all. This devolves into a cycle where the longer it's been since I've posted, the more deep/insightful/long I feel the post that "breaks the silence" needs to be.
I think I just need to get over that, and myself, and just go to it. And since I like to keep my breaks at work short, I think that'll have to do for now. :-)
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Sex Scandal Miami Priest Quits Catholic Church
From Reuters:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090528/us_nm/us_usa_priest
Some excerpts:
Some Catholics expressed sympathy for Cutie and said it was time to end the celibacy rule. Others said that, given the recent scandals involving U.S. priests sexually abusing young boys, and Irish priests raping, flogging and enslaving children in Catholic schools, they were relieved that Cutie had merely become involved with an adult woman.
...
Cutie later said he had fallen in love with the woman and broken his vow of celibacy. He apologized for his behavior, but told the Univision Spanish-language television network, "I didn't stop being a man just because I put on a cassock. There are trousers under this cassock."
...
Some Catholics expressed sympathy for Cutie and said it was time to end the celibacy rule. Others said that, given the recent scandals involving U.S. priests sexually abusing young boys, and Irish priests raping, flogging and enslaving children in Catholic schools, they were relieved that Cutie had merely become involved with an adult woman.
I am under no illusions about the Catholic church, but that last paragraph in particular really stands out to me. The bar is now apparently so low that an "ordinary" sex scandal is cause for relief. This is why CHARACTER is the most important thing for men who would be leaders in the church. 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1, among others, lay out these standards for character, and every time a leader falls, it's almost invariably because that leader has fallen short of these Biblical qualifications.
Another thing that strikes me about the above is how, once again, celibacy as a permanent state is demonstrated to be such an unnatural thing for the vast majority of people. If someone genuinely feels no lust such that they believe they fall under 1 Cor. 7:32-35, then praise the Lord, but time and time again, we see how that is the extremely rare exception rather than the rule. For the rest of us, we have 1 Cor. 7:9. Yet the Catholic church insists on enforcing this rule of celibacy for all, regardless of their gifting, and in so doing goes against Scripture and continues to reap the consequences of systematic, millenia-long rebellion.
One last point. Although I sympathize with anyone who would strive to be celibate forever against their gifting, I am reminded powerfully of the story of Jephthah's vow to God in Judges 11. The consequences there, too, were tragic, and the story illustrates well why we should FEAR making vows to God. I don't believe I've ever made a vow to God in that way, and I don't believe I ever will... although I certainly am not VOWING that I never will! This man made a vow, to the God of his own mind, but he made a vow nevertheless. And he broke it, and rather than live with the consequences of that, he just hops over to another denomination, who apparently is thrilled to have him.
What sadness, on so many levels, this spectacle generates. Oh Lord, return soon, so that these affronts to your glory are ended forever!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090528/us_nm/us_usa_priest
Some excerpts:
Some Catholics expressed sympathy for Cutie and said it was time to end the celibacy rule. Others said that, given the recent scandals involving U.S. priests sexually abusing young boys, and Irish priests raping, flogging and enslaving children in Catholic schools, they were relieved that Cutie had merely become involved with an adult woman.
...
Cutie later said he had fallen in love with the woman and broken his vow of celibacy. He apologized for his behavior, but told the Univision Spanish-language television network, "I didn't stop being a man just because I put on a cassock. There are trousers under this cassock."
...
Some Catholics expressed sympathy for Cutie and said it was time to end the celibacy rule. Others said that, given the recent scandals involving U.S. priests sexually abusing young boys, and Irish priests raping, flogging and enslaving children in Catholic schools, they were relieved that Cutie had merely become involved with an adult woman.
I am under no illusions about the Catholic church, but that last paragraph in particular really stands out to me. The bar is now apparently so low that an "ordinary" sex scandal is cause for relief. This is why CHARACTER is the most important thing for men who would be leaders in the church. 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1, among others, lay out these standards for character, and every time a leader falls, it's almost invariably because that leader has fallen short of these Biblical qualifications.
Another thing that strikes me about the above is how, once again, celibacy as a permanent state is demonstrated to be such an unnatural thing for the vast majority of people. If someone genuinely feels no lust such that they believe they fall under 1 Cor. 7:32-35, then praise the Lord, but time and time again, we see how that is the extremely rare exception rather than the rule. For the rest of us, we have 1 Cor. 7:9. Yet the Catholic church insists on enforcing this rule of celibacy for all, regardless of their gifting, and in so doing goes against Scripture and continues to reap the consequences of systematic, millenia-long rebellion.
One last point. Although I sympathize with anyone who would strive to be celibate forever against their gifting, I am reminded powerfully of the story of Jephthah's vow to God in Judges 11. The consequences there, too, were tragic, and the story illustrates well why we should FEAR making vows to God. I don't believe I've ever made a vow to God in that way, and I don't believe I ever will... although I certainly am not VOWING that I never will! This man made a vow, to the God of his own mind, but he made a vow nevertheless. And he broke it, and rather than live with the consequences of that, he just hops over to another denomination, who apparently is thrilled to have him.
What sadness, on so many levels, this spectacle generates. Oh Lord, return soon, so that these affronts to your glory are ended forever!
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Paul Washer
This might be old news to some of you, but right now I am in awe of an evangelist named Paul Washer. A friend recently pointed me to a transcript of what is, I understand, his signature sermon on Matthew 7:13-27, on the narrow way:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/789/The-Truth-About-Christianity
Digging some more, I found a video of this incredible sermon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuabITeO4l8
Seriously, take a look at the transcript, and if it grips you like it gripped me, take some time to watch the video. Simply amazing. I wish every professing but "carnal" Christian could see it.
Just a short post today, but I'm telling you, the content is amazing.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/789/The-Truth-About-Christianity
Digging some more, I found a video of this incredible sermon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuabITeO4l8
Seriously, take a look at the transcript, and if it grips you like it gripped me, take some time to watch the video. Simply amazing. I wish every professing but "carnal" Christian could see it.
Just a short post today, but I'm telling you, the content is amazing.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Letting Your Yes Be Yes
Every now and then, there's a story in the media that really causes me to shake my head. One that's been getting quite a bit of play lately is about the teenager who was suspended for going to his girlfriend's prom. You can see one treatment of it below, along with a video interview of the teenager in question (the stepfather is also there, but oddly walks out of the interview before it's over).
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/12/earlyshow/main5008061.shtml
To summarize, a student at a conservative Christian school, and his family, signed a contract at the beginning of each of the last six school years, where he promised the school he would not dance, hold hands, or listen to rock music, among other things. Toward the end of his senior year, he wanted to go to the prom of his girlfriend, who attends a public school. The public school requires guests who don't attend the public school to obtain a permission slip from the guest's own school principal.
The student took the permission slip to his principal, who actually signed it, thus providing the student with the capability to attend his girlfriend's prom. Along with that signature, however, the principal informed him that there would be consequences for attending in violation of the contract he'd signed. Those consequences would be suspension, taking his finals late, and not being able to "walk" with the rest of his class at graduation.
The student and his stepfather weren't pleased with those consequences. The following excerpt is from the local paper that broke the story:
Frost's stepfather, Stephan Johnson, fuming over the threatened suspension, said he went to a lawyer, who advised that before he sued, "the best thing to do is get all the publicity you can." Johnson e-mailed us a letter to the editor very late Wednesday night. Editorial Page Editor Cindy Moorhead on Thursday morning thought the situation would be more suitable as a news story, especially with the prom then just 60 hours away. After some missed telephone calls, we invited Johnson and Frost to stop by Thursday afternoon after Johnson said he had the written suspension warning. We wanted to see it. They were here in a half-hour. Reporter Mary Kate Malone interviewed them. Frost asked we not identify his date. Malone called the principals of both schools, Tim England and Craig Kupferberg, for confirmation and comment. By dinnertime Thursday, Malone's copy was filed on our Web site, www.thecourier.com, and Frost's story was out.
http://www.thecourier.com/Opinion/columns/2009/May/PM/ar_PM_051209.asp?d=051209,2009,May,12&c=c_12
After the story was published locally, the Associated Press picked up the story and it ran nationally. Suddenly, the "prom rebel" was born, and comparisons to the classic Kevin Bacon movie "Footloose" were all over the place. Everyone seemed outraged at the "oppressive" Christian school, and out of approximately 217,000 votes in an unscientific AOL online poll, 91% gave the school a "thumbs down" verdict (see the next link below for the reference).
For his part, the student seemed quite satisfied with his decision.
Frost told WTOL-TV in Toledo that he did not regret going to the prom. "Yea! I had a good time. I still think the punishment is a little overboard, but I guess I'm ready to face the punishment now," said Frost. He told the Courier that although it was "loud," he certainly did not hear any music he hasn't heard before. Frost said his only regrets were for his classmates who may now be receiving "unfair" judgment for attending Heritage Christian or for their beliefs. Frost and his stepfather Stephan Johnson left Findlay later Monday to fly to New York City to appear on CBS' The Early Show this morning.
http://www.thecourier.com/Issues/2009/May/12/ar_news_051209_story1.asp?d=051209_story1,2009,May,12&c=n
I think that's enough background. For the commentary, as an initial matter, I suppose it's barely cause for comment these days when the media runs a story that casts Christians in a bad light. "Just look at those wacky Christians," I feel like the media loves to say, "they're just so darn CWAZY!" Whether it's a story like this, or a pastor's fall, or a critical commentary about how intolerant the Bible or biblical principles are, the media seldom fails to take an opportunity to show us why we're merely sojourners in this world.
As to the issue itself, I suppose the notion of honoring one's word is now considered somewhat remarkable. I'm not going to comment on whether or not I agree with the school's rules, or how conservative we ought to live our lives, or whether there might be elements of "legalism" (even though very few people, I've found, seem to understand what that means) at the school.
None of that really matters to me here, because the student gave his word. He signed a contract, and decided he didn't really want to follow it when he didn't want to. It's actually more than that, even... the principal even allowed him to go, so long as the student knew there would be consequences to his actions. Consequences which were even short of expulsion.
James 5:12 and Matthew 5:37 are clear that we are to let our yes be yes, and our no be no. Keeping our word, our promises, our agreements, is such a critical part of our Christian walk. Psalm 15:4 states that when we swear, even if it's to our hurt, we don't change or go back on our word. And there are so many other Scriptures, on honesty, and integrity, and not lying, not being an oathbreaker.
The student made an agreement. Then he decided he didn't want to stick by it. Then he was let out of it, but then decided he didn't like the consequences of getting out of it.
So instead of submitting to the established and agreed-upon authorities above him, instead of either being a man of his word and declining to go to the prom, or even going to his prom and enduring what seems to be a relatively minor punishment in the grand scheme of things, he goes public. First thing he and his stepfather seem to do is find a lawyer. (It always kills me, when I see other lawyers doing those things that lawyers are so often rightly criticized for doing.) The lawyer says, "Get all the publicity you can!" So with that directive in hand, they push the story, and it gets picked up, first locally, then nationally. And all of a sudden, we have yet another "Those Wacky Christians" story hitting the mainstream.
And in light of how this all developed, this line from the student just kills me. "Frost said his only regrets were for his classmates who may now be receiving "unfair" judgment for attending Heritage Christian or for their beliefs." Hmm, I wonder why they might be receiving unfair judgment? Could it possibly be because their fellow student decided to make himself out to be a martyr in front of a national audience?
I don't think the word martyr applies here at all. There are plenty of other words that probably do apply, but in the interests of keeping my speech above reproach, I'll decline to list any of them here. Instead, I'll point to the statement of the student's school, Heritage Christian School of Findlay, Ohio.
http://www.heritagefindlay.org/
To me, that is a God-centered, evangelistic, biblical, edifying, and perhaps above all, HUMBLE response. Again, whether or not you or I agree with the policy itself, I hope we can all agree that Heritage took a stand based on principle, and had no desire for the spotlight or publicity... unlike the student and his stepfather, unfortunately.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/12/earlyshow/main5008061.shtml
To summarize, a student at a conservative Christian school, and his family, signed a contract at the beginning of each of the last six school years, where he promised the school he would not dance, hold hands, or listen to rock music, among other things. Toward the end of his senior year, he wanted to go to the prom of his girlfriend, who attends a public school. The public school requires guests who don't attend the public school to obtain a permission slip from the guest's own school principal.
The student took the permission slip to his principal, who actually signed it, thus providing the student with the capability to attend his girlfriend's prom. Along with that signature, however, the principal informed him that there would be consequences for attending in violation of the contract he'd signed. Those consequences would be suspension, taking his finals late, and not being able to "walk" with the rest of his class at graduation.
The student and his stepfather weren't pleased with those consequences. The following excerpt is from the local paper that broke the story:
Frost's stepfather, Stephan Johnson, fuming over the threatened suspension, said he went to a lawyer, who advised that before he sued, "the best thing to do is get all the publicity you can." Johnson e-mailed us a letter to the editor very late Wednesday night. Editorial Page Editor Cindy Moorhead on Thursday morning thought the situation would be more suitable as a news story, especially with the prom then just 60 hours away. After some missed telephone calls, we invited Johnson and Frost to stop by Thursday afternoon after Johnson said he had the written suspension warning. We wanted to see it. They were here in a half-hour. Reporter Mary Kate Malone interviewed them. Frost asked we not identify his date. Malone called the principals of both schools, Tim England and Craig Kupferberg, for confirmation and comment. By dinnertime Thursday, Malone's copy was filed on our Web site, www.thecourier.com, and Frost's story was out.
http://www.thecourier.com/Opinion/columns/2009/May/PM/ar_PM_051209.asp?d=051209,2009,May,12&c=c_12
After the story was published locally, the Associated Press picked up the story and it ran nationally. Suddenly, the "prom rebel" was born, and comparisons to the classic Kevin Bacon movie "Footloose" were all over the place. Everyone seemed outraged at the "oppressive" Christian school, and out of approximately 217,000 votes in an unscientific AOL online poll, 91% gave the school a "thumbs down" verdict (see the next link below for the reference).
For his part, the student seemed quite satisfied with his decision.
Frost told WTOL-TV in Toledo that he did not regret going to the prom. "Yea! I had a good time. I still think the punishment is a little overboard, but I guess I'm ready to face the punishment now," said Frost. He told the Courier that although it was "loud," he certainly did not hear any music he hasn't heard before. Frost said his only regrets were for his classmates who may now be receiving "unfair" judgment for attending Heritage Christian or for their beliefs. Frost and his stepfather Stephan Johnson left Findlay later Monday to fly to New York City to appear on CBS' The Early Show this morning.
http://www.thecourier.com/Issues/2009/May/12/ar_news_051209_story1.asp?d=051209_story1,2009,May,12&c=n
I think that's enough background. For the commentary, as an initial matter, I suppose it's barely cause for comment these days when the media runs a story that casts Christians in a bad light. "Just look at those wacky Christians," I feel like the media loves to say, "they're just so darn CWAZY!" Whether it's a story like this, or a pastor's fall, or a critical commentary about how intolerant the Bible or biblical principles are, the media seldom fails to take an opportunity to show us why we're merely sojourners in this world.
As to the issue itself, I suppose the notion of honoring one's word is now considered somewhat remarkable. I'm not going to comment on whether or not I agree with the school's rules, or how conservative we ought to live our lives, or whether there might be elements of "legalism" (even though very few people, I've found, seem to understand what that means) at the school.
None of that really matters to me here, because the student gave his word. He signed a contract, and decided he didn't really want to follow it when he didn't want to. It's actually more than that, even... the principal even allowed him to go, so long as the student knew there would be consequences to his actions. Consequences which were even short of expulsion.
James 5:12 and Matthew 5:37 are clear that we are to let our yes be yes, and our no be no. Keeping our word, our promises, our agreements, is such a critical part of our Christian walk. Psalm 15:4 states that when we swear, even if it's to our hurt, we don't change or go back on our word. And there are so many other Scriptures, on honesty, and integrity, and not lying, not being an oathbreaker.
The student made an agreement. Then he decided he didn't want to stick by it. Then he was let out of it, but then decided he didn't like the consequences of getting out of it.
So instead of submitting to the established and agreed-upon authorities above him, instead of either being a man of his word and declining to go to the prom, or even going to his prom and enduring what seems to be a relatively minor punishment in the grand scheme of things, he goes public. First thing he and his stepfather seem to do is find a lawyer. (It always kills me, when I see other lawyers doing those things that lawyers are so often rightly criticized for doing.) The lawyer says, "Get all the publicity you can!" So with that directive in hand, they push the story, and it gets picked up, first locally, then nationally. And all of a sudden, we have yet another "Those Wacky Christians" story hitting the mainstream.
And in light of how this all developed, this line from the student just kills me. "Frost said his only regrets were for his classmates who may now be receiving "unfair" judgment for attending Heritage Christian or for their beliefs." Hmm, I wonder why they might be receiving unfair judgment? Could it possibly be because their fellow student decided to make himself out to be a martyr in front of a national audience?
I don't think the word martyr applies here at all. There are plenty of other words that probably do apply, but in the interests of keeping my speech above reproach, I'll decline to list any of them here. Instead, I'll point to the statement of the student's school, Heritage Christian School of Findlay, Ohio.
http://www.heritagefindlay.org/
To me, that is a God-centered, evangelistic, biblical, edifying, and perhaps above all, HUMBLE response. Again, whether or not you or I agree with the policy itself, I hope we can all agree that Heritage took a stand based on principle, and had no desire for the spotlight or publicity... unlike the student and his stepfather, unfortunately.
Monday, May 11, 2009
On Lawsuits
There was an interesting discussion last week at Pastor James McDonald's Family Reformation blog, regarding the issue of lawsuits.
http://familyreformation.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/is-it-lawful-for-a-christian-to-sue-a-christian
As a lawyer, you might imagine that the topic is one of significant interest to me. In my review of 1 Cor. 6, I'm personally of the view that Christians should not sue other Christians, choosing instead to mediate the issue within the church or to just let the matter go, if that's at all possible.
That said, I think there are times when the offending party demonstrates clearly by attitude and behavior that he or she is not a Christian. Undoubtedly, there are people who might be offended by that proposition, along the lines of, "How dare you question another's profession of faith?"
And yet that is EXACTLY what Scripture calls us to do in the passage immedately preceding the passage on lawsuits. We are told in 1 Cor. 5:9-13 to judge those who profess to be a part of the church and not to associate with the immoral people WITHIN THE CHURCH. That is exactly what the church discipline process in Matthew 18:15-17 is about, a discerning and judging of those who claim to be believers. And for people within the same church, it is much easier. The more thorny issue arises when the people go to different churches, or one party isn't a member of a local church at all.
The fundamental issue for me here is, just because someone claims to be a believer, that doesn’t mean he or she is one in truth. Certainly we should exhaust every opportunity to appeal to that brother or sister, including the prospect of allowing respected elders or leaders to decide the dispute. And I’ve actually written a church arbitration clause (both for people in the same church, and people at different churches) for inclusion within contracts between believers, and I’m happy to provide it for free to anyone who e-mails me.
That said, if the professing believer refuses to deal with the situation, and refuses intervention of elders or leaders (even that person’s own elder or leader, along with an elder or leader of the aggrieved party’s church, possibly along with a third person chosen by mutual agreement of the two chosen elders or leaders), I think it’s fair to question the sincerity of the supposed believer’s profession of faith. Refusal to submit to authority, a lack of desire for reconciliation, extreme pride, and vicious pugnaciousness, are all major red flags.
At the end of the day, believers ought to be marked by repentance and humility and a desire for reconciliation. For people who flee from that, out of pride (James 4:6), or isolation (Prov. 18:1), or being unruly (2 Thess. 3:6-15), or being a sluggard (all through the Proverbs), or whatever, they are in sin. And sin has consequences, particularly unrepentant sin.
Again, this would never be something I would consider lightly, and I would always want to make sure the underlying matter is important. Perhaps (although not necessarily exclusively) it would be a fundamental matter of protection of my family or church or other believers per Gal. 6:10. I might be nonchalant about an offense against me, but it would be a different story altogether if someone were to attack or defame my future wife or children! After all, along these same lines, 1 Tim 5:8 states that anyone who does not provide for his own has denied the faith and is WORSE THAN an unbeliever.
Yes, I would want to make sure I had done what I could in order to seek reconciliation and give the offending person every opportunity to repent and make things right, including the intervention of that person's spiritual leaders. And I would want to make every effort to be longsuffering and forgiving and sacrificial, wherever possible, as much as possible.
But for those situations where some Christians determine to proceed in certain limited cases, after much counsel, prayer and study, and after a distinct lack of interest in mediation or repentance of any kind by the offending party? I think the point where a person becomes comfortable in his or her conscience, after MUCH effort to reconcile, that the professing believer is no Christian at all, that is the point where this becomes a matter of Christian liberty in my mind, and ultimately the decision would be a matter of that person's own conscience and accountability before the Lord.
Speaking only for myself, for professing believers who have shown no fruit whatsoever, and/or a pattern of deep and/or unrepentant sin, and/or a complete lack of desire for reconciliation, I believe it's likely that they're not believers at all.
As our Savior says in Matthew 7:13-23, “few” enter through the narrow gate, and there will be “many” who sincerely and earnestly think that they are Christians who will nevertheless hear the terrifying words, “Depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” And that should be a much greater cause for concern for the professing believer described above, than any temporal lawsuit.
I understand that not everyone will feel the same way that I do about this. But from my own study of the Scriptures and understanding of the law, both modern and ancient, I imagine I would be comfortable in my own conscience proceeding, in the limited circumstances I describe above. And I say "imagine" because this particular situation has not yet occurred to me... and I pray that it never will.
Ultimately, if your own conscience disagrees, then as with other matters of Christian liberty, by all means, you should listen to it, for I would certainly never tell anyone to go against his or her conscience.
http://familyreformation.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/is-it-lawful-for-a-christian-to-sue-a-christian
As a lawyer, you might imagine that the topic is one of significant interest to me. In my review of 1 Cor. 6, I'm personally of the view that Christians should not sue other Christians, choosing instead to mediate the issue within the church or to just let the matter go, if that's at all possible.
That said, I think there are times when the offending party demonstrates clearly by attitude and behavior that he or she is not a Christian. Undoubtedly, there are people who might be offended by that proposition, along the lines of, "How dare you question another's profession of faith?"
And yet that is EXACTLY what Scripture calls us to do in the passage immedately preceding the passage on lawsuits. We are told in 1 Cor. 5:9-13 to judge those who profess to be a part of the church and not to associate with the immoral people WITHIN THE CHURCH. That is exactly what the church discipline process in Matthew 18:15-17 is about, a discerning and judging of those who claim to be believers. And for people within the same church, it is much easier. The more thorny issue arises when the people go to different churches, or one party isn't a member of a local church at all.
The fundamental issue for me here is, just because someone claims to be a believer, that doesn’t mean he or she is one in truth. Certainly we should exhaust every opportunity to appeal to that brother or sister, including the prospect of allowing respected elders or leaders to decide the dispute. And I’ve actually written a church arbitration clause (both for people in the same church, and people at different churches) for inclusion within contracts between believers, and I’m happy to provide it for free to anyone who e-mails me.
That said, if the professing believer refuses to deal with the situation, and refuses intervention of elders or leaders (even that person’s own elder or leader, along with an elder or leader of the aggrieved party’s church, possibly along with a third person chosen by mutual agreement of the two chosen elders or leaders), I think it’s fair to question the sincerity of the supposed believer’s profession of faith. Refusal to submit to authority, a lack of desire for reconciliation, extreme pride, and vicious pugnaciousness, are all major red flags.
At the end of the day, believers ought to be marked by repentance and humility and a desire for reconciliation. For people who flee from that, out of pride (James 4:6), or isolation (Prov. 18:1), or being unruly (2 Thess. 3:6-15), or being a sluggard (all through the Proverbs), or whatever, they are in sin. And sin has consequences, particularly unrepentant sin.
Again, this would never be something I would consider lightly, and I would always want to make sure the underlying matter is important. Perhaps (although not necessarily exclusively) it would be a fundamental matter of protection of my family or church or other believers per Gal. 6:10. I might be nonchalant about an offense against me, but it would be a different story altogether if someone were to attack or defame my future wife or children! After all, along these same lines, 1 Tim 5:8 states that anyone who does not provide for his own has denied the faith and is WORSE THAN an unbeliever.
Yes, I would want to make sure I had done what I could in order to seek reconciliation and give the offending person every opportunity to repent and make things right, including the intervention of that person's spiritual leaders. And I would want to make every effort to be longsuffering and forgiving and sacrificial, wherever possible, as much as possible.
But for those situations where some Christians determine to proceed in certain limited cases, after much counsel, prayer and study, and after a distinct lack of interest in mediation or repentance of any kind by the offending party? I think the point where a person becomes comfortable in his or her conscience, after MUCH effort to reconcile, that the professing believer is no Christian at all, that is the point where this becomes a matter of Christian liberty in my mind, and ultimately the decision would be a matter of that person's own conscience and accountability before the Lord.
Speaking only for myself, for professing believers who have shown no fruit whatsoever, and/or a pattern of deep and/or unrepentant sin, and/or a complete lack of desire for reconciliation, I believe it's likely that they're not believers at all.
As our Savior says in Matthew 7:13-23, “few” enter through the narrow gate, and there will be “many” who sincerely and earnestly think that they are Christians who will nevertheless hear the terrifying words, “Depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” And that should be a much greater cause for concern for the professing believer described above, than any temporal lawsuit.
I understand that not everyone will feel the same way that I do about this. But from my own study of the Scriptures and understanding of the law, both modern and ancient, I imagine I would be comfortable in my own conscience proceeding, in the limited circumstances I describe above. And I say "imagine" because this particular situation has not yet occurred to me... and I pray that it never will.
Ultimately, if your own conscience disagrees, then as with other matters of Christian liberty, by all means, you should listen to it, for I would certainly never tell anyone to go against his or her conscience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)