The Spirit of Christmas, or the Spirit of Scrooge?

Scrooge is the enemy of the Christmas spirit. And he has taken over the holiday season. It’s time for us to fight back.

Ebenezer Scrooge, of course, is the villain of Charles Dickens’ holiday classic A Christmas Carol. In his greedy, miserly obsession with pinching every penny and maximizing the profit of his business, he ruined the lives of his tenants and clients, made life miserable for his clerk Bob Cratchit, and had no interest in relationships with his family or community. For Scrooge, Christmas was nothing but a nuisance that interfered with business and an excuse to fritter away money on charities and parties.

Today, the spirit of Scrooge looks a bit different. Instead of scowling “Bah, humbug!” in drab black clothing, it entices us with jingle bells and holly. But it is still focused on greed and on fattening the bottom line. The spirit of Scrooge has turned Christmas into a business venture. It perverts our holiday celebration by luring us away not only from its religious meaning but also from its secular sentiment. Scrooge has always been about making money, regardless of the human cost. And his spirit thrives today as we turn Christmas into an orgy of spending.

The original Scrooge was annoyed that Christmas interfered with his money-making. Today’s Scrooge is wiser; he sees Christmas as a way to make more money. He tells us that the holiday is about bringing joy to our loved ones through merchandise wrapped in pretty paper on Christmas day. The spirit of Scrooge has convinced us that the “proper” celebration of Christmas requires us to buy extravagant gifts for everyone we know, to outdo ourselves in decorating and baking. Make no mistake: behind the heart-warming Christmas commercials on television and the jolly music in the stores, there is a cynical spirit bent on putting as much money into its pockets as it can.

Perhaps my message bothers you. You may think that I’m being unpatriotic: aren’t we told that Christmas is good for the economy because so many companies depend on this end-of-the-year shot in the arm? You can use the same money that you would usually spend on gifts that end up in the back of someone’s closet for different purposes. If your money is spent by a food cupboard, a volunteer fire department, a homeless shelter, or a local library, it will stimulate the economy just as much as if it is used to buy tinsel and the latest hot toys or trendy fashion items.

Or, you may think that I’m criticizing the very spirit of the holiday. If you do, then Scrooge has won. If it “doesn’t seem like Christmas” without forking over money, you have bought the lie that Christmas can be bought in the mall, or that its joy comes with a budget. The spirit of Christmas comes not with a checkbook or a credit card, but with a heart that is open to our Lord and to the people around us.

This December, which spirit will you follow: Scrooge, or Christmas?

Peter

A Pastor-Congregation Covenant

When I came to Old Union Church (18 years ago in November), we established a covenant relationship between myself and the congregation, which included a series of mutual commitments to each other. Take a moment to review this covenant: am I honoring my commitments to you? Are you, as a member of the congregation, honoring yours?

Rev. de Vries: I will be diligent and hard-working.
Congregation: We will respect your need for personal and family time.

Rev. de Vries: I will prepare thought-provoking and faith-challenging sermons.
Congregation: We will provide you with preparation time, books and other resources, and continuing education.

Rev. de Vries: I will make emergency pastoral care my highest priority.
Congregation: We will inform you as quickly as possible about our needs for emergency pastoral care, such as hospitalization or death.

Rev. de Vries: I will provide leadership for the church, both personally and by supporting our lay leaders.
Congregation: We will recognize that our pastor is only one of several leaders for our church. With our elders and deacons, we will each assume our leadership responsibilities.

Rev. de Vries: I will strive continually to serve the congregation in the most appropriate ways.
Congregation: We, individually and through our Personnel Committee, will help you evaluate and set goals for your ministry.

Rev. de Vries: I will respect the traditions of the congregation, and will seek input from its members for future planning.
Congregation: We will consider your suggestions openly, and will participate in planning for the church's future.

Rev. de Vries: I will treat the manse with the same care I would use if it was my own house. I will keep the house and yard attractive.
Congregation: We will equip and maintain the manse in the same manner that we do our own homes. We will make repairs in a timely fashion.

Rev. de Vries: I will conduct my personal lifestyle as befits a disciple of Jesus Christ, as I best understand it.
Congregation: We will refrain from being overly critical or judgmental of you.

Rev. de Vries: I will receive constructive criticism openly, will strive to hear those comments non-defensively, and will take your concerns seriously.
Congregation: We will air concerns about you directly or through appropriate channels, rather than through gossip or other harmful means. We will present these concerns in a sensitive and constructive manner, with the goal of resolving any perceived problems.

All: We will all strive to bring glory to Jesus Christ through our relationship as pastor and congregation.

The Five R's of the Cross

At the its meeting in September, the Presbytery voted not to approve the request of a congregation to have someone serve as their next pastor. In 23 years, I’ve never seen this happen, and I can imagine how devastating it was for the church and the candidate. It’s not a decision that was made lightly, and was motivated primarily by the fact that he was unable to answer the question, “What difference does Jesus’ death on the cross make for humanity?” Various people tried to help him out by asking the question different ways, but it didn’t work. Because this is such a critical element of our faith, the Presbytery could not approve him to serve as a pastor. With that experience fresh in my mind, here’s the answer I’d give.

We are a broken and sinful people. We live in a world that perverts the goodness that God wants for us all. In spite of our best intentions, none of us are able to live lives that are pleasing to God because of our own selfishness, greed, pride, and willfulness. Left to our own devices, we destroy our relationship with a God who loves us. We wreak havoc upon other people, upon creation, and upon ourselves. The final destination of our lives would be misery and death.

But God’s love for us shines out in this bleak situation like a beacon in a storm. He loves us too much to allow us to destroy ourselves. So he came to us as Jesus Christ to give us life, hope, joy, and peace that would otherwise be impossible for us. And he did it through his death upon the cross.

There are many different explanations for what Jesus’ death actually accomplished. None of them tell the whole story, but each gives us an idea of how Jesus changed everything on the cross. On the cross, Christ became five R’s. Here’s a very simple explanation, and a brief Scripture reference, of each:

1. REDEEMER: Jesus paid the debt that we incurred with our sin. To put it another way, he took on the punishment that we deserved (Romans 3:21-26, 1 Peter 1:18-21).
2. RECONCILER: Jesus restored our relationship with God, and our relationships with each other, that we had demolished (2 Corinthians 5:16-21).
3. RESCUER: Jesus confronted and conquered the forces of evil that had enslaved us (Galatians 1:3-5).
4. RELATE-OR: By dying on the cross, Jesus endured the worst aspects of human experience. He can relate to the struggles and hardships we endure, because he went through it himself (Hebrews 2:17-18).
5. ROLE MODEL: Jesus shows us how we should live in the face of evil, and how we should offer ourselves up in love for one another. And he gives us the ability o do so (1 John 3:16-18).

Which of these “R”s touches your heart the most? Which one gives you something new to think about? And what answer will you give if someone asks you why Jesus died on the cross?

Peter

What Does the Bible Say About Marriage?

When I lead a series of premarital sessions with a couple whose wedding I’m about to perform, we spend time looking at what the Bible teaches about love and marriage. Something funny happens when we do this: the Bible doesn’t say what we think it says, or what we’ve been told that it says. While there are many passages in Scripture that describe love (both within the context of marriage and in other relationships), the two most significant passages that deal with marriage are Genesis 2, where we learn about the creation of the marriage relationship, and Ephesians 5, which describes the Christian concept of marriage. It’s important to keep in mind that these passages describe the ideal marriage. As long as we’re on this side of glory nothing is ideal, including our marriages. These passages describe the goal that Christian husbands and wives should work toward, but everyone should treat their partner with the grace that we all need as we seek to conform our lives to God’s desire for us.

GENESIS 2:18-25: When God created humanity, he created us to be in relationships. The Lord knew that it wasn’t good for Adam to be alone in the Garden of Eden; he needed a companion. Notice that God decided to make “a helper.” The marriage relationship isn’t simply about companionship and satisfying desires; it’s a practical matter. Husband and wife are to help and support each other in the work and calling that God has given them.

There were lots of animals with Adam in the Garden of Eden, but none of them fulfilled his need for companionship. First, the “livestock” are animals that we own; no one “owns” their spouse. In the ages before industrialization, internal combustion engines, and electricity, livestock were used to fulfill what people lacked: horses travel fast, oxen pull heavy loads, and so on. If you look to your spouse to fulfill what is missing in your life (physically or emotionally), your marriage is headed in the wrong direction. Second, the “birds of the air” are beautiful and enjoyable, with their bright feathers and pretty songs. If your attraction to your spouse is based solely on the pleasure you receive from them, or the physical attributes you enjoy about them, you have once again missed the mark of what marriage was created to be. And third, the “beasts of the field” were the animals that humanity was given authority over (Genesis 1:28). They are to be dominated and controlled, whether that means hunting or conserving. Neither husbands nor wives have been given that kind of role over each other.

When God created the first woman out of the first man, he made her from a rib. When I ask couples what a rib can represent or symbolize, they tell me that the rib offers protection for vital organs. It’s near the heart, which represents what we cherish the most. And it’s connected to your spine: the “backbone” of your life. I also point out to them that the rib is at your side, which is where spouses should be with each other. If God had used one of Adam’s toes to create the woman, she would be “under” him. If he had used Adam’s ear, the woman would be “above” him. But because she was made from the rib, husband and wife are meant to walk through life side by side, as companions.

The story of the creation of marriage ends with the comment that “the man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.” There’s more to this statement than the fact that no one had to do laundry in the Garden of Eden. We wear clothing to hide our intimate parts. There are things we don’t want everyone to see, to avoid embarrassment and even ridicule. This is true not only for on-the-body clothing, but also for our emotional and spiritual “clothing.” We wear “masks” to hide the real us from the world around us. There are things about us that we don’t want everyone to know. We put on different appearances based on the people that we’re with. Our friends see one side of us, our co-workers another, and so on. But, ideally, it’s completely different with our spouses. We don’t need to hide ourselves from them. We can “let it all hang out,” because we know that we’re safe with them. They won’t take advantage of our vulnerability or make us feel awkward about who we are. They will cherish and respect the most vulnerable parts of our being. The ideal marriage relationship is one of openness and trust; you don’t have to protect yourself from your spouse because they will do their best to care for and protect you.

EPHESIANS 5:21-33: This section of Paul’s letter to Ephesus begins a description of how Christians should relate to each other. It was common in that time to describe relationships as pairs between “superiors” and “inferiors:” husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and slaves. Paul borrowed this concept from his contemporaries and gave it a Christian twist. In so doing, he undermined the conventional understanding of power relationships. Instead of describing how some people have authority over others, he begins the section with a simple but challenging statement: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” None of us have, or should have, power over others. We are all called to submit, or to open up our lives, to each other as an expression of our devotion to Christ.

Many people focus upon verse 22 of this passage: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” For centuries, this verse has been used to justify the domination and even abuse of husbands over wives. The wife is supposed to do whatever the husband requires of her. He has authority over her, and her job is to obey whatever he tells her to do. And the passage goes on to compare the relationship between husband and wife to our relationship with Christ. Just as we call Christ our Lord and submit our lives to his will, wives are to follow their husbands. If Paul’s description of the marriage relationship ended at verse 24, it would be a very one-sided relationship; husbands are in charge and wives must do whatever they tell them to do.

But Paul goes on to describe the husband’s obligation to his wife. The husband is to love his wife the same way that Christ loved the church. Christ lived out his love for us by dying for us. Therefore, husbands ought to lay their lives down for their wives. Giving up your life for your wife means more than doing heroic things like catching a bullet for he, or putting yourself in harm’s way to protect her. These are the easier ways to “give yourself up” for your wife, because they’re splashy, one-time events. It’s much harder, and much more important, for husbands to lay down their lives for their wives through the regular events of life. The husband gets up from the couch to answer the phone so that his wife can relax. The husband foregoes the piece of sports equipment he had his eye on so that there’s money for his wife to get what she wants. The husband wakes up in the middle of the night to change the baby’s diaper so his wife can sleep. These are a few examples of the everyday ways in which a husband is to “give himself up” for his wife.

When Paul compares the husband’s headship over his wife with Christ’s headship over the church, he encourages us to consider the kind of a leader Christ is for us. He is not a taskmaster, demanding that we diminish our own lives for his benefit. To the contrary: Christ emptied himself of his very life so that our lives will be blessed. Christ calls us to “servant leadership,” which is a very different model from what most leaders in our world follow. If the husband is the leader of his wife, he is a leader who sacrifices himself for her welfare.

To make sure that we understand his counter-cultural message, Paul evokes the image from Genesis 2 of how the woman was made from the man’s rib. The wife is part of the husband’s body. For a husband to mistreat or fail to care for his wife is tantamount to abusing and neglecting his own body. If we are emotionally healthy, we don’t take pleasure in bashing in our kneecaps and dislocating our fingers. We tend to our aches and pains, and make sure that we get enough to eat. The instinctual ways in which we care for our bodies is a model for how husbands should care for their wives.

Paul describes the ideal Christian marriage as a relationship in which each partner puts their spouses welfare above their own. It’s easy for a wife to submit to a husband whose chief goal in life is to do lay his life down for her. And it’s simple for a husband to lay down his life for a wife who respects and honors him. The mutual relationship of self-giving is summed up in Paul’s introduction to the topic: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” When your spouse’s top priority in the marriage is to do what’s best for you, you don’t need to stand up for your rights to get what you deserve: he or she is doing it for you already. And your spouse doesn’t need to advocate for his or her welfare, because you’re already doing it for him or her. In this way, a marriage is not a battleground between two wills, vying to get what they want. Instead, it becomes a place where spouses delight in taking care of each other.

Keep in mind, however, that this is the description of an ideal Christian marriage. No earthly marriage is made up of perfect people. Our own willfulness and selfishness is always present, undermining our attempts at trust and support. We will fail to place our spouse’s welfare ahead of our own. The goal is one that is always before us. And the ideal becomes a nightmare in one-sided marriages: when one spouse is “naked” and submits to the other, while the other spouse is guarded and selfish. Instead, as husband and wife strive to get closer to this ideal, and forgive each other when they fail, they share a marriage that honors God and blesses each of them.

Why Celebrate Labor Day?

Labor Day, the unofficial end of summer, became a federal holiday in 1894 to honor the work of organized labor and trade unions. As Christians, however, we can observe this holiday for a different reason: to celebrate the work that God blesses us with.

For most of us, it seems odd thing to celebrate the work that we do. We typically think of labor as the unpleasant stuff that we have to do in order to pay the bills or keep things functioning. Labor is what we have to do; rest and recreation is what we want to do. However, by celebrating Labor Day with a Christian twist, we can distinguish between two types of labor, which I’ll call “work” and “toil.”

“Work” is the productive activity that we can do by using the abilities and calling that God has given us. Work can benefit the lives of other people, improve ourselves, make the world a better place, and increase the kingdom of God around us. There are lots of examples of “work” in the Bible, going all the way back to the garden of Eden, when “the LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it” (Genesis 2:15). We picture life in Eden as the ultimate vacation, but God didn’t put Adam there to kick back and take it easy. Adam worked in the Garden of Eden. And the work was a blessing: for Adam, for the garden, and for the Lord. “Work” is something that enhances our lives as we live out God’s calling for us. If you can’t imagine how “work” can make life better for you, spend some time with someone who isn’t able to be productive, because of health or aging issues. I’ve heard many people say that idleness and inactivity is the hardest part of their circumstances.

“Toil,” on the other hand, is very different. Toil breaks you down and diminishes the quality and joy of life. This is the kind of labor that destroys your spirit and makes life miserable. After Adam and Eve sinned and were thrown out of the Garden of Eden, Adam’s punishment was that his “work” became “toil:” “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life” (Genesis 3:17). People usually toil out of obligation: to struggle to make ends meet, or because of servitude. Examples of toil would be slaves in the pre-war South, coal miners who owe their soul to the company store, sweat shop workers who are isolated and abused, and people trapped in the 9 to 5 rat race.

God’s desire for us is the blessing of work, not the curse of toil. But because the curse is so prevalent in our lives, it’s hard for us to imagine that labor can be anything other than toil. We avoid it at all costs, and see it only as something negative. And yet, it can be a blessing. When God calls us, he does not call us to be passive recipients of his grace. He calls us to work in partnership with him. It is a wonderful thing when the labor you do to pay the bills and manage your responsibilities fills your life with meaning and purpose. It is a sad thing when your labor is a burden that tears away at the fiber of your being. And it is not what God wants for you.

Peter

Who Is the Holy Spirit?

For a hot but happy week in July, Old Union hosted a “Fruit of the Spirit” Vacation Bible School, where we learned about the blessings that come from the Holy Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23). Because there are nine fruits, but only five days of Bible School, we had to leave the last four fruits for everyone to learn about on their own!

Something else that we didn’t talk about at Bible School was the Spirit that provides these fruits in our lives. As it happens, we don’t seem to talk that much about the Holy Spirit. That’s unfortunate, because it is the Holy Spirit who brings God’s presence into our lives. As Christians, we believe there is one God with three Persons. Most of us have a pretty good handle on the Father and the Son, but the Holy Spirit is often overlooked, even as we’re enjoying the fruits of the Spirit in our lives.

Who is the Holy Spirit? First, the Spirit is our teacher and guide. He (or she) is the Counselor that Jesus promised to his disciples at the Last Supper (John 14). The Holy Spirit is the continuing presence of God in our lives, now that Jesus has ascended into heaven. The Spirit is behind everything in our lives that draws us to God: the Bible, our prayer lives, the church, and so on.

Second, the Holy Spirit is our power and strength. She (or he) is the One who came upon the believers at the first Pentecost, and filled them with amazing power (Acts 2). As the presence of God in our lives, the Spirit brings power and authority into the circumstances we find ourselves in. When we are weak and confused, the Spirit who dwells within us accomplishes the impossible.

Third, the Spirit changes who we are. Romans 8 speaks at length about how the Spirit transforms us from being people who are controlled by sin and our natural desires, into children of God who have been set free from these things, so that we can experience the fullness of life that God wants for us. The “fruit of the Spirit” of Galatians 5 is one of several places in Scripture where we learn about the new kind of life that the Spirit works within us; Colossians 3:12-17 is another example.

The Holy Spirit’s presence in our lives is possible because of the redeeming work of Christ. Once we have accepted the grace that Christ’s death and resurrection brings, we begin the journey that the Spirit leads us on. With every passing day and year, our very character and identity changes, as the we bear the fruit of the Spirit’s work in our lives.

A Godly Government

Everyone has their idea of what the government should do. As the 2012 Presidential campaign heats up, we’re sure to hear all sorts of notions and theories from the candidates. For this Fourth of July, I’d like to turn to the Bible to consider a role for the government that we often overlook.

Back in the days of the Bible, and of the Old Testament in particular, the government was the king. He had some advisors and assistants, but everything centered on the king himself. So if we want to see what God has to say about government, we should look at what the Bible tells us about being a good king. One of the best passages that does this is Psalm 72. Take a moment to read this psalm; but replace the word “the king” with “the government.” This will help you recognize what God wants from governments of all sorts, including ours.

1 Endow the government with your justice, O God,
the capital with your righteousness.
2 It will judge your people in righteousness,
your afflicted ones with justice.
3 The mountains will bring prosperity to the people,
the hills the fruit of righteousness.
4 It will defend the afflicted among the people
and save the children of the needy;
it will crush the oppressor.
5 It will endure as long as the sun,
as long as the moon, through all generations.
6 It will be like rain falling on a mown field,
like showers watering the earth.
7 In its days the righteous will flourish;
prosperity will abound till the moon is no more.
8 It will rule from sea to sea
and from the River to the ends of the earth.
9 The desert tribes will bow before it
and its enemies will lick the dust.
10 The kings of Tarshish and of distant shores
will bring tribute to it;
the kings of Sheba and Seba
will present it gifts.
11 All kings will bow down to it
and all nations will serve it.
12 For it will deliver the needy who cry out,
the afflicted who have no one to help.
13 It will take pity on the weak and the needy
and save the needy from death.
14 It will rescue them from oppression and violence,
for precious is their blood in its sight.
15 Long may it live!
May gold from Sheba be given it.
May people ever pray for it
and bless it all day long.
16 Let grain abound throughout the land;
on the tops of the hills may it sway.
Let its fruit flourish like Lebanon;
let it thrive like the grass of the field.
17 May its name endure forever;
may it continue as long as the sun.
All nations will be blessed through it,
and they will call it blessed.
18 Praise be to the LORD God, the God of Israel,
who alone does marvelous deeds.
19 Praise be to his glorious name forever;
may the whole earth be filled with his glory.
Amen and Amen.
20 This concludes the prayers of David son of Jesse.

This “royal psalm” can be read as a prediction of the kingdom of Jesus Christ. But it is also a down-to-earth, straightforward description of what God wants kings (and all governments) to do. The primary theme of the psalm is the king’s righteous care for the oppressed, the afflicted, and the needy. He is to bring justice who have no one else to help them. In other words, the king looks out for people who can’t look out for themselves. The king’s job is not to let people “sink or swim,” but to help those who have been taken advantage of by those who are stronger and richer.

It seems to me that this continues to be God’s desire for our government, even though we live in a democracy instead of a monarchy. God expects civil authorities to use their power and influence to help the disadvantaged and abused members of society. Yes, some people “work the system” to milk the government for more than what they deserve. And yes, there’s plenty of room for debate about who is truly “weak, needy, oppressed, and afflicted,” and who simply hasn’t made do with what they have. But when we move too quickly to these objections and exceptions, we sidestep the main point of the psalm. The job of the king, and of the government, includes helping the nation’s underclass.

In the days of the Old Testament, these words applied only to the king and his officials. But we, who live in a democracy, stand under the guidance of these words ourselves. Caring for the poor, the needy, and the disadvantaged is not only something that we should each do individually. As Christians, we are to use our role as voters and citizens to ensure that our government does it as well.

And if we do, we may discover that the other major theme of Psalm 72 will apply to our nation as well. The psalm describes the land under the authority of this sort of government as one filled with prosperity and abundance, receiving honor from all the other nations of the world. This is what it means for God to bless America.

A Line in the Sand

Last week, the Presbyterian Church (USA) officially changed its policy for ordination standards. Beginning in July, it will be possible for sexually active homosexuals to be ordained as deacons, elders, and ministers. For many people, this is a “line in the sand:” now that the denomination has crossed it, they can no longer in good conscience remain in the PC(USA). When I was in seminary back in the 1980’s, I wondered how I would respond if/when this time would come. Would I have to leave the PC(USA) and join a different denomination? Now that it’s happened, I know the answer. I’m staying.

I choose to remain in the PC(USA), even though I disagree with this change. I’ve studied arguments to the contrary, but I believe that the Bible speaks against homosexual activity. Someone who engages in such activity, and who believes it is consistent with God’s will for them to do so, should not be an ordained church leader. But I believe God continues to call me to serve in this denomination, for two reasons.

First, and most importantly, it’s not the big deal everyone makes it out to be. Sure; if you’re gay and you think God is calling you to ordained ministry, it matters to you. But for the rest of us, it shouldn’t be so important. At least, it shouldn’t be if we’re guided by Scripture. This issue does not rise to the level of importance in the Bible that we should disfellowship over it. Yes, I believe the Bible tells us that homosexuality is wrong. But it’s a parenthesis in the Scriptural witness; there are less than a handful of passages that deal with it. If, based solely on what the Bible teaches, we’re going to mat over something, this shouldn’t be it. There are many other things in our society that the Bible speaks much more clearly and strongly against. For example, will we deny ordination to someone who works on the Sabbath? Both testaments of the Bible go into great detail over this matter, and yet we seem to accept the fact that “good church people” violate this command without batting an eye. And again, what about treating the poor and disadvantaged of society with care and compassion? How about economic justice: making sure everyone receives fair and just payment for their labor? You can hardly read a page of the Bible without running into these issues. (By the way, according to Ezekiel 16:49, that was the real sin of Sodom, not homosexuality.) If we truly are guided by Scripture, as we claim to be, there are much bigger fish to fry and much more important issues to wrestle with. The ordination of homosexuals is not the litmus test for Scriptural authority that many people claim it to be.

Our reasons for focusing on this issue have more to do with cultural and personal preferences than they do with obedience to Scripture. Culturally, we’ve viewed heterosexual and homosexual misconduct very differently. It is only within the last couple decades that our society has not been scandalized by homosexuality, but go back forty or fifty years. Dean Martin and the rest of the “Rat Pack” were celebrated for their womanizing ways, but Rock Hudson had to hide his homosexuality if he wanted to have a career. By Scriptural standards, both were wrong. But our culture has condoned one while vilifying the other. Let’s not turn the Bible into a tool to justify cultural preferences; let’s use it to challenge and test the world around us.

There’s a second reason why I’m staying in the PC(USA): it’s the best way to witness to what I believe. For thirty-odd years, Presbyterians “on the other side” of this issue stayed and worked for change, even though the denomination repeatedly rejected their understanding of God’s will. While I disagree with them on this issue, I respect their faithfulness and perseverance. If I see something that I believe is wrong, my job as a Christian is not to cut and run; it is to challenge the error, even and especially when I get tired of dealing with it. The debate is far from over. The new policy gives each presbytery and session the authority to decide if a candidate qualifies for ordination. I will be one of hopefully many voices that will testify to the standards for ordination that I believe are right as these decisions are being made. If I, and others who view this matter like me, were to leave, there would be no testimony remaining. Unfortunately, this has already happened. Over the years, many people have left the PC(USA) out of fear that homosexuals would eventually be ordained. If they had stayed, spoken, and voted, the policy may not have changed.

There are things that are worth leaving a church over. This isn’t one of them.

Moderator's Letter to Beaver-Butler Presbytery on Ordination Standards

MODERATOR’S LETTER
TO BEAVER BUTLER PRESBYTERY
May 11, 2011

At its meeting last summer, the General Assembly proposed a change to the PC(USA)’s ordination standards stipulated in G-6.0106b of our constitution’s Form of Government. This proposal required approval by a majority of our denomination’s 173 presbyteries. Unlike previous proposals to amend this clause, the change has been approved as of May 10, with the 87th presbytery voting in favor of it. These new standards for ordination will take effect in July. While the change will affect other issues, the primary concern surrounding this debate has been the ordination of self-acknowledged, practicing, unrepentant homosexuals. This issue has deeply divided our denomination for decades, and the change will encourage some and will trouble others. It’s good for us to know exactly what the new policy is, and what the change will mean for us.

First, the previous clause stated:
“Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.”
and it will be replaced with the following clause:
“Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”

The effect of this change is to do away with a denominationally uniform standard for ordination and installation, and to empower each ordaining body (sessions for elders and deacons, presbyteries for ministers) to evaluate each candidate and determine their suitability. Because each session and presbytery is likely to have its own particular perspective on this matter, we are likely to have a wide variety of standards in place. It is important to emphasize that no new standards for ordination are being imposed upon sessions and presbyteries. More specifically, if a session or presbytery believes that unrepentant homosexual conduct or sexual activity outside of marriage disqualifies a candidate for ordination, then that body will be free to act upon its conviction and refuse ordination for such persons, or installation for service if they have previously been ordained by another session or presbytery.

What does this change mean for Beaver-Butler Presbytery? Although this change is a major shift for the denomination, our Presbytery’s standards for ordination will remain the same. While each candidate for ordination is considered individually, our Presbytery has established policies related to this matter. In 2002 we adopted an Affirmation of Faith which states, in part:
“We affirm that anarchy in sexual relationships is a symptom of our alienation from God, neighbor, and self and that the church is called to lead people out of this alienation and into the responsible freedom of the new life in Christ. We believe that God has provided for sexual intimacy only within the marriage relationship between one man and one woman.”
In 2009 the Presbytery adopted an Open Theological Declaration which states, in part:
“We will continue to uphold biblical standards for ordination, particularly in areas of sexuality…. We will not recognize ordinations that are constitutionally or biblically unsustainable. We will closely examine each candidate seeking admission to our Presbytery. We will not ordain candidates whose behavior violates the clear meaning of G‐6.0106b of the Book of Order [the clause which will be removed].”
Practices in Beaver-Butler Presbytery have affirmed and confirmed these policies. Unless an unexpected and dramatic change occurs in the policies and practices of our Presbytery, we will continue to follow the old standards of “fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness,” in full compliance with the new constitutional criteria.

According to the new clause in the constitution, each session will conduct an examination of candidates for ordination as elders and deacons according to its understanding of Scriptural and confessional standards. Our stated clerk has ruled that the policy of our Presbytery applies to its churches’ sessions and to its minister members as well. Candidates for ordination and installation as elders and deacons in our churches must also comply with the “fidelity and chastity” criteria.

Please join me in prayer that this change in our constitution will not cause undue consternation or divisiveness in our fellowship and, more importantly, that we serve and glorify our Lord and Savior in all we believe, say, and do.

In Christ,
Rev. Peter C. de Vries, PhD
Moderator, Beaver-Butler Presbytery

Interpreting the Bible

We Presbyterians believe that the Bible is the “unique and authoritative witness” to what God wants us to believe and to do. In other words, if you want to be faithful to God, the Bible is the first and most important place to turn. This conviction about the authority of Scripture is something that we share with most Christians. Unfortunately, this commitment isn’t enough to have us all agree with each other, even within the Presbyterian family. We all turn to Scripture, but frequently come up with many different perspectives from it. Acceptance of the authority of Scripture isn’t the conclusion; it’s the beginning of a conversation and adventure.

A number of years ago, the Presbyterian Church put together a summary of what the Book of Confessions (a collection of statements of our faith) has to say about interpreting the Bible. As you study the Bible and seek to hear God’s message for you through it, I hope these basic guidelines will be helpful.

a. Jesus Christ is the center of Scripture. The redeeming work of God through Christ is central to the entire Bible. Any teaching of the Bible on a matter of faith or life should be consistent with Jesus' own teachings and His embodiment of the will of God.

b. Focus on the plain text of the Scripture, referring to the grammatical and historic context of a passage, rather than to allegory or subjective fantasy.

c. Depend on the guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting and applying God's message. The Holy Spirit is living and active, so we can be open to the Spirit’s guiding presence only if we are ready to discover new and different insights for our time and place.

d. The rule of faith is the consensus of the church. Listening with respect to fellow believers from the past and in the present will enable us to interpret God's word faithfully for our time and place.

e. All interpretations should follow the rule of love, the two-fold commandment to love God and to love our neighbor. Our understanding of the Bible should promote our love for God and for people and groups of people within and outside the church.

f. Interpreting the Bible requires earnest study in order to recognize the divine message within the influence of the historical and cultural context of the text.

g. Seek to interpret a particular passage in the Bible in light of all the Bible. A proper understanding of one passage will be consistent with what the Bible as a whole teaches us.

Enjoy the adventure of learning what God has to teach you!

Who Gets Into Heaven? (And What Happens to Those Who Don’t?)

I should say at the start that I’m not one to follow the latest trends and fads in the religious world. Most of them seem to me like a slick marketing strategy that encourages lightweight belief rather than deep discipleship. Not to say that there’s anything inherently wrong with WWJD, Prayer of Jabez, Purpose-Filled Life, Missional Church, and all the rest. It just isn’t my cup of tea. And so I have to admit that I don’t remember if I ever even heard of Rob Bell before this controversy about his new book has hit the fan. I haven’t read his book, and don’t plan to. But I can’t resist the temptation to chime in on the debate. You can click on the following link to see his promotional video for the book: http://vimeo.com/20272585. And you can follow this next link to read one of the prominent criticisms of it: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/files/2011/03/LoveWinsReview.pdf.

The controversy, as I understand it, focuses upon two questions. First, who will get into heaven? And second, what happens to the people do don’t make it? Regardless of what Rob Bell and his detractors have to say, these are questions worth asking.

First, who will get into heaven? Or, to word it slightly differently, what does it take to get into heaven? For now, I won’t get into what exactly heaven is. Let’s just agree that it’s a blessed state of being in presence of God after we die and/or after the end of the world as we know it. And let’s agree that “getting into heaven” is, for Christians, essentially the same thing as “being saved.” The Biblical witness is pretty clear: our access to heaven (or, the way for us to be saved) is only through Jesus Christ. About ten years ago I helped to draft a statement for our Presbytery which addressed this topic as follows:
We believe in Jesus Christ, “who for us and for our salvation came down from heaven (Nicene Creed),” and “is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6).” We believe Jesus “is the only Savior of the world (Second Helvetic Confession 5.077; see Romans 5:12-21 and Hebrews 9:15-28),” and that His life, death, and resurrection are the sole means of intimacy with God (see John 10:7-18). Our salvation is completely dependent upon the work of God’s free grace by which God credits Christ’s righteousness to those who trust in Him. We believe that salvation is the will of the Father for us (1 Timothy 2:3-6), and that the Holy Spirit opens us to receive this salvation that is offered through Jesus Christ (Romans 8:9-11). Consequently, we acknowledge that “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12, see also Heidelberg Catechism 4.029).”
Obviously, since I helped to write this, I agree with it wholeheartedly, and I think it addresses the issue well.

But the current issue goes a bit deeper than this. Yes: Jesus is the one who makes it possible for us to get into heaven (or, to be saved). He is the means; but what do we have to do to avail ourselves of it? How do we get the benefit from the work that Christ has done? This, I think, gets to the issue that Rob Bell raises. How widely does God share the saving work of Christ? The Bible clearly tells us that if we believe in Jesus, we will be saved (John 3:16, Acts 2:38-39, Ephesians 2:8-9, for example). So, if you want to be sure to get into heaven, that’s what you have to do (and nothing else, by the way). But the question is still open: is it possible for people who have not put their trust in Jesus to be able to get into heaven? According to 1 Timothy 2:3-4, “God … wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” So, since he’s God, can’t he accomplish that? Can’t he, from his own free loving will, make the saving work of Christ efficacious for all people, regardless of whatever faith in Christ they may or may not have? Since I haven’t read Rob Bell’s book, I’m not going to say that this is his position. But there are Christians who have made this kind of an argument.

To explain my position, let me present two hypothetical people. Person #1 is someone who has never heard the message of Christ’s salvation in a meaningful way. But in her own way, as best as she is able with the knowledge of God that is available to her, she does her best to honor and follow God, or at least her perception of God. In my book, Christ’s redeeming and reconciling work touches her life. I do not believe that God holds us accountable for knowledge that is impossible for us to have. My formula is this: “We are to commit as much of our lives as we are aware of to as much of God as we are aware of, and we are to seek to learn more about ourselves and about God, so that we can offer more of ourselves to God.” After all, who among us is arrogant enough to think that we know absolutely everything about God? Every human being is upon a relative spectrum of knowledge about God. And, for that matter, we don’t even know ourselves all that well. Offer as much of yourself as you are able to the God that you know about, and seek to know God better and better. I believe that someone like Person #1 will be in heaven, because Christ’s work covers her.

Person #2 is different. He is someone who has heard about Christ’s work, but has rejected it. Because I’m describing a hypothetical person, let’s make him really easy to define. He is someone who has had regular exposure to a reasonable and understandable explanation of who Christ is and what Christ has done, and he has been given a clear opportunity to place his trust in Christ. But he refused to do so. He intentionally rejected the offer of salvation (or getting into heaven) from Christ. I believe that this is someone who does not benefit from Christ’s redeeming and reconciling work, and therefore will not be saved and go to heaven.

Perhaps you’ve already noticed: the distinction between Person #1 and Person #2 isn’t always very clear. It’s not always obvious if someone has really ever heard the gospel, or if they’ve accepted or rejected whatever amount of knowledge of God was available to them. To use the example that Rob Bell mentioned in his promotional video, did Gandhi ever really hear the gospel? What sort of trust or relationship did he have with Jesus? Did he offer as much of his life as he was able to as much of God as he knew about? I can’t answer that question, and neither can anyone else. I can’t answer it about Gandhi, or about anyone else. To use an opposite example, what about Hitler? Just before he killed himself in his bunker, did he offer his life to Christ, or to the best understanding of God that he had? I don’t know, and neither does anyone else. So none of us can ever presume to judge that someone else is Person #1 or Person #2.

This now leads to the second question that the Rob Bell controversy raises: what happens to the people who aren’t saved, or go to heaven? This question assumes that there are at least a few “Person #2”s in the world. What happens to them when they die, or when the world comes to an end? The conventional, traditional Christian answer is that they go to hell: a place or condition of eternal torment. Rob Bell is certainly not the first person to question this concept: that a loving God would allow people to be in agony for all of eternity, even if they intentionally and explicitly rejected Him. I like the way that my dissertation advisor framed the issue: Is it just for a person who has committed a finite offense to receive an infinite punishment? Remember, infinite isn’t just “a really long time;” it’s forever. After a million years of torment, you still have an infinity of torment to face. After all, any offense that we commit is finite, because we are not infinitely powerful and because our actions are limited to the time period of our lives. I’m going to agree with Tony that we can’t sidestep this issue by waffling on the term “justice,” by saying that God’s sense of justice is different from ours. If that would be the case, then it would be meaningless for us ever to talk about a “just” God. However, I take issue with Tony’s sense that our offenses are finite, because they are offenses against an infinite God. The “infinite-ness” of the offenses of Person #2 does not depend upon the actions themselves, but upon the One against whom they have been committed. Simple example: if I punch my friend, the offense is not as great as if I punch the President of the United States. The first offense might cost me a friendship, but the second offense will land me in jail for a long time, with a nasty record against me when I get out. Take that distinction and multiply it by infinity, and you get the sense of what it means to offend against God.

The conclusion I reach from all this is that it’s vitally, infinitely important to do all we can to make sure that there are no “Person #2”s in the world. And because we’re not exactly sure where the line between Person #1 and Person #2 is, we ought do what we can to help even the “borderline” cases.

The Word of God

You’ll frequently hear people talk about “the Word of God.” What comes to mind when you hear that phrase: the Bible? Or something else? It’s a hugely important concept for us Christians, so it’s good to take a moment to ensure that we understand it well.

A foundation for our Christian faith is the conviction that God reveals himself to us. (This isn’t unique to Christians, by the way. For example, Jews believe God revealed himself through the Torah, and Muslims believe that God revealed himself through a series of revelations to Mohammed.) Because God is so completely different from us (Isaiah 55:5), the only way that we can know anything at all about him is if he shows himself to us. That’s what “the Word of God” is all about: God speaking to us so that we can know him and know about him.

There are at least three ways to understand the concept “the Word of God,” and each flows from the one before it.

The first and most important is Jesus Christ (John 1:1-2, for example): the Living Word of God. God has revealed himself to us most fully by becoming one of us through the person of Jesus. It’s the only aspect of this concept that deserves to be capitalized.

The second is the Bible: the written word of God. The Bible is the word of God because it testifies to Christ, the Word of God. We risk turning the Bible into an idol if we believe that it is, by its own merit, God’s perfect revelation to us. It reveals God to us only because of its witness to Christ.

The third is the spoken word of God (Acts 4:31), for example. Whether it is a sermon in the church or a conversation between two people, God is revealed through our words about him. When the phrase “the word of God” is used in the New Testament, it most frequently refers to the message that is preached and believed by people. But, just as the Bible is the word of God only as it testifies to Christ, our words become the word of God only as they also testify to him. And our words can witness to Christ most fully as they are grounded in the Bible, the written word of God. That, for example, is why a sermon is only a sermon if it is based upon Scripture.

It’s good to keep in mind that the word of God, in whatever form we encounter it, is only the word of God (lower case) because it directs our attention to Jesus Christ, the Word of God (upper case). He is the one who reveals God to us in a way that no one and nothing else ever could.

Peter

Open vs. Closed Society: An Ecclesial Consideration

This reflection begins from a very problematic foundation: the summary of a work that I didn’t actually read – Karl Popper’s The Open Society. But I will sin boldly and jump from this shaky platform. Maybe someday I’ll read Popper himself.

While denying historical determinism, Popper sees a sociological progression from closed to open societies. Closed societies are marked by the imposition of conformity upon a society by an elite that forbids questioning or dissent. Such closed societies are marked by “tribalism”, or the rigid identification of groups according to national, racial, religious and ideological boundaries. Open societies, in contrast, allow for and encourage the free debate of ideas by everyone who accepts broad and simple societal parameters. Citizens of an open society possess not only greater freedoms but also more personal responsibilities than their closed society counterparts. Open societies tend to be more flexible and adaptable.

But there is no inevitable march from closed to open societies. The transition from a closed to an open society can be difficult, even traumatic. Consider, for example, the current upheaval in Libya. And open societies may revert to becoming closed societies, particularly during times of stress. Consider, as an incomplete and simple example, the reaction to 9/11 in the US; personal liberties were curtailed and dissent was vilified.

This tendency to return to closed societies exists because the individual and sociological traits remain which created them in the first place. New predilections and sensitivities may emerge which engender open societies, but the old remain. A helpful analogy comes from the pop psychology description of the human brain as a superior cerebral cortex overlying a primitive reptilian brain. In a crisis, the urges of the primitive brain take over, and we act out of anger, fear, and passion, rather than reason and logic. Similarly, societies under stress allow the drives which promote unquestioning conformity and group identification to dominate over the flexibility and freedom of an open society.

What follows is a reflection of how these insights may provide a helpful perspective on Church governance and discourse. My goal is not to vilify certain church traditions although regrettably this may at times appear to be the case. Rather, my purpose is to determine (1) if an open society model is preferable to that of a closed society for the Church, (2) what factors influence the Church’s tendencies toward an open or a closed society, and (3) what, if anything, can be done to encourage the development of the preferable model.

Using this roadmap, the first task is to determine if, for the Church, a closed or an open society model is the most faithful response to the work of God through Christ in the world. As 2 Corinthians 5 explains, and as the Presbyterian Confession of 1967 elucidates in our contemporary context, Christ’s work is reconciliation: reconciling humanity to God, and reconciling people to each other. This seems to validate the goal of an open society; closed societies thrive in the competition and conflict between rival groups, or “tribes.” The reconciling work of Christ strives to eliminate the “us/them” dichotomy of groups with prescribed boundaries, enforced by expectations of conformity.

On the other hand, the Christian community is defined by its acknowledgement of the lordship of Christ. This critical feature appears to conform to the closed society model: the expectation of unquestioning conformity to the authority of the elite (i.e. Christ). Granted, there is a strong tradition in the Christian faith of complaining to and even of accusing God. But disavowal of Christ’s lordship, by definition, disqualifies one as a member of the Christian society. Conformity to the authority of the elite (Christ) is demanded, and violation is punished.

The proposal that the Christian community approximates a closed rather than an open society can be refuted along three lines First, while Christ’s unquestioned authority is affirmed, this does not necessarily lead to the sort of hierarchy that closed societies share. To name Christ as an “elite” is very different from doing so for a tribal chieftain or the Politburo. While some Christian groups consider the authority of their leaders to derive from Christ’s authority, this is not necessarily the case. In any event, the admonition that “whoever wants to be first must be slave of all” (Mark 10:44) precludes any sense that Church leaders wield authority in the way that leaders of closed societies do.

Second, it is disingenuous to argue that acceptance of the lordship of Christ is a demand of unquestioning conformity akin to that of closed societies. Popper explains that open societies also expect compliance with broad principles (such as the Bill of Rights in the US), which are less specific and encompassing as those in closed societies. The absence of any points of agreement would prevent a collection of people from being a society at all.

Third, open societies nurture and value flexibility, whereas closed societies require “one size fits all” conformity. Response to Christ’s lordship is nothing if it is not diverse and flexible. There is no single way, or set of ways, to live faithfully to that call. Consider Romans 12:3-8, 1 Corinthians 12:4-11, and Ephesians 4:7-13 as expositions of this point. Like Popper’s open society, Christian community encourages a wide range of activities and initiatives in order to respond faithfully to Christ’s lordship. For these reasons, it seems clear that the Church’s mission is more to be an open society than a closed one.

The second task of this reflection is to consider the factors that would influence the Church to be a closed or an open society. I will assume that its motivations to be an open society are self-evident, given the mission of the Christ described in the first part of this reflection. If the Church is to be an open society, what leads it toward being closed? The factors are several. Bear in mind Popper’s explanation that the motives which lead to the development of a closed society continue to exist in an open one. In situations of stress or conflict, these closed-society tendencies emerge and dominate, just as the “reptilian brain” takes over when a person is in crisis. In the same way, the Church’s tendencies toward a closed society and, I argue, away from a more faithful response to Christ’s lordship are more pronounced when the Church is in crisis or under stress. Parenthetically, let me note that this is not inevitably the case. Often, through the amazing work of the Spirit, the Church acts with the greatest faithfulness and courage precisely when it is in the greatest peril. I am speaking now of the times when this is not the case: when circumstances may lead the Church toward the traits of a closed society. I describe three such traits.

The first is tribalism. Despite Christ’s prayers that his followers may all be one (John 17:20-23), Christians frequently seek to identify themselves and associate as subgroups. Sometimes these sub-groupings are formalized, such as denominations. But these groups also, and perhaps more problematically, coalesce around particular beliefs, practices, and priorities. It is the danger that CS Lewis warned of in The Screwtape Letters: “Christianity And.” Once you no longer consider identity as a Christian to be enough, you qualify it as a particular type of Christian. You may label it “evangelical,” “progressive,” “orthodox,” “Bible-believing,” and so on. We seek to create our own tribe within the Church. The “reptilian” closed-society tendencies within us are unwilling to accept the lack of boundaries to define the group, and our own identity. In order to affirm ourselves and validate our own position, we create a division so that we can identify ourselves in opposition to “them.”

Second, the Church tends toward a closed society because of the inherent sinfulness of its leaders. Any individual, when given enough authority and enough time to exercise it, will inevitably begin to abuse it in order to advance his or her own position. And they frequently do so with the encouragement and blessing of the people under their authority. This is as true for leaders in the Church as it is anywhere else. Indeed, it is even more likely in the Church because the Church’s true Leader, Jesus Christ, is not as apparent and visible in his leadership role as other more conventional leaders may be. This is the temptation spoken of by the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. It is difficult for people to accept the ambiguity that comes from the freedom Christ offers. So they are willing to accept the restrictive, even oppressive, leaders of other humans in order to feel more secure.

Third, the Church may tend toward the characteristics of a closed society in order experience greater clarity of belief and purpose. The diversity and flexibility of response of Christ’s lordship can be unnerving: we want specifics. This desire for clarity and specificity can be termed “fundamentalism,” but a word of explanation is in order to avoid confusion. I do not refer to fundamentalism as a particular set of beliefs, such as fundamentalist Christianity. I refer not to any particular set of beliefs but to the establishment explicitly or implicitly, of any clear set of beliefs. “Political correctness,” in this sense, is just as fundamentalist as rigid evangelicalism. The “reptilian” brain wants certainty, and certainty requires clear rules. It wants to know what is right and what is wrong. Thoughtful reflection is much more difficult than following a code of belief and conduct.

The third and final task of this reflection is determine what can be done to encourage the development of the preferable model, which has been demonstrated by the first task to be an open society. One way for this to be done is to counter the three tendencies toward a closed society, which have just been explicated: tribalism, authoritarian leadership, and fundamentalism. Each of these can be neutralized, at least in part, by a renewed focus upon the lordship of Christ, the Living Word, and to the written word which bears witness to him.

The first of three tendencies toward a closed society, tribalism, can be diminished by a greater awareness of the universality of Christ’s kingdom. As Revelation 7:9 describes, his kingdom includes people “from every nation, tribe, people, and language.” But, even with this promise, we may still be tempted to draw distinctions and form tribes within the universal Church. We find a corrective for this in Ephesians 2:11-22 (among other places), where Paul addresses the first tribalist division in the Church: between Jews and Gentiles. Christ’s mission is to bring peace by destroying “the dividing wall of hostility,” in order to reconcile people not only to God but to each other. By removing these human barriers, Christ does not take away what makes us distinctive: Paul’s readers were still Jews and Gentiles. But these identifying features are no longer criteria for group identity, inclusion and exclusion.

Second, hierarchical authority no longer leads to a closed society when Church leaders heed the example and instruction of Christ. Authority does not exist in Christian communities for the purposes of imposing the leaders’ will on the people, or to consolidate and wield power. Leadership in the Church is servant leadership, as Jesus’ words of correction to James and John emphasize (Mark 10:35-45). Christ’s authority is based upon his emptying of himself (Philippians 2:5-11), not the exploitation of others for his own benefit (Ezekiel 34:1-16). Church leaders must constantly repent from the ways in which universal human impulses for self-aggrandizement lead them away from the example of Christ’s leadership.

Third, the witness of Scripture can help us to withstand the appeal of simplistic certainty, which can lead to a closed society. The very fact that the Bible is not an encyclopedia that delineates proper belief and practice demonstrates this point. It defies attempts to convert it into a simple answer guide. The juxtaposition of Proverbs 26:4-5 makes this point clear; two sayings exist side-by-side with contradictory instructions about how to deal with a fool. This does not indicate that Scripture contradicts itself; it compels the believer to seek God’s guidance at deeper and more complex levels. In the face of the discomfort that this ambiguity causes, we are tempted to manufacture our own code of ethics and belief, or to subscribe to those created by others. We can resist this temptation as we recall Christ’s promise in John 14:25-26: the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, instructs and guides us. Like the light that illuminates the footpath but not the entire landscape (Psalm 119:105), this guidance requires a constant dependence on God, rather than providing an overall perspective which enables us to be our own guides.

In summary, this reflection demonstrates that the Church exists more faithfully as an open society instead a closed society, and that the Bible’s witness to Christ helps us to avoid the allure of tribalism, authoritarianism, and fundamentalism.

Jerub-Yahweh

In Judges 6, God calls Gideon to lead the nation of Israel back to faith, and to defeat the Midianites who had invaded the land. The first thing God told Gideon to do was to destroy the altars of the pagan gods that the people had begun to worship. One of these gods, Baal, was worshiped as the god of war and storm. When Baal’s devotees saw what Gideon had done, they demanded his death for his act of sacrilege. Gideon’s father Joash told the angry mob, “Are you going to plead Baal’s cause? Are you trying to save him? If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar” (Judges 6:31). His words made sense to the people. If Baal is a real god, he can fight his own battles. He doesn’t need anyone to fight his battles for him. So they gave Gideon a nickname: Jerub-Baal, which meant “Let Baal contend.” Or, to put it in more common lingo, Let Baal Deal With Him. Because Baal really isn’t a god, he wasn’t able to deal with Gideon. The altar remained broken down, and Gideon faced no supernatural punishment. The moniker “Jerub-Baal” changed from being an accusation against Gideon into a mockery of Baal. Baal couldn’t deal with him, after all.

There are times when we need to heed Joash’s advice ourselves. We see people mocking and violating the things of God that we hold dear. God’s ways are disregarded, and his laws are scoffed. We are as outraged as the people of Gideon’s village. Like them, we want to grab those blasphemers and make them pay for their disregard of the Lord and His ways. You may not have to think very hard to come up with at least one example of someone, or some group in society, that is performing some sacrilege. But we need to remember Joash’s words. If the Lord really is God, He can defend Himself. He doesn’t need us to do His dirty work for Him. Call these people “Jerub-Yahweh:” let the Lord (whose name in the Old Testament is Yahweh) deal with them.

God is a big boy; He can take care of Himself. He doesn’t need us to fight His battles for Him. It’s only natural for our blood to boil when we see people attack or disregard things that matter so much to us. But, as Paul said, “‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Romans 12:19). Part of the submission that comes with discipleship is to recognize that we do not need to take charge of God’s battles for Him. Yes, we have the responsibility to act when God calls us to do so. But we must be careful to distinguish between God’s call and our own desire to act. Perhaps it is our anger that is leading us to want to respond. Or it may be our own sense of self-importance, as though the forces of good and decency depend upon us to make things right. When you begin to feel this, just tell yourself, “Jerub-Yahweh. Let the Lord deal with it.” Then, not only can we avoid the danger of having zeal without knowledge, of being hasty and missing the way (Proverbs 19:2), but we can find a sense of peace and security. God is in charge. We can rest secure in His power and providence.

Letting the Lord deal with such things has an additional benefit. Sometimes, the offenses that we want to fight against may not actually be sacrilege. Because of our sinful shortcomings and incomplete process of sanctification, our own moral compasses may be a bit out of whack. That which seems terrible to us may not really matter that much to the Lord. In fact, there may be times when we’re the ones who are on the wrong side of God’s will. So we need to be “Jerub-Yahweh” as well, and ask the Lord to deal with us.