Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Episode 88: Biblical Divorce and Remarriage
http://www.boundlessline.org/2009/09/episode-88-biblical-divorce-and-remarriage.html
Louise:
I’m sorry to go a tad off topic, but I’ve “heard” you make the comment similar to:
“In my opinion, the situation isn't really any of your business.”
Writing about an issue is just not as easy as speaking in person, so I’m trying very hard not to write anything that could be taken as bombastic. In a nutshell, you don’t feel this comment demonstrates a negligence of the body of believers? I completely understand a desire to stay away from a nanny state (and, as we all know, you never badger anyone to Godly deeds, then they are not of the heart), but we are to encourage one another, to go to your brother, to restore one caught in a trespass with a spirit of gentleness. I take the bible as promoting proactive ministry rather than reactive or a ministry of ignoring.
I know in our westernized societies we have this great tendency to favor individualism* above all other things (often at the expense of our own spiritual health), so I guess to me it seems that is precisely what that comment exhibits. Maybe I’m off base or completely misunderstanding you.
* - and, in the church, anonymity as that better breeds the ability to hide ones sin.
New Comment
Leah:
The way that I’ve seen it treated is that the church treats it in a church discipline manner. Approach (as indicated by the bible) the offending spouse. If they refuse, then they are being recalcitrant. An unrepentant Christian is not truly one of God’s (doesn’t actually exist, actually). Thus, Paul’s words would be applicable (if an unbelieving spouse wants to leave, let them). The key that you state is that the injured spouse follows a biblical course of trying to reconcile (as opposed to encouragement to go, etc.).
But others may see that differently.
New Comment
Louise:
I missed a crucial word. It should have been I’ve heard you make similar comments before. Sorry for the lack of clarity (I know I was using a line from your comment.).
I suppose my question is do you think that such a lack of accountability is biblical (or even warranted)?
New Comment
Louise:
Thanks for the response. Contrary, perhaps, to what you might expect, I have no whispers of thinking I can change your mind. As you have read here, I may be used as a tool for God’s purpose in that, but I, alone, by what I say, cannot change your heart. You are right, though, in that many of the folks around me who read this blog are beneficiaries of mutual accountability. We do see the rich reward from the “wounds” of a friend (Prov 27).
Those might be things that point in our direction, but I don’t see that they would ever convince.
Thanks again for the answer, I appreciate it!
Read actual comments.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Abortion and the Sexual Revolution
http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=5317
Kelly:
Even from your secular position, I think that abortion merely fuels the fire of the sexual liberation. If there was actually an acceptance of responsibility and consequences, I imagine we would likely see a drop in that sexual liberality.
From a Christian perspective, I would also say that overwhelmingly Christians (even if taken at the face value of someone claiming the name while living a life devoid of evidence) at most see destroying a fetus as only in dire circumstances as opposed to the at-will option championed now.
I agree with Clay that the transforming of lives by the power of God is the only way. But we work and finish the race. We don’t throw up our hands and say, “wow, this is tough, oh, well, just go with the flow.” Taking that attitude (as many in the church have) and we find ourselves in the mish-mash of Corinth.
New Comment
ep/Kelly:
(In a huge paraphrase) You state that conservative Christians still sin. I’m sorry, but Paul beat you to that argument.
Regardless of what happens, we are called to a standard of righteousness that is unmovable. We strive to affirm what God affirms and decry what God has decried. We do not call evil good or dark light.
And, to answer the other question by Larry, no, we don’t vie for a theocratic state. But we should uphold what God upholds in any way we possibly can. With abortion, we uphold the dignity of human life, the highest of God’s creation, in His own image. That is why it is so important to those who are of Christ.
I read this earlier this morning and thought of the discussion going on here (and the other ice cream one and tree thing as well). Hebrews 4:
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.
New Comment
Actually, Kelly, you are saying exactly what Paul says. We are not perfected in the flesh. Far from it. Even Paul had his "thorns". We are all fallen. Because we sin simply means that we sin, not that God’s word isn’t true. We are measured by God, not in relation to one another (which should strike deep reverential fear in each and every one of us).
I was listening to Begg today. He spoke of expectations. The struggle for a Christian is just what you highlight, Kelly. We cannot expect those outside of Christ to live a life as though they are in Christ. For instance, I think you have a couple of letters wrong. It’s not that abortion is necessary, but it is necessarily a result of the sexually immoral. Destroying a human life is (as unpopular as this will be), at its heart, self serving. It’s not necessary, it’s necessarily a product of turning away from God. For some, it’s a rebellious action. For others it’s a life of rebellion. So, as Christians, we strive to uphold God’s word. Sometimes we have the ability to politically affect this. But as some have rightly pointed out here, we don’t trust in horses and chariots. We should strive to preach the message of Christ crucified above all other things to help liberate those who are in a life of theft. To free those in sexual sin of the chains of their own sinful choices. To bring the forgiveness bought on Calvary to those who daily deny God’s grace. In response to much of what you (and ep) have said, I, for one, am severely deficient in that I don’t weep enough for those who are perishing. I am too often happy to be where I am and never give it a thought. I appreciate the stoke.
Read actual comments.
Unbelievable Providence
http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=5340
Ep: I don’t share your atheistic view. Just as the Lord tells us that the rain falls on the righteous and the unrighteous, God’s providence is represented in a tree spearing a young woman who lives and a wheelchair cutting a young man who died*. You know, our pastor asked a question one day. “Why do good things happen to bad people?’ A: “There are no good people.” Our finite brains like to try to place ourselves in judgment of God (how could a God be so loving….etc.). I was brought to Christ in painful circumstances. I place myself in judgment of God to have said “wow, that was random” or shaking my fist at God and saying that I was a good person and this shouldn’t be happening. I suppose it makes me sound weak and pitiful, but, honestly, that’s what I am. That’s the reflection of the power that each and everyone of us has. And, for me (and for the vast majority), it took a moment of pain (or moments) to realize how helpless and in need of something larger than this bag of bones I am. And, while I’ll assume you disagree, it’s depressing to think of a world as total random with no purpose and no being. That God is as helpless as I am at doing anything or that there are these surprises that God “wakes up” and says “whoa, didn’t see that one coming. I better do something.” I suppose a total divergence of world views there.
* – a local man got cut on a wheel chair which imparted a flesh eating virus and was dead within a few days.
New Comment
Matthew:
I think I disagree with you (sort of). I may be taking this in a completely wrong manner, so sorry if I misunderstood. I would say that if you hold to the sovereignty of God, you hold that His hand was in the 30 minute response time that saved the life of Pastor Tom Nelson and also the lack of response time for my aunt who died of the same ailment (heart attack, home alone). What we do, however, is to have a tendency to focus on the here and now. When we survive (or have someone survive), we're here to say "how great is the sovereignty of God". My aunt wasn't around afterward to say "God has called me home, how great is the sovereignty of God, I no longer suffer in that bag of bones!" I think you are spot in that this (and something like my aunt's death) should serve as a reminder of a life dedicated to God (see Piper's messages around his dad's death....and another recent post that caused much consternation....).
As a person who holds to the sovereignty of God (Psalm 139, Prov 16, Isa 37, Psalm 65, Matthew 10, Col 1, etc.), a God who isn't all knowing or without plan is scary (to note, I'm sure the feeling the other direction might be mutual). If there is not plan by God, then He is a reactionary God, who essentially lives by the seat of His pants. He doesn't know the end from the beginning, thus, where is all of this really going? I also hold that we don't get to question God (as Christ said to Peter, what is that to you?). So we mourn, we may rhetorically ask "why", but when it comes to God's motives, we are not to question. Doubts, fears, yes. But His plan is perfect. His will is perfect. His reasons are unflinchingly for good. I suppose mostly, knowing something in advance doesn't imply enjoyment in the individual pieces of the plan. God knows when the wicked prosper, the righteous suffer and when seemingly nothing happens in our lives as we go to work, play with the kids, eat dinner and go to bed, then wake up and do exactly the same thing again.
Ferg: Good to hear from you again. I'm glad your visit didn't cause you to stop talking to us :-).
New Comment
Matthew:
You were spot on about how I read your comment. Excellent clarification. I agree and well said. I love the picture you paint of putting real people in the place of my pictures of Job or David, etc. Lewis mentions the mental picture that we often have of "togas and sandals and armour and bare legs". These were real men and women, fearing just as we do.
I am moved by God’s hand protecting this lady, stopping the branch and letting it rest on her [jugular].
Very well said! And I always crack up at the string literal post stuck between aging and child marriage.
Ferg:
I, too, understand the struggle you mention. I wouldn’t say anything different from those a few months ago when this came ‘round back then, so I suppose we disagree at that point (as a reasoning for going against sovereignty....if I understand you correctly, that is). Good to hear from you again.
New Comment
Ep:
For me, sovereignty does not negate the responsibility. You can do all of the things you state. If you did, I could, with all confirmation, state that it was in God’s plan. Any millisecond after right now (in the future), though, is entirely in God’s hand. So to flatly answer you question, no, you cannot avoid the “bullet (or branch) with your name on it”, but neither should you live your life pretending you know which branch is the one for you or pretending there isn’t a branch with your name on it. It’s the consequences of your decision (ordained and fully known from the beginning).
Take a personal example. God called me through a very painful divorce. I learned through that pain. I could have sulked and wallowed in the "why God?" questions (I was blessed to not fall into that trap). But a greater good came out of what, individually, was evil. We sometimes get a glimpse of the sure outworking of God’s plan. It’s beautiful. The danger comes when we demand the view of the outworking of that plan as a right.
New Comment
ep:
Yes, without question for me. He used evil to work for good.
Actually, that’s something that strikes me when I think about it. One of the questions could be why I wasn’t angry about “having” to go through that. Or why, if God hates divorce, did He allow it. The answer is that I don’t know. But one thing I do know. I am glad that God is so longsuffering in patience that I, even I, now call His name.
Read actual comments.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
No Right To Homeschool
http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=5309
This story has me really torn in a way. Ep and BRM are right, that this was born out of a custodial duty dispute (I think fathers too often get a very short end of the court system there, hence the "torn" part), but that is not the reasoning for the decision rendered by the judge. This isn’t a mediation case. The judge alluded that harm was being done in the home due to the child being unlikely to "seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view.". A couple of paper quotes:
The court found Amanda to be "generally likable and well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising, and intellectually at or superior to grade level." Nonetheless, reasoned the court, "it would be remarkable if a ten-year-old child who spends her school time with her mother and the vast majority of her other time with her mother would seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view."
The judge ignored New Hampshire state law, which requires evidence of harm to a child before removing her from the home-school situation, and interposed an arbitrary basis for removal — that the child "appeared to reflect the mother's rigidity on questions of faith," and "would be best served by exposure to different points of view at a time in her life when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief and behavior."
This isn't a decision based in "the father has rights, too" (which, btw is what gives me such great pause when initially reading about this). That would be understood. This is a decision based on a tenet of the judge feeling that the 10-year old needed to be forcibly exposed to other points of view.
Also, as an aside, I understand it to be the court (not chosen by the mother) who appointed the overseer in the home after the father failed in '06 to force the girl into public school.
BTW, a funny line from WSJ: In a state whose motto is "Live Free or Die," this is an extraordinary line of reasoning.
Read actual comments.
Friday, August 28, 2009
McLaren: A Wolf in Wolf’s Clothing
http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=5139
I agree with much of the flowery language hides cutting remarks, though I’m not sure that McLaren often falls into that category. Which, to me, is more of a point that identifying McLaren’s views/beliefs are sometimes more difficult to ascertain than nailing jello to the wall. I agree with Dr. Burk that he is a wolf. Most notably because he is a teacher (woe to you who desire to teach…) and consistently refuses to give a reason for the hope that he has. And continues to see Christ as more of an add-on to your current religion. Or so it would seem. I think there are a great number of things we can learn from how he converses. And I (or we or whatever), as a conservative, should certainly learn from the shortcomings McLaren identifies (the Church often falls too far out of society) in the same manner that David learned from his enemy’s rebuke. That’s the thing, I think that he leads his flock away from Christ as the center and makes me the center or makes other people the center. It seems to show that he puts relationships with others and our own beliefs before God, thus I think he is not preaching biblical Christianity but (I liked the line) syncretistic gobbledy-goop that is no longer recognizably Christian.
I think that, for this specific context, I think Charlie said it best.
And, after saying all of that, Hitler.
New Comment
Lindsey:
You raise, in my mind, two questions. First, what are your thoughts of Mr. McLaren’s observance, essentially, of Ramadan? I know you disagree with one of the commenters here, but the blog itself didn’t state that. Or were you sweeping the author in with your generalization, too?
Second (and this is more of a general question to anyone), is there a difference between the example you cite* versus the Qur’an’s teachings on (violent) Jihad (which seem to be interpretations, not outright statements of killing infidels)? From my very limited knowledge set (stress limited), I would say so, but....?
* - old testament governances on theocratic law (homosexuals condemned to death) and New Testament condemnation (of homosexual sin) but no longer bound by theocratic law
New Comment
Lindsey:
Thanks for the response. Just a point of clarification, the commenter is DennyReader, not the author of the blog that made the comment to which you referred. Dr. Burk would post as Denny Burk, I doubt he broke form here.
WRT the second part, I know that you were referring to the (incorrect) broad sweeping notions that every muslim is a terrorist. My question was more along the lines of the fact that violent Christians (or even violent speaking folks like Phelps) are fringe Christ followers (at best). Christian doctrine promotes peace (but zealous faith to Christ). That’s complicated, though, in that theocratic Israel had capital punishment for adultery, beastiality, homosexuality (and a host of other sins), but people will use those fringe folks to broad-brush all of Christianity. Whereas the Qur’an specifically calls its followers to wage war. Thus moving from a fringe sect to a larger movement (I’ll let Darius and ep sort out those details). My question is whether or not letting 1-in-6 or nearly 1/2 determine your view is different than a fringe (orders of magnitude less) determine your view. I suppose it’s that, while I don’t agree with McLaren that we should help the
And after saying all of that, I have to say that it does seem like there is a much more peace-seeking wave beginning to take root in the muslim community. Unfortuantely, it also seems that the movement seems to be in non-middle-east locations. But I don’t much care for peace. I care for Christ to be preached and His word to be sown. Which is why I am so dismayed when something like this (with McLaren) happens.
New Comment
A commenter (on Wilson's site) named Michael Hutton had a good word:
I do agree that not eating in front of Muslims during Ramadan is respectful, and I would support and encourage those who rub shoulders with Muslims to do so. But as for keeping Ramadan in order to build a bridge, How can you do works for merit in order to help free people from the slavery of working for merit? How can you observe the religion Christ died to set them free from?
Read actual comments.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Too Complementarian?
http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=5007
Sue:
In this dialog, Pastor John was answering a specific question. “Do you think complementarianism is so important to some people that they deny women more opportunities than the Bible denies them?” It wasn’t a defense of biblical complementarianism.
Your emotional response is well noted, I hope, with all complementarians. We should uphold the truth as Piper indicated. However, to shy away from the truth because some may pervert it is foolish. Saying What did Piper do to give back to that woman her lost years is akin to saying what have I given back to [insert people] who were harmed or put into hiding during the Inquisition. Piper stands for the truth, not what that husband did. I would stand for the truth, not justifying violence because someone is not Christian. Taking biblical complementarianism and adding falsehoods to it as the man to whom Piper was referring simply means that we can take any of God’s truth and turn it on its head.
Why is it so important to choose the one thing that is spoken against? Why not champion the areas where Paul speaks clearly about what women can do? It’s our nature to focus on what we don’t get. Why focus on the one tree in the garden from which we cannot eat rather than the entirety of the rest of the garden?
Cheryl:
I would say the command is repeated and reflected. 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Tim 2, 1 Tim 3 (and 5 indicating teaching) and Titus 1. All of which is also reflective of Ephesians 5, Colossians 3 and 1 Peter 3.
Read actual comments.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Keeping the Courts out of the Marriage Debate
http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=4885
I think what Matt S was indicating was that the LGBT who proclaim Christ are calling dark light and evil good. The bible is very clear about this sin. The bible is very clear that we are all rebellious. Meaning I sin and fall short of the glory of God. It is another thing, however, to say that my sin is OK and acceptable in God’s eyes. No one will arrive at judgment without sin, we all stand condemned. What is in question is standing on the word of God or saying that God was a liar when He condemns homosexuality. And, perhaps I should restrain, but Paul said that the Athenians were deeply religious people, too, spiritual, religiosity and Christianity are not one in the same.
As far as the equal rights part, we live in a country where we have a say in the laws. As bible-believing Christians, we’ll continue to fight for biblical commands, but, in the end, we will obey authority in the absence of disobeying God. However, just to quickly address the rights question and reiterate a question asked often, what is the difference between the right of two men (or women) marrying versus three men or three women and one man? In the sliding scale of "equal rights", do you have an eternal measuring stick for those?
Didn’t this conversation
already happen in a way?
New Comment
Wow, Matt. I think that, in order to prevent a straw man argument, I would say that….
- Standing by a biblical condemnation of homosexuality does not mean standing by a continuation of Levitical law (Christ fulfilled the law).
- I can’t speak for anyone else, but I never said anything about not having LGBT people around my family. I also don’t avoid adulterers, the promiscuous, thieves and gossips. I don’t avoid them and I reach out to the lost in my community. I also try not to shy away from fellow believers who revel in their sin.
- I believe in obedience to God’s commands. Just because I have an innate urge, a chromosomal tendency for pornography, for stepping out on my wife, for gossiping, etc., it does not invalidate my command to obedience. Unlike many of my brethren, I don’t discount genetic links (I see them as products of the fall). I don’t believe they hold the water that is desired, though, as a tendency is not an absolute (i.e. those who are blind are those who truly don’t have a choice).
- As far as society goes, any argument made will eventually break down. Society is a fleeting wind that passes and changes with time. The word of the Lord stands forever. The arguments you linked there are mostly emotional. The other are simply rehashes of how to introduce something into the text that’s not actually written.
In the end, I support God’s biblical command. Legally, I’ll support it. When the law diverges, I’ll still obey it provided it doesn’t violate God’s commands.
Just out of curiosity, would you support legalized unions and civil rights with a legal definition of marriage as man and woman?
Read actual comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)