On Church Discipline

I’ve found it helpful recently to put down in words my view of church discipline.  After 15 years in pastoral ministry this continues to be a thorny topic, to think through biblically and carefully.

 

Church discipline is…

 

1. Necessary

The Reformers tended to call church discipline the third mark of church.  If you don’t have it, denominations and churches will “slouch toward Gomorrah,” as Robert Bork put it.  Another apt analogy is that the lack of discipline is like a body with AIDS.  You can’t fight off disease and infection without white blood cells, and you can’t stay faithful, and keep worldliness out of the church, without some exercise of church discipline (1 Cor. 5:6).  Many see the very act of church discipline as antithetical to the Gospel, and cruel and unusual punishment, but done correctly it is an act of love.

 

 

2. … not just ex-communication

Most people think only of the negative side when they think of discipline. 

But there is a positive side.  It happens when –

 - you notice everyone around you at church singing a little more robustly than you tend to, so you sing louder, too

 - you see a father diligent to correct his children when the church is worshiping or fellowshipping, and it convicts you to be more diligent in your own parenting.

 - you hear a church member pray fervently, and it prompts you to deepen your own prayer life.

We vastly underestimate this positive side of discipline!  Discipleship is closely related to discipline.

But formal church discipline refers to leadership barring a member from receiving the Lord's Supper for a time (suspension), or indefinitely (excommunication).  The point is to declare that the member is clearly and egregiously acting as an unbeliever, so the church declares them to be so.  Even if they protest otherwise.

 

 

3. …relationship-rich, ideally

The above positive discipleship aspect of discipline assumes that you are meeting regularly with a group of believers you think you can learn and grow from being a part of.  You have to make yourself known, and seek to know others.  This is awkward, and we’re not very good at it.  Much grace is needed with each other.  The whole world seems to be running the other way, to more isolation.  Even shopping and pursuing hobbies happen online now.  This only began in human history 10-20 years ago, and it is, frankly, weird and dehumanizing.  The church must be a place where we know each other incarnationally.  In person.  Some of us re-learned this during Covid.

The more relationship-rich the context, the easier it is to accept criticism.  Few receive criticism well, and fewer yet know how to deliver it gracefully.  I don't even claim to be one of those.  But if we know and trust each other, we should be able to hear each other's constructive criticisms.

 

One of the greater challenges of church leadership in this area, is what to do with people who stop coming to church.  There’s no more relationship there, which makes conversation, admonition, and discipline harder.  As Christians, one way to honor our church leaders is to make sure that we can give glad submission to their accountability.  If you cannot, for some reason, a conversation is needed.  Very often, people won’t meet with their leaders, because it is just too awkward to sit down and say, “I disagree with you on this or that, so I can’t trust you to discipline me rightly.”  Instead, people often just leave, or make up some other reason why they are going somewhere else.  This is not honest, and it honors your church leaders most, to depart from them for a place where you CAN submit to leadership, and tell them why.  More on this below, under Divisive.

 

 

4.  …repentance-dependent (2 Cor. 7:10-12)

Demonstrated repentance requires a fairly close relationship to discern.  The offender needs to be willing to express it, and act on it.  True and deep repentance will be clear and obvious (2 Cor. 7:10-11).  Sincere but stumbling efforts at repentance are less obviously true, and can look like a counterfeit.  But leaders need to not be too skeptical that repentance is real, based on the egregiousness of the sin, or on the history of the offender.  Give it time.  But don’t keep a member barred from the table for months if they have expressed repentance and you’ve seen some real change, just to “make sure.”  This is the same error as the credo-baptist who won’t baptize the kids until they are 16 or 21, to “make sure.”

 

 

5.  … time-sensitive – patient, but urgent

When a 2-year-old sins, it does little good for mom to say, “Just wait until your father comes home.”  Often Christians who want to be gracious, and not appear strict or harsh, will wait too long to confront someone about a problem, or let the process of discipline drag on too long.  Formal church leadership can do this, too.  “Hey, just giving you a call.  You haven’t been in church for a year.”  Should have asked 9 months ago!

 

On the other side of the spectrum, leadership can act out of indignation or offense, and act too quickly, when it is not necessary to do so.  Patience is critical, but timely responses are, too.  I’ve noticed that negative spiritual choices or developments often happen much more rapidly in a person than church leadership meets to consider them.  If a pastor isn’t staying in touch and on top of things, it quickly gets beyond remedy.  (This is not to say that all spiritual shipwrecks can be avoided if leadership is faithful in working against it.)

 

 

5a.  … sometimes should be immediate

There are times when sin that requires discipline is public and scandalous, and requires immediate action.  Scandalous is a rather vague adjective, so care is needed here.  But if

 - a church leader’s adultery, abuse, or heresy is plain and public, then leadership ought not wait 6 months to work through a 5-step process before taking action to remove him.

 - a member comes out proudly on Facebook, embracing sexual immorality, then rather immediate suspension from the Lord’s Table is warranted (not required – this is a judgment call of leadership), in conjunction with reaching out to the person.  I lean toward waiting for a response from the person, but if the issue is well known, obvious sin, and people are wondering if leadership is fine with it, action is needed.

 

 

6.  … communication-rich

When parents discipline their children, they need to explain why, age-appropriately.  It’s the same for church discipline.  Elders should quickly and clearly communicate to people the concerns they have regarding them, and any steps they are taking.  This should happen at every step of the process, right up to the last.  Give a full description of the sin, with Scripture references, and what it would look like to turn away from it.

 

What often happens instead is that the elders shake their heads together at the benighted member without relaying their concerns adequately to the person.  Or maybe the member fears what the elders are going to do, so the member just bolts for the exit.  If we would stay and talk to each other, we could learn much from each other.  But we often hold back, either because trust has been lost, or because we are afraid of what the response from the other side will be.  I’ve heard this more than once, from church leaders: we didn’t communicate our concern to them, because we feared their response would escalate the situation.  Or from members: we were sure the elders wouldn’t understand or listen.  Elders can wrongly hold back communication in various ways, to avoid a negative response.  Members can wrongly hold back communication in various ways, like not relaying how bad their situation really is.

 

 

7.  … divisive

This one is the most discouraging, in my experience.  When people dispute the discipline their church gives them, it often spills out into the rest of the church.  It’s very easy to believe these days, that leaders have been harsh or abusive!  And maybe they have been.  It’s very important to have multiple leaders in place to check any one leader who might go off the rails.  And we need procedures in place to appeal such things, to deal with that.

Sometimes what comes into play, for members under discipline, is history.  “This is OUR church, and MY church needs to see it my way – to vindicate me, not correct me.  And if the leaders won’t, then I’ll get MY people to side with me.”  This is dangerous, and a divisive man should be warned, then rejected (Titus 3:10).

 

 

8.  ... meant only for high-handed, egregious sin

If my friend goes to a casino to meet a friend for dinner, many strict believers would call that an appearance of evil, or outright sin.  A church should not excommunicate someone for such questionable matters.  If a Session asks a member to do a small thing, and they refuse, excommunication is not the proper response.  Many tight-shoed leaders in my circles emphasize this truth: church discipline is always for contumacy (stubborn refusal) against the leaders.  While that is true, it doesn't mean that any act of contumacy requires discipline, to preserve the authority of the Session.  Nor does any strong disagreement, or personality clash, or personal conflict, or act of refusal to a Session, always rise to a level to warrant discipline.  Many times the best response is to agree to disagree, or to part amicably, instead of having the church declare a person unregenerate and outside of Christ.

9.  … aimed at restoration (Philemon 12; 2 Cor. 2:7)

Discipline in the civil realm is often needed simply to do justice, or to restore what was wrongfully taken.  But if we stop there, in the church, we have lost sight of the bigger goal.  Jesus underwent the discipline of the Father on the cross for a greater purpose: to restore fellowship and reconciliation of us sinners with God.  When true repentance is obvious, affirmation and forgiveness should be quickly extended.

 

So when church leaders need to pursue members in discipline, they do so wisely when they always provide a path back to righteousness (2 Cor. 7:8-9).  Instead of simply rebuking people for their errors, it’s important to show them specifically the right way to go.  Encourage them to take it.  And let them know there will be celebration and rejoicing on behalf of the whole church, if they do so.

 

With no shame or condemnation whatsoever.

 

Bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet. ²³ And bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry; ²⁴ for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ (Luke 15:22-24).

What is a Woman? The Story of Two Films

 The Gospel Coalition recently reviewed two new films in my orbit.

"What is a Woman?" by Matt Walsh (Daily Wire)

"Eve in Exile" by Rebekah Merkle (Canon Press)

While the reviews were overwhelmingly positive, for which I was grateful, the criticisms were revealing, of the differences between TGC and the authors.

They take Walsh to task for calling leftists "idiots."  More empathy is needed for confused trans people, and their advocates.  I generally agree with this, but also know that being pitied for being confused and benighted is as condescending as being called an idiot.  Walsh's compatriot at the Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro, routinely insults and berates people, and it is wearing off on Walsh.  It's effective rhetoric, appealing to frustration and anger on the right, but does little constructive, other than keep you coming back for more - a disturbing trend.

They critique Merkle for only having home-based images of mothers.  This exposes a fault line in conservative circles.  Some like Merkle lean hard against women working outside the home, though their presentation of it I believe is deliberately sophisticated and positive, not hard-edged or cranky.  TGC leans toward having women work outside the home, to validate their gifts, or at least remaining neutral on the subject.

One troubling aspect of this, is that both films are distributed only through the Daily Wire, and Canon Press, respectively.  Everyone is noticing that main outlets are ignoring them.  This not-so-soft cancellation is effective in furthering the balkanizing of our culture.  

People already bought in to Daily Wire and Canon will watch with glee.  

A tiny number of people outside their orbits will somehow see and watch it.  

The vast majority of people will never hear about it.

All of Christ for All of Life - Podcast review

The King’s Hall podcast #7 – Theological Maximalism - a review

 

Brian Sauve & Co. are refreshing in their zeal to build Christian culture.  Here are some thoughts I have after listening to this podcast.

 

Theological (or cultural) maximalism: 

Every part of the Bible should be applied to all of life.  Yes!  We don’t want to check our faith at the door of the office or job site – it applies there, especially.  The Christian faith is far more than exercises of piety in family or church. 

 

Culture is religion externalized

The hosts spend a lot of time distinguishing themselves from Two Kingdom and Natural Law (TKNL) views.  Is there a Christian way to farm, that viewpoint asks, assuming a negative answer?  Sauve says, actually, yes, there is.  I’m in the middle on this debate.  Is an unbeliever competent to farm?  I would say yes, agreeing with the TKNL view.  Does the Christian worldview provide needed guardrails on soil management, and a greater purpose to the enterprise?  Also yes, agreeing with the school of Van Til, which Sauve & Co. are espousing.

 

A masculinist caution

At one point (around 1:10:00) he pooh-poohs devotions with your wife and other piety-minded exercises as less masculine, in contrast to pursuits like economics, work, etc.  I get the point: don’t leave masculine pursuits out of the realm of Christianity, or you alienate men.  True.  But by deriding your quiet time, and praying with your wife, we lean toward the chauvinist trap that men should do masculine things, never anything that hints of the feminine, and leave the domestic and piety things to the women.  Not good.

 

Finally, there is an inherent inconsistency in the ideas put forth in the episode.

They end with a call to link arms in catholicity with any Protestant Christian culture builder.  After taking a lot of time rejecting the view of TKNL, which is a large swath of Protestantism!  Theological Maximalism is true in one sense, but usually has the unfortunate effect of pitting everyone who disagrees with me on anything, as being compromisers of the Gospel.  Beware of teachers who say that except for the 2-4 people who agree with them on everything, every other teacher is probably compromised.  This is often implied, if not outright stated. 

 

What ever happened to CS Lewis’ Mere Christianity?  

Too many today quickly reject that as a reductionistic view of the Gospel.  I don’t deny the reductionism is real and a negative thing.  But focusing on the essentials that unite true believers can have a far healthier and longer lasting effect on the Body of Christ (as Lewis has had) than focusing on the less-essential things that set us apart from each other (post-millennial, not Two Kingdom, etc.).

Conservatives Attacking? // The Trinity // Identifying As...

Chris Rufo nails the need of the hour, in the latest Imprimis.

A thought-provoking read on Trinitarian theology.  Are we getting off track, talking so much about the relationship of the Three Persons, to the detriment of divine simplicity?

Why are kids "self-identifying" so much today?  Tabletalk has a good answer: we're telling them THEY are God.

Swinging from Woke-ism to Kinism

 A brief rebuttal to Bret McAtee’s critique of my Kinism post:

 

1. I’m not sure why CREC “minister” is in scare quotes.  I am a pastor in good standing in the CREC.  Seems snarky, right from the get-go.

 

2.  The book I reviewed is not a sustained argument over 650 pages, but a self-professed “encyclopedia.”  I read all the original arguments from the authors – roughly a dozen pages – and dipped into the quotes.  This took an hour.  I don't see anything wrong with this.

 

3.  Bret equivocates: “Here the man says the book is just common sense.”  Of course, I meant most of the quotes, and the first premise in the introduction, that people ought to care for those closest to them, before those far away.  Bret finds it inconsistent to hold that, and that there are times to favor and help those not of our kind, which does not follow at all.

 

4. Bret makes a distinction.  I said (summarizing the Kinist view): “to favor those not of your kind is impiety.”

Bret corrected me, that “to favor those not of your kind above those who are of your kind is impiety.”

 

This is a distinction without much difference.  When Boaz chose to pursue Rahab over the other Israelite woman gleaners, or David promoted Uriah the Hittite instead of an ambitious ethnic Israelite, David favored “those not of your kind, above those who are of your kind.”  This was obviously okay with the Lord.  Kinists can easily argue that any kind of help or favor shown to others could have been given to their own kind.

 

I assert that there IS “impiety in [Bret’s] statement in bold [above].”  It is not biblical.  The Good Samaritan is the most obvious example.

I mean by this, in part, that it is permissible, both

 - for believers to marry believing spouses of pagan backgrounds, or of other races; and

 - for God’s people to love and help the alien and stranger among them, even when it is a sacrifice of resources that could otherwise go to building up their own family’s (race’s?) estate (Ruth 2:8-19).

 

To be frank, the physical lineage of Jesus Christ (the blood He carries in His veins right now, sitting at the right hand of God) is mixed with Canaanite blood.  God has no problem with that, and neither should we.  God favored those not of His kind, extending mercy to foreigners at great cost to Himself.  Gentiles are brought into the body of Christ as no less than Jews, regardless of their race.

 

 

5.  Next, on segregation and freedom of assembly:

I have no problem with a club for Dutch historians, or Zimbabwean hunters, but to form a club based on skin pigmentation is repugnant to most, and I think rightly so.  Why?  It celebrates a physical trait, instead of a hobby or ethnic heritage.  It indicates a crass racism that society ought not tolerate.  Is there a legal right to freely associate today as “whites-only”?  I don’t think under current law there is, and that’s fine with me.  Questioning the compatibility and wisdom of inter-racial marriages, like that between a Ukrainian and South African, is legitimate.  But ruling out absolutely an inter-racial marriage because it involves people of very different skin pigmentation, is wrong-headed.

 

6. I do not believe it is biblical or wise for a Bible-based institution to allow segregation based on skin color.  No.

 

7. Bret’s responses (and the articles he cites) on Ruth and Rahab are ridiculous.  They were probably Hebrews?  Kinist arguments like this are why I won’t invest (waste) more time studying their arguments.  The text emphasizes in both cases that they were not Israelite, that they were outside of Israel and brought in.  That's the whole point.  It's also the Gospel point of the New Testament inclusion of Gentiles in the church.  See Ephesians 2:11ff again.

 

8. Bret appeals to the Church Fathers, but then quotes two professors from the 70s and from the South.

 

 

I am not a cultural Marxist, as Bret asserts, seeking to force mass amalgamation of races on the populous, because of these views of mine.  That’s crazy.  To be accused of this makes it clear to me the overly binary and blinkered perspective that Kinists have: you either agree with us, or you're a cultural Marxist.  Come on.  

I’d commend Carl Trueman’s work in “Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self,” or "Strange New World," in which he satisfyingly critiques and destroys cultural Marxism.

 

 

There are a whole lot of zealous, anti-CRT/SJW warriors out there right now in my circles.

[CoughFightLaughFeastCough]

A lot of zeal to crush woke-ness.  I agree with the goal.

But they are tending to believe as true anything that is the total opposite of that error.  (Example: “if Stalin or cultural Marxism wanted to mix races, then we must keep them distinct.”  Neither is a biblical priority.)

Don’t swing from woke-ism to Kinism.

 

Error is seldom diametrically opposite to the truth, but usually a half-lie, mixed in with truth.

 

Such is the case with Kinism.

How to Be Christian in This Roe v Wade Moment

Doug Wilson really nails it here, on Roe v. Wade:

Highlights (there's a lot more - read the whole thing!):

1. Brush up on your pro-life arguments.  Angry questions are coming.

2. His advice on how to vote is exactly mine:

"In [a] primary, vote against anyone who is a RINO, or who might be a RINO, or who is friends with someone who used to be a RINO. In the general election, vote for the candidate most likely to displace a Democrat—even if that candidate is a RINO."

Is This Life an Appetizer?

For about 15 years now, I’ve had one foot in the a-millennial world I grew up in, and another foot in the post-millennial camp, a la Douglas Wilson.

 

I just read an article in Tabletalk (decidedly a-mil) describing this present earthly life as an appetizer to the main meal of heaven.  It invokes Calvin, and Psalm 102:3, 11, to assert that “this life is but smoke and shadow.”

 

[An aside: Psalm 102 speaks of life as fleeting.  It is a false inference to assert from this, that earthly life is less real or important, as the Gnostic impulse does.]

 

It occurred to me as I read this, that this whole debate simply regurgitates the competing priorities of Plato and Aristotle.

Is heaven more real, and this earth is shadows of heaven? (Plato/A-mil)

Or is the earth foundationally real, and to be focused upon? (Aristotle/Post-mil)

 

When I enjoy a tasty meal, do I need to downplay it (Platonic, a-mil style) by remembering that heaven’s delights will be greater?

Or do I need to say (Aristotelian, post-mil style), that due to the resurrection of the body, we know that this IS what the blessing of the new earth will be like?

 

Can’t I claim both?  The blessings of the new heaven and earth will be greater.

But that doesn’t lessen the earthly blessings that God gives us.

 

The article gets one thing right, as CS Lewis wrote about:

This world whets our appetite for something more to come.

 

That shouldn’t lead us to denigrate earthly joys.

But neither should we measure blessings to come completely by them.

 

Lewis also said that if we focus on earth, we will miss heaven.  But if we focus on heaven, we’ll get earth thrown in with the deal.

Post-mils seem to want to focus on earth, and never mind heaven.

A-mils seems to want to focus on heaven, and never mind earth.

 

It reminds me of Chesterton: if you look at the sun and the moon, I suppose some fool will talk about which is better.

I don't doubt the blessings of heaven will surpass those here on earth.

But neither will earthly blessings pass away, nor be spurned in the Regeneration.

How to Esteem Baptism

Today eight brothers and sisters of ours in Christ will be baptized.

The church often struggles to give baptism its due weight.  I would like to offer two ways you can remember your baptism.

First, we're getting back in the practice of giving out certificates of baptism.  The Kirkpatricks get one today, and if you or your child were baptized recently, you'll get one soon.  In one sense, it's just a piece of paper.  It isn't an indulgence or anything silly like that.  The baptism is the real thing, and your living relationship with Christ.  True, but that's like saying a wedding ring is just a chunk of metal.  The ring won't save your marriage, but it does remind you of it.  So I'd encourage you to cherish the memory and proof of your baptism: keep it with your birth certificates and other legal documents.  Or frame it on the bedroom wall to see every day.

Second, make the date important, like we do for birthdays.  Almost no one knows the date of their baptism, but everyone knows their birthday.  Put it on your calendars.  When it comes around, have a special treat at dinner and tell your children: "this is the day that your mother was baptized."  It's a great time to tell them about how you came to the Lord, the church you were raised or baptized in.  Instill a sense of family and church heritage in this way.  Kids, there was a group of believers like this one that baptized your parents 15 or 30 or 50 years ago.  This is a way to give God thanks for the faith of our fathers.

Doing these things doesn't mean we are trusting our baptism or our heritage to save us - we shouldn't do that.  But we should celebrate God washing us clean, bringing us into His church, as much as we celebrate God bringing us into the world at our birth.  Because the church IS the new world, the new creation, chartered by the Word, constituted by baptismal water, and by bread and wine.

TGC Discusses Wokeness

This kind of debate sponsored by the Gospel Coalition, is why that organization is dying or dead.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/video/good-faith-debate-woke-church/

0-13.50 opening statement by DeMars is pretty good, especially the end.

13.50-24.00 - McLaughlin's opening statement

McLaughlin's response is an aggressive advocacy of wokeness.

Platforms like the Gospel Coalition should be critiquing wokeness, not giving it a platform.  I don't mean we should set up a straw man or be unfair to the woke position in any way.  

But she defines woke as being aware of the history of racial injustice.  This is false.  Wokeness also entails a specific response to that history, primarily one of reverse discrimination and of identity politics.

She redefines theological compromise to mean racism, instead of what wokeness truly is: wrongly imputing guilt to whites simply for being white descendants of an oppressing class.  She seems very comfortable with imputing such guilt.  This is a core disagreement.

She calls us to repent and believe.  But repent of what, and believe in what?

Inherent to progressive wokeness is gaslighting.  "We aren't advocating what you think we're advocating."  Even as they obviously do so.  I don't know if McLaughlin is doing this.  She is probably just too dismissive of what the progressive movement advocates, when she distinguishes an awareness of the sin of racism from a biblical affirmation forbidding homosexual behavior.  I appreciated that distinction.  But it's unhelpful to dismiss the actual theological compromise happening in the church, advocating sexual perversion in the name of non-discrimination.

One highlight at 49:30-50:00 is the valid criticism of conservatives that they write off anyone as woke who even mentions race.

Another is at 20:45-21:30 where McLaughlin says she herself is same sex attracted, but accepts the Bible's prohibition of homosexual behavior.

But in general, this debate continues the unhelpful dynamic of talking past each other:

 - Woke liberals blame conservatives for denying or dismissing the past sin of racism.

 - Conservatives blame anyone in the church who brings up racism for advocating the whole progressive, BLM, Marxist agenda.

Why can't we simply say

 - yes, racism is a fact of history, which we should repudiate

 - we don't have to beat ourselves up today for what our ancestors did

 - racial discrimination is not the same as upholding biblical sexual ethics

The reason we cannot simply say these things, is because there is an agenda at work to deny biblical sexual ethics in the church, using the history of racial discrimination to do so.

The Gospel Coalition gives this agenda credibility in how they treat this fraught topic.

Move to Moscow? // Mainline Decline // To Change the World...

I only just now discovered Christ Church of Moscow's letter to anyone thinking of moving there.  It's quite good, and dispels some misconceptions about the church.

Kevin DeYoung has good thoughts on the decline of the mainline Protestant church in the last few decades.

Jeff Meyers has important cautions for Christians who want to change the world.  "We want to spin out grand theories about why things are going wrong and what needs to be changed, and we want to inspire others to action for the sake of the kingdom. . . but then we ourselves will ignore the more common, ordinary acts of charity and obedience..."

Mother Kirk Serving up Christ

Proverbs 9:1-6 - Wisdom has built her house; she has hewn her seven pillars.  She has slaughtered her beasts; she has mixed her wine; she has also set her table.  She has sent out her young women to call from the highest places in the town, “Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!”  To him who lacks sense she says, “Come, eat of my bread and drink of the wine I have mixed. Leave your simple ways, and live, and walk in the way of insight.”

One of the things about Mothers is that they set tables.  The church is a mother of sorts, designed to feed God’s children with His bread and wine, to call out in the streets for the simple to enter God’s house and find wisdom.

Now, moms aren’t perfect, and neither is the church.  On a Tuesday noon, you might find mom whipping out the plates, slapping the PBJ on the bread hurriedly, being a little short with the kids.  But we are called to honor her as best we can.  Is she giving you nutrition and not poison?  Then stay and eat what you are served.  We can have very particular palates when it comes to our theological taste on the menu at church, and mom might serve something else.  Jesus sees to it at this Table, that whatever the faults of the server or the receiver, it is He Himself that you receive.  So do not shrink back.

5/8/22

The Sins of the Mothers

Deut 5:16 - "Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God commanded you, that your days may be long, and that it may go well with you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you."

Today is Mother’s Day, and a happy Mother’s Day to all the moms out there.  Three things:

1. Scripture tells us straight up to honor our mothers.  Our culture parades before us ungrateful children who blame all their problems on their parents.  There is a better way, even if your parents were monsters.  Jim Wilson on Bitterness.  Relationship with Parents.  So confess any resentment or bitterness that arises when you think of your parents.  Some of us struggle mightily with this.

2. “That your days may be long, and that it may go well with you.”  This reminds me of a favorite line of mine from an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie: "come with me, if you want to live."  Honor your parents, if you want to live!  There is a definite connection between a long, happy life, and a good relationship with your parents.  As Romans says, “as far as it depends on you, live at peace with all men.”  This includes our parents.

3. And to be a faithful pastor, I need to say, mothers sin in particular ways, too.

• Impatience with children who are slow to learn.
• Resentment with ungrateful family, that take her for granted.
• Giving up on responsibilities halfway through raising children, and just coasting.
• Giving in to discouragement and despair.

There are more, but I’m already on thin ice!

 

This is a day to commend mothers, and we should.  Let us also renew our commitment to God’s intent for moms, and reorient our lives accordingly.

5/8/22

Communicate!

Through several experiences of counseling, and Facebook arguments in the last month or three, it's come to my attention:

Texting and messaging (T&M) is a REALLY bad way to carry on a meaningful relationship.  Let me explain.

T&M emphasizes your say, and de-emphasizes what the other person is saying.

 - you can read much quicker than you can text.  So you tend to give much less time and attention to what the other person is saying.

 - you have time to think through what you are going to say - go back and delete/edit.  So you tend to give much MORE time and attention to what YOU are saying.

 - you can say/text what you want at any time, regardless of what the other person is doing.  WE GET USED TO THIS, and take it into our in-person conversations.  I say what I want, when I want, instead of deferring to the other person.

This is a bad rodeo.  In-person conversation forces you to listen more to the other person.

Not interrupt impatiently.

Not prioritize what you want to say.

T&M is great for quick, low-resolution relaying of basic information.  

But if you need to 

 - forge a friendship, or a marriage with your spouse, or 

 - work through a disagreement, or 

 - shape your worldview with a mentor, 

then set up a time to meet and talk in person.

Woke War on the West // Jesus Confronts Our Long-Term Mistakes // Hospitality

Jordan Peterson recently interviewed Douglas Murray, on the release of his new book, The War on the West.  This was the best articulation of a not-quite Christian cultural conservatism I've heard in a LONG time.  Murray may be the next Bill Buckley.  Peterson tends to interrupt and talk more than his guest on these podcasts, but not this time!  Murray steals the show.  [I couldn't find an online link.  It is dated April 25 and is on the podcast.]

This sermon by Douglas Wilson on Palm Sunday is excellent.  Sadly, he is too friendly to the zealots, who he never mentions by name, probably because he and his audience are becoming increasingly zealot-like in their outlook.  Jesus refuted the Zealots, He didn't encourage them in any way.  Besides that, Wilson's survey of the history of the time and how it relates to us is dynamite.

Toby Sumpter has a short exhortation to hospitality in the church that is much needed in our post-Covid moment.  Get over your germophobia, or clinging to your personal time and space, and share your home and table with others.  As another online friend has said well, the best way to prepare for any looming cultural crisis is to build high-trust communities NOW.

"Worry is not believing God will get it right, and bitterness is believing God got it wrong" - Tim Keller

Grace // News Critique // Grove City

Alistair Begg's sermon on grace here is very well done, and an important heart-of-the-gospel message for all Christian believers.

Pair it with this message from Doug Wilson on grace having a backbone, leading to sweat.

Carl Trueman and Todd at Mortification of Spin interviewed Megan Basham a bit ago.

 

Grove City's report on recent woke controversies there are now public here.  I found the report transparent and encouraging.  I'm still okay with my kids going there, and a little frustrated with the cancel culture on the right, that shuns teachers or institutions on a hair-trigger.