Thank You, God, That I Am Not Like Other Men
Comparison can only become an ally when we use it to compare ourselves to the right standard and if we do so for the right reason. It can only become an ally when we compare ourselves to Jesus out of a longing to be more like him. The way to grow in holiness is not to compare ourselves to other people, but to compare ourselves to the Savior.
Comparison comes as naturally to us as eating, breathing, laughing, weeping. From our youngest days we begin to compare ourselves to others and quickly find the old adage to be true: Comparison is the enemy of joy. Though we so readily compare ourselves with others, we discover that this fosters a deep unhappiness. What promises joy actually delivers misery.
The reason is that comparison is intrinsically competitive, so that we don’t really want to be merely pretty, but prettier than the other person; we don’t really want to be merely wealthy, but wealthier than he is; we don’t really want to be merely successful, but more successful than the other person. No follower count is high enough until it is higher than hers, no church big enough until it is bigger than his. If we fail to get the things our hearts desire we grow in envy, but if we do get them we grow in pride. Our comparison is never rewarded with contentment.
Even in our Christian lives we can be prone to comparison. We can judge ourselves righteous by comparing ourselves to others’ depravity, we can judge ourselves faithful by comparing ourselves to others’ sinfulness, we can judge ourselves committed by comparing ourselves to others’ apathy. We can become like the Pharisee Jesus introduced in a parable—the one who went to the temple to pray and said, “I thank you, God, that I am not like other men”—especially like that traitorous tax collector who stood nearby.
You Might also like
-
“Presbyleaks” From a Business Analysis Perspective
From a BA perspective, if the NP asked about how to go forward, I would advise it to publish a purpose and mission statement compatible with PCA officer vows, accept all such within the PCA who desire to participate in order to grow in their understanding of PCA polity and practices, and do away with confidentiality as its functional methodology. All of this would be workable, however, only after a public apology and due repentance for the way the group has conducted itself essentially as a denomination within the denomination over the past several years.
In my day job I function in the role of a business analyst much of the time. Business analysis (BA) involves helping the business enable change by defining needs and recommending solutions that deliver value to its stakeholders. We employ many tools and techniques to make that happen, and we will frequently discover misalignment when examining stated goals and objectives and comparing them to actual practices.
I’d like to put on my BA hat to consider the so-called “Presbyleaks” (the release of the National Partnership documents) which occurred last year. Of particular interest is the characterization of the National Partnership (NP) by TE Kessler as quoted in the article by Travis Scott last November, The Big Leak, Part 1: [1]
This group exists as a way to resource one another. We want you to feel prepared for the Assembly and engaged in its work on the Presbytery level. This group does not tell you how to vote. Even if I/we make recommendations please remember that we are grateful for diversity. We are looking for unity, not uniformity. Being a part of the National Partnership means that you are committing to participation in the business of our denomination. We will be about the logistics of denominational health; we aren’t a visioning committee. The NP also creates a place to have a conversation in confidence; nothing here is reproduced and blogged or whatever. Our discussion boards are places to stretch and reason together. Please feel free to use them.
“I have said it before and I’ll say it again: the intent of confidentiality was always to protect those of you who felt you could not be as forthcoming in larger groups. I’ve always wanted the NP to be a place where you can seek advice with confidence that your questions weren’t being used to fuel blog posts. The lack of confidentiality makes no difference in what I share with you. Emails will say pretty much what they would have said.”
In the above we find the purpose, responsibility, and methodology of membership within the NP according to TE Kessler:Purpose: To resource one another, to prepare its members for effectiveness within their presbyteries and at GA. Being part of the NP necessitates participation in the business of the denomination, but the NP doesn’t exist to function as a voting bloc.
Responsibility: Participation in the “business” of the denomination, for its “health”.
Methodology: Confidentiality in order to maintain a safe space that facilitates frankness and free expression would otherwise be precluded in open groups, where men may “stretch and reason together”.Upon closer examination, we find several inherent contradictions in each of these, as well as conflicts with the proscribed practices and polity of the PCA (another task of BA: document analysis, the BCO in this case).
Let’s consider first the stated purpose. The emails reveal much organization and coordination for votes on overtures at GA, nominations for committees, and activities within Presbyteries[2]. Travis Scott even concedes the political nature of the activities of the NP in his article. So the stated purpose and the actual activity of the NP are misaligned, which raises the question of the accuracy of the stated purpose.
Training videos, seminars, and articles in public forums open to all interested parties would function as much better tools to equip individuals to serve effectively in the denomination rather than secret societies of email groups on a rather broad scale. The chosen method of selective “resourcing” betrays a suspicion and lack of trust, which precludes making such endeavors open for all: only the right people are to be resourced.
Second, consider the stated responsibility of each member in the NP: participation in the business of the denomination, for its health. The truth is that every officer in the PCA must vow to perform all the duties of his office, which includes participation in its courts. Qualifications for church office include familiarity and acceptance of PCA polity (BCO 21-4 & 21-5 for teaching elders (TEs), 24-6 for ruling elders (REs)). So any officer who engages in a secret society or group for the supposed purpose of doing the “business” of the church fails to understand the very nature of Presbyterian polity, and tacitly breaks his vows for ordination. The ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the PCA is explicitly stated to be a joint rather than a several power (BCO 1-5), and secret groups by their very nature constitute a breach of the PCA form of government.
Third, consider the stated methodology: confidentiality. The need for confidentiality usually arises when there are sensitive topics to be considered. We commonly see this in business settings where corporate concerns are meant to be kept from the competition, or where personal HR matters are discussed. In the case of the NP, however, the premise for confidentiality is for the sake of personal growth and development, where its members may “stretch and reason together” without having to worry about being taken out of context and without having to deal with slander by outsiders (whether inside the church or not). But in light of the purported purpose and responsibility of NP members, how is it possible that REs and TEs in particular are afraid to own the truth of their convictions?
It seems incredulous that men who, in the case of TEs, have completed college and seminary, been examined by presbytery prior to being ordained and installed as church officers, men who regularly teach and preach the truth, giving correction to those who err (a requirement for the office), how is it that they of all people need a safe space to share what they really believe and think in order to “stretch and reason together”?
In my day job as a business analyst one of the ground rules we often employ in group meetings is called “stand your ground.” This ground rule sets the expectation that participants in the meeting will own their ideas and share them in the meeting to improve productivity, as opposed to leaving the meeting and telling everyone afterwards that it was a total waste of time. The courts of the church are supposed to be the space of deliberation and discussion, where men own their ideas and the church as a whole votes on them. Men serving as TEs and REs must not be shrinking violets who are afraid to stand for the truth as they understand it for fear of opposition. Nor should they be too proud to be open to instruction, even publicly. Our Lord has a word or two to say about those who are ashamed of Him and His words in this present age (Luke 9:26).
What’s more, confidentiality and large numbers tend to be mutually exclusive, and practically a fool’s errand. The more individuals who are in on a secret, the more likely it is to be leaked. As cited above, TE Kessler has stated that any lack of confidentiality would make no difference in what was shared in the emails. If that is the case, why the need for an exclusive email group in the first place, apart from fear of being challenged or ridiculed? The truth will stand up to scrutiny, whereas error and subterfuge will not.
So from a BA perspective, if the NP asked about how to go forward, I would advise it to publish a purpose and mission statement compatible with PCA officer vows, accept all such within the PCA who desire to participate in order to grow in their understanding of PCA polity and practices, and do away with confidentiality as its functional methodology. All of this would be workable, however, only after a public apology and due repentance for the way the group has conducted itself essentially as a denomination within the denomination over the past several years.
Nathan Bowers is a member of First Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Ft. Oglethorpe, Ga.
[1] Travis Scott, The Big Leak, Pt. 1, https://www.semperref.org/articles/the-big-leak-pt-1?fbclid=IwAR2ymcY18V8sn1A64M8u6e0RN6G5ix9PAAWajpWPr2YADqqrQbFZMqh0vvI accessed Jan. 22, 2022.
[2] Al Taglieri, National Partnership Called to Repentance, https://theaquilareport.com/national-partnership-called-to-repentance/, accessed Jan. 22, 2022. -
Tell the PCA’s Magazine to Issue a Retraction
As fallible humans we all sometimes succumb to haste, emotion, and the influence of others, especially the media, whose sole occupation lies in seeking to get us to believe its narratives and to think and act along its preferred lines. Add in the rigors and tedium of pastoral and publishing work and mistakes are apt to happen sometimes, even large ones. In such cases a little public or private contradiction that seeks to set one right is justified, provided it is moved by charity and expressed courteously.
On April 24th, byFaith, the official magazine of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), published an article titled “Prayer and Work in the Face of Violence,” in which it was claimed that “gun violence” is “the leading cause of death among children in this nation.” I published an article showing that was false on the basis of mortality statistics provided by the CDC (available here). Others also took umbrage to the April 24th article, and I dispatched a personal message to byFaith requesting a removal of the article and a full retraction. That has not occurred, and as of May 24th the article is still available at byFaith, unamended and unaccompanied by any editorial clarifications.
Mistaken claims are rather common in the world of the published word. The careful observer will note, for instance, that I misnamed David Cassidy’s church in the first sentence of my first Aquila Report article, accidentally referring to it as Spanish River Presbyterian rather than Spanish River Church due to an editing error. Are Dominic Aquila and I to then be regarded as wholly unreliable in our claims? Hardly. But the answer in all such cases is to correct the mistake when it is brought to one’s attention and to be more careful in future, hence why I have mentioned my fault here and why I have checked with a former professional proofreader to ensure my pronoun usage is correct in the phrase above about the proprietor of this site and me. (And in fairness, I reversed them the first time around.)
It is a rather more serious fault, however, to make a claim as large and consequential as that gun violence is the leading cause of death of children in this nation when it is easily verified that it is not. And it is significant as well that this claim seems to be that of a certain political faction in our nation, as evidenced by the fact that I passed by a waiting room the other day and found a pair of activists making the claim verbatim on a major news outlet. The PCA’s magazine should not be parroting the false claims of the political left. Nor should it be repeating the claims of any other political faction, unless they involve questions in which the church has a vital interest or unambiguous questions of public morality, such as matters of liberty of conscience, the free exercise of our faith, abortion, euthanasia, and the like; and even in those questions I think the church’s involvement should be as an independent witness of right and wrong, and that she should never allow herself to become a de facto organ of any political party.
But even granting that it is a more serious offense, we need not assume the worst as to its reasons. As fallible humans we all sometimes succumb to haste, emotion, and the influence of others, especially the media, whose sole occupation lies in seeking to get us to believe its narratives and to think and act along its preferred lines. Add in the rigors and tedium of pastoral and publishing work and mistakes are apt to happen sometimes, even large ones. In such cases a little public or private contradiction that seeks to set one right is justified, provided it is moved by charity and expressed courteously.
What I am suggesting, then, is that we provide a collective remonstrance against byFaith’s error of fact. If you are reading this and are a member of the PCA I ask you, dear reader, to take a moment to drop byFaith a line here or via email at [email protected], and to tell them that you are disappointed that the public news outlet of our church has done poorly by its departure from its proper mission, and that it needs to retract its errors by removing the source of offense in question and offering a public acknowledgment and correction of its published errors of fact. The reason I suggest this is simple: byFaith is an official agency of the PCA, paid for by her funds and subordinate to her government. Our magazine should not be publishing false claims which venture into the territory of the purely political and have no direct relation to the church or her duties of disciple making.
I believe, moreover, that any PCA member should be able to do this in good conscience, regardless of his or her beliefs about criminal justice policy. For while we may differ as to our beliefs about civil or political questions, yet the proper focus of the church is a matter which we should all respect, and upon which we should all insist. Christ’s “kingdom is not of this world” (Jn. 18:36), and when the people of Israel were about to make him king he withdrew from them (Jn. 6:15), lest their mistaken popular enthusiasm should distract from his true mission of redeeming his elect. The PCA (including her agencies like byFaith), being a manifestation of Christ’s body, the church, ought to take heed and beware lest in her concern with the things of this life she diverts people’s attention from things above (Col. 3:1-2; comp. Matt. 16:23).
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Five Forks (Simpsonville), SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name.
Related Posts: -
10 Attributes of God Viewed through the Lens of Truth
Written by Vern S. Poythress |
Wednesday, August 3, 2022
Each attribute describes the whole of God, not just a part of him. If so, it also describes every other attribute, because all the attributes belong to who God is. Truth is one attribute of God. So in this attribute it ought to be possible to see the other attributes, all of which belong to truth.Who God Is
Let’s explore how various attributes of God are displayed in his truthfulness. “Attributes” of God are terms describing who he is. He is eternal, infinite, transcendent, good, loving, and so on. When we consider God’s truthfulness, we can see that it goes together with many other attributes. His attributes are on display in his truthfulness.
There is an underlying general principle here, related to simplicity. As we have seen, divine simplicity means that God cannot be divided up. Subordinately, it implies that his attributes cannot be divided up, so that we could place distinct attributes into neatly separated bins. We cannot cut out one attribute at a time, and consider it in isolation from everything else that God is. In fact, each attribute describes the whole of God, not just a part of him. If so, it also describes every other attribute, because all the attributes belong to who God is.
Truth is one attribute of God. So in this attribute it ought to be possible to see the other attributes, all of which belong to truth.
1. Simplicity
Let us begin with simplicity. Each attribute corresponds to some truth about God. It is true that God is omnipresent (everywhere present). It is true that God is eternal. It is true that God is unchangeable. Each of these truths is in the environment of the others. We cannot have one without the others. If by attributes we mean permanent features of God’s character, they all belong together, because they all belong to the one God. This inherent “belonging together” is another way of describing simplicity. It is equivalent to saying that God is simple. Or, because we are using the attribute of truth, we may say that truth is simple. That does not mean that there is only one formulation of truth. But it does mean that all the formulations belong together, each formulation having the attributes of God and belonging to the unity that is in God.
We may see one effect of this unity if we reflect on the fact that no truth can be thought about or discussed in total isolation from everything else. For example, for it to be meaningful to say, “God is omnipresent,” we have to have a sense of what it means to be present. And within the created world, his presence is a presence everywhere in space.
2. Omniscience
The next attribute is omniscience. God knows all things. We have said that God is truth. So he is all truths together. Since he is personal, he knows himself, and knows all truths. For example, he knew everything about David while David was still in the womb: “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb” (Ps. 139:13). He knows the words that we will speak before we speak them: “Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O Lord, you know it altogether” (v. 4).
3. Absoluteness
God is absolute. By this we mean that he is not dependent on anything outside himself. This attribute is closely related to simplicity. There is nothing in back of God on which he might be dependent. We can confirm this attribute if we think about the way in which we experience contact with the truth.
We are dependent on the truth. It makes an absolute claim on us. We might think that at least some truths are dependent on the world. Consider a particular case: Oak trees, like other trees, reproduce according to their kind (Gen. 1:11–12). That is a truth about oak trees. Naively, it might appear that this truth depends on the prior fact that oak trees exist in the world. So is this truth dependent on the world? To be sure, it is a truth about the world. And we as human beings do come to know about it because of God’s word in Genesis 1:11–12 and also because there are oak trees that we can observe. But what is the origin of the truth? The origin is in God, not in the world.
In thinking about the eternity of truth, truth exists even before the world existed. God had a plan (Isa. 46:9–10; Eph. 1:11) for the world. In his plan, he knew beforehand everything that would take place. So he also knew all truths. The truths about oak trees precede the oak trees. The oak trees are dependent on the truths, rather than the reverse.
Read More
Related Posts: