We must believe that forgiveness is possible.  Habitual porn use brings guilt and shame—and to some extent it should—but that should drive us to Christ not away from Him.[14]  We already saw that Judah forgot Tamar’s humanity much like all men do when they view porn. But when his sin was revealed, his repentance was immediate and comprehensive. He literally turned his life around after that. Let that be an encouragement for everyone struggling with porn: forgiveness is possible.

Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
-1 Corinthians 6:18-20, ESV
Recently, we discussed the household gods of the “yard sign creed”, but there is a much more prevalent idol: sex. Our culture views unrestrained sexual indulgence as a right, necessity, and even virtue—and worshiping this idol has upended much that God created as good.  It has become so central that “sexual orientation” is more important for many people’s identity than being made in God’s image as male or female.  God designed marriage as beautiful, but it restrains sex so society regards it as ugly and obsolete.  Scripture repeatedly emphasizes the necessity and blessing of children, but society sees them as worthless and unfortunate byproducts of sex—and discards them accordingly.  Despite the tear-inducing stories of desperation often told by those who scream “my body, my choice”, the vast majority of babies murdered in the womb are slaughtered because their parents want sex without consequences.  But there is a much more prevalent form of this idolatry that has so thoroughly infected most churches that the majority of men and even many women at least sometimes indulge in it: pornography.  What was once hidden behind the counter or restricted to seedy stores is now accessible anywhere at any time on any device, even popping up unsolicited.  Many have simply accepted it, denying or downplaying its destructive effects on individuals, marriages, families, churches, and society.  Others recognize the dangers but only shame those who struggle without offering any help to fight it. We need to get serious about fighting against this great evil, which is our topic this time.  Next time, we will see how that seriousness drives a strategy to achieve victory.
The Big Problem with Porn
We must address pornography because the sheer scale of the problem is destroying our churches.  One study found that 68% of churchgoing men and over 50% of pastors regularly view porn.  As a result, 69% of pastors say porn adversely impacts their churches and 57% say porn addiction is the most damaging issue for their congregations.  A major reason porn is so common is that many people view it as harmless or even beneficial.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Porn is very harmful in part because it is very addictive, making it just as destructive in the life of an addict as any drug or alcohol.  Contrary to popular belief, porn is also emasculating: “Porn and masturbation in tandem are a great engine of our modern plague of effeminacy in men. And this happens while the man concerned is being lied to—the porn makes him feel like he is running a surplus of testosterone”.[1]  Porn also gives men wildly unrealistic expectations by portraying women as acting like men and being just as desirous of sex as men, so it is detrimental to married men in their own marriages and single men in preparing for marriage.[2]  Pornography like any other sexual sin is a sin against a man’s own body (1 Corinthians 6:18).  It is also a sin against its victims: the women it objectifies for the pleasure of strangers.  We have previously seen how it is hateful to identify anyone as anything other than a person made in the image of God, but porn reduces God’s image bearers to mere bodies existing solely for pleasure just as Judah sinfully viewed Tamar.  When a man watches porn, he is summoning a woman to be dehumanized, denigrated, and abused in his presence for his viewing pleasure.  Can there be a greater insult to her or her Maker?  So when a man views porn, he is sinning against God, himself, and the woman whose body he is coveting.
But he is sinning against someone else who is often forgotten: his wife.  God created sex among other purposes to be immensely pleasureful for a husband and wife within the confines of marriage.  Not long after exhorting the Corinthian men to cease the common practice of visiting temple prostitutes because that was sin against their own bodies and against Christ (much like porn today), Paul says this: “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (1 Corinthians 7:1-2).  Paul is echoing the wisdom of Solomon.  Proverbs 5-7 warns of the dangers of pursuing the adulteress (literally “foreign” or “strange” woman) and exhorts the young man to instead be content with his own wife:
My son, be attentive to my wisdom; incline your ear to my understanding, that you may keep discretion, and your lips may guard knowledge. For the lips of a forbidden woman drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil, but in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword. Her feet go down to death; her steps follow the path to Sheol….Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love. Why should you be intoxicated, my son, with a forbidden woman and embrace the bosom of an adulteress?
-Proverbs 5:1-4,18-20, ESV
The contrast couldn’t be any clearer.  One of the main reasons people struggle so much when fighting sin in general and pornography in particular is that they focus on stopping the sin but fail to replace it with righteousness (Ephesians 4:22-23). When we only flee the sin, we leave a void that sin can readily enter.  Therefore, we must also redirect our energies toward the opposite righteousness.  In this case, fighting lust (and the porn we use to feed it) requires not only “bouncing the eyes”, installing blockers and accountability software, or other mere “put off” techniques.
Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

You cannot worship both God and false gods.  Joshua is clear that choosing to serve false gods means you have determined that it is evil to serve God (Joshua 24:15).  Serving no god is not an option, so there really is no such thing as an atheist.  Everyone worships, whether the true God, idols, the ideas they represent, or self (Romans 1:18ff).  Worship of idols is incompatible with worship of God, which Joshua makes clear by giving the same reason God gave in the second commandment: God’s jealousy (Joshua 24:19 cf. Exodus 20:5).  

Now therefore fear the LORD and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD….You are not able to serve the LORD, for he is a holy God. He is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions or your sins. If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, then he will turn and do you harm and consume you, after having done you good.
-Joshua 24:14-15,19-20, ESV
Last time, we looked at Israel’s tumultuous beginning culminating in Judah’s Adam-like failure when tempted and Joseph’s Christlike success when tempted.  After the conquest of Canaan five centuries later, Joshua tells them to choose whether they will serve God or idols.  Joshua said that he and his house would serve God, so he was exhorting Israel as families not individuals.  Worship, whether of God or idols, begins at home…and there are many American “Christian” households that have chosen the wrong gods.
It Begins at Home
God builds His Kingdom primarily through families and has always dealt with His people as families.  His covenants are corporate, made with households rather than individuals.  Even the tribes of Israel were essentially households of households.  The ultimate blessing of the Abrahamic covenant was that all of the families of the world would be blessed through him (Genesis 12:3, 28:14).  The family, not the church, has always been the center of worship.  The Westminster Divines understood this and devoted an entire document to family worship, but many churches today do not.
It is unsurprising then that Scripture’s first reference to false gods comes in the context of a family: when Jacob fled Laban, Rachel stole the household gods (Genesis 31:19) and hid them from him by sitting on them (Genesis 31:34-35).  Her claim that she was menstruating at the time would have caused Jewish readers to see that Rachel was essentially defiling the idols.  Thus begins a theme found throughout Scripture: mockery of idols and their worshippers.  We should laugh at how these idols were powerless to avoid being stolen, sat on, and defiled.  We see the same with the plagues of Exodus targeting specific Egyptian deities.  We see it when the idol of Dagon fell prostrate before the Ark of the Covenant (1 Samuel 5:3-4).  We see it when Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal at Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:26-29) and when the ruins of Baal’s temple were used as a latrine (2 Kings 10:27).  And we see it when Jesus picked a longstanding hotbed of idolatry and demonic activity to proclaim: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).  Through His life, death, resurrection, and ascension, “He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him” (Colossians 2:15). Isaiah illustrates the absurdity of idol worship by describing a man cutting a log in half, burning half in the fire, and carving the other half into an idol (Isaiah 44:10-17).  Jeremiah calls them “stupid and foolish” (Jeremiah 17:8).  The psalms are equally harsh: “Those who make them become like them; so do all who trust in them” (Psalm 115:8 cf. 135:18).  Scripture is clear that false gods are powerless, so it is absurd to worship them. This means that a man who leads his family to worship idols is a fool who makes his family into fools as well.  As goes the man, so goes the family. While Elkanah’s home was tumultuous, he led his family in the true worship of God.  However, the prevalence and persistence of golden calves and high places shows that he was in the minority.  Most men followed Laban, paying lip service to God while betraying Him by worshipping false gods.
No Room for Pluralism
That brings up another important point: you cannot worship both God and false gods.  Joshua is clear that choosing to serve false gods means you have determined that it is evil to serve God (Joshua 24:15).  Serving no god is not an option, so there really is no such thing as an atheist.  Everyone worships, whether the true God, idols, the ideas they represent, or self (Romans 1:18ff).  Worship of idols is incompatible with worship of God, which Joshua makes clear by giving the same reason God gave in the second commandment: God’s jealousy (Joshua 24:19 cf. Exodus 20:5).  Unlike sinful envy, God’s jealousy is “a zeal that arises when sin threatens a covenant relationship”.[1]  Trying to worship God while also worshipping idols is like a wife saying she is faithful to her husband while regularly sleeping with other men.  There is no room for an open relationship between God and His covenant people, so idolatry is often described as adultery.  Therefore, there is no room for religious pluralism.  We don’t know whether Rachel stole the idols because she was trying to be a pluralist or for some other reason such as spite against her father, but we do know that Israel tried to worship God and false gods throughout their history.  As we saw here, while the southern kingdom of Judah was sinning by selectively obeying God, the northern kingdom of Israel was attempting pluralism: “Come to Bethel, and transgress; to Gilgal, and multiply transgression; bring your sacrifices every morning, your tithes every three days; offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving of that which is leavened, and proclaim freewill offerings, publish them; for so you love to do, O people of Israel!” declares the Lord GOD”  (Amos 4:4-5).  By trying to worship both God and idols, they were blaspheming God just as a wife greatly dishonors her husband when he is just one of the men she sleeps with.  Religious pluralism is and has always been abhorrent blasphemy against God, so every man is exhorted to choose whether he and his family will worship God or idols—he cannot worship both.
Today’s Household Gods
I have previously examined various idols in our culture.  Even faithful churches that abhor those idols likely have families that worship them at home then come to church on Sunday and fail to see the hypocrisy.  Idols are myriad and often subtle, but some are made blatantly obvious by a popular yard sign that declares: “In this house we believe: black lives matter, women’s rights are human rights, no human is illegal, science is real, love is love, kindness is everything”.  This is a clear acknowledgement that worship begins at home, and its credal structure proves that it is religious.  What one must believe in order to be a Christian is summed up in the historic creeds—the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, and Chalcedon Definition.
Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

While peace in the church is necessary and should be sought by all believers, it cannot exist while false teaching is tolerated. Therefore, Christians must contend for the Gospel against all false teaching that perverts it. This is done by first understanding and holding fast to the true Gospel then identifying and fighting against any teaching that distorts it. The Gospel is the most precious possession of any Christian and is therefore worth our utmost effort to defend.

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.  For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
– Jude 3-4, ESV

The last three New Testament epistles (letters) are also some of the shortest, but they are also linked by a common theme.  Second John, Third John, and Jude all warn their recipients against false teachers who distort the Gospel.  Jude’s warning is the strongest, but Second and Third John also contain similar warnings, which are also stated by Peter (2 Peter 2:1-3) and Paul (Philippians 3:3, Titus 1:10-16, etc.).  Jude spends most of his letter describing these false teachers in graphic detail.  Why?  In verse 3, he appeals to his readers to contend for the faith.  His use of “contend” implies a fight or struggle, which is echoed by Paul (Philippians 1:27, 1 Timothy 6:12).  I recently wrote of the need for unity in the church, but clearly there is an appropriate time to fight.  It is important for every Christian to know when and why we must fight, who we must fight against, and how we must fight.
What to Contend for and When
First, since Scripture is filled with calls to maintain peace whenever possible (eg. Romans 12:18), it is important to know what we must contend for and when it is appropriate to fight for it.  Jude makes it clear in verse 3: “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints”.  This is clearly the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which Paul says is “of first importance…that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).  This is the Gospel: salvation by the grace of God alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone to the glory of God alone as revealed in Scripture alone.  Anything contrary to this is a false gospel that must be opposed.
When should we fight for the Gospel?  Jude answers this by stating that people “pervert the grace of our God…and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ”.  Jude accentuates this by describing the Gospel as delivered to us “once for all”.  This precludes any distortion of the Gospel that adds anything to or subtracts anything from the Gospel as it is clearly taught in Scripture.  This means that any gospel that subtracts from the person and work of Christ or adds any requirements other than the work of Christ (such as good works) is a false gospel.  Thus, we must fight for the purity of the Gospel when it is threatened.
One could argue that the Gospel is always threatened, as unbelievers frequently attack the Christian faith.  This is typically what we think of as the greatest threat to the Gospel.  However, Jude does not have external threats in view, since he says these enemies have “crept in unnoticed”.  Later, he calls them “hidden reefs at your love feasts” (Jude 12), referencing communion and therefore revealing these as enemies within the church.  This means that we are called to contend for the Gospel whenever its purity is threatened within the church.
It is equally important to note what Jude doesn’t mention: anything but the Gospel.  While we must contend for the Gospel, we are not fight over secondary doctrines (like the specifics of baptism and eschatology) or personal preferences.  Scripture explicitly commands us not to fight over such things (Romans 14:1).  This is why my theology page focuses on core doctrines rather than secondary doctrines and controversies. Still, even that goes a bit beyond core doctrines, so we must rely on what Scripture clearly teaches as the Gospel, which has been recognized throughout the history of the church and concisely stated in various creeds such as the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed.
Read More
Related Posts:

One of the primary reasons in Scripture that God pours out His wrath—and accomplishes salvation for us—is to show us and the world who He is.  Observing His judgment and mercy should leave us in awe of His nature and of the Gospel, keep us humble in remembering our sin, and be forever grateful that He has elected us to be His people rather than His enemies.  So let us stand in awe of God’s nature as displayed by His mercy and judgment and take comfort in His sovereignty, knowing that while He is satisfied in His justice, He truly delights in His mercy.

“Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes.
-Ezekiel 36:22-23, ESV
Why does God do what He does?  In one sense, this is a dangerous question.  God’s ways and thoughts are as high above us as the heavens are above the earth (Isaiah 55:8-9).  But while the secret things belong to God alone, what He has revealed in His Word belongs to us (Deuteronomy 29:29)—and He has actually revealed much about why He acts as He does.  One reason appears 72 times in Ezekiel: that both God’s people and enemies would know that He is God.  Many of these are in the context of judgment on the Jews and their neighbors, but some are in the context of blessing as well.
The Theme of Ezekiel
Many parts of the Old Testament are challenging for various reasons, but when it comes to comprehension, the prophets have an unparalleled level of difficulty.  This is especially true of Ezekiel, who prophesied during the Babylonian exile.  The exile happened over many years before coming to its climax with the destruction of Jerusalem.  Thus, many who were left doubted that God would actually cause the city to be destroyed, so it is to them that God speaks through Ezekiel.  The book begins with a startling vision of God’s glory that has puzzled commentators for centuries.  In this vision, he is called by God to go and prophesy to His stubborn and rebellions people (Ezekiel 2:3).  Then God gives a string of prophecies against the Jews, calling out their sins and warning of the coming siege and ultimate destruction of Jerusalem (Ezekiel 4-7) before showing Ezekiel a vision of Jerusalem and its sin culminating with the departure of God’s glorious presence from the Temple—first out of the Holy of Holies then out of the Temple complex and finally from Jerusalem entirely via the Mount of Olives (Ezekiel 8-11 cf. Zechariah 14:4).  The prophecies then focus on the sins of the people and their leaders as well as the coming destruction of Jerusalem and complete exile of the people (Ezekiel 12-23).  When the siege of Jerusalem begins, Ezekiel’s wife dies (Ezekiel 24) and the focus of prophecy shifts to judgment against Israel’s neighbors: Amon, Moab, Edom, and Philistia (Ezekiel 25) then Tyre and Sidon (Ezekiel 26-28) and Egypt (Ezekiel 29-32).  God then returns to judgment against Israel when Jerusalem falls (Ezekiel 33-34) before condemning Edom again (Ezekiel 35).  The focus of the prophecy then shifts to the restoration of God’s people with the promise of their return from exile and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Ezekiel 36) that would be a mass spiritual resurrection in which God would dwell with and unify His people (Ezekiel 37).  God then decrees destruction against Gog (Ezekiel 38-39), ending with the last “they shall know” of the book:
Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Now I will restore the fortunes of Jacob and have mercy on the whole house of Israel, and I will be jealous for my holy name. They shall forget their shame and all the treachery they have practiced against me, when they dwell securely in their land with none to make them afraid, when I have brought them back from the peoples and gathered them from their enemies’ lands, and through them have vindicated my holiness in the sight of many nations. Then they shall know that I am the LORD their God, because I sent them into exile among the nations and then assembled them into their own land. I will leave none of them remaining among the nations anymore. And I will not hide my face anymore from them, when I pour out my Spirit upon the house of Israel, declares the Lord GOD.
-Ezekiel 39:25-29, ESV
The book ends with God showing Ezekiel a detailed vision of a new Temple (Ezekiel 40-42) with the glory of God returning in a mirror of its earlier departure (Ezekiel 43).  The vision then details a restored priesthood and a righteous Prince (Ezekiel 44).  This Prince would rule a restored Holy Land centered on the Temple, complete with a river flowing from the Temple and trees bearing fruit year-round with leaves healing the nations (Ezekiel 45-48 cf. Revelation 22).  It is within this context that God repeatedly declares that He will both judge Israel and their neighbors and restore Israel so that everyone will know that He is the LORD.
The Sin of Israel…and Us
Before we look at the ways that people will know that the LORD is God, we need to pause to consider the sins of Judah that bring God’s condemnation throughout Ezekiel.  We have previously seen how Judah sinned by choosing to obey some of God’s commands while disobeying others.  Judah would ultimately commit the same sins as Israel, listed in Ezekiel 22.  They shed much innocent blood, treated parents with contempt, extorted foreigners, wronged widows and orphans, despised the Sabbath, slandered others, and worshipped idols.  They were sexually promiscuous, took bribes, extorted others, and ultimately forgot God.  This brought about God’s wrath through the Babylonians who ultimately destroyed Jerusalem, killing most of the Jews and carrying the rest into captivity.  Four centuries later, they would add to this sin by murdering Jesus Christ and then persecuting His Church.  God promised to destroy anyone who destroys His Church (1 Corinthians 3:17), so Jesus decreed that God’s wrath for every drop of innocent blood spilt in the Old Testament would fall on the Jews (Matthew 23:35) who had forgotten how God had restored them from the Babylonian exile and instead made themselves enemies of God and His true People.
Now, before I am accused of antisemitism, I must make one thing very clear: I am not talking about the Jews of today.  The Jews of the First Century murdered Jesus and persecuted His Church, thereby putting themselves under the curse of God’s wrath.  Throughout Scripture, we see that God shows extraordinary patience in delaying His wrath, but also that it will come.  God’s wrath builds to a climax, after which point it is complete.  So God tells Ezekiel that He will spend (Ezekiel 13:15, 20:8) and satisfy (Ezekiel 16:38) His wrath.  The First Century Jews were destroyed when God poured out His wrath on them with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD.  Just as the Jews of today have no special blessing since they have been replaced by the Church as the visible representation of God’s people, they also have no special curse.
Read More
Related Posts:

In the Body of Christ, we have responsibility for one another because we are members of Christ and therefore members of one another (Romans 12:5, 1 Corinthians 12:27).  We are not independent but highly interdependent just like all of the parts of our bodies.  What we do affects the rest of the Body, and what others in the Body do affects us—whether we know it or not. 

We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, “The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me.” For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
-Romans 15:1-4, ESV
We have all heard people say “it’s wasn’t my day to watch him”, usually following some negative outcome for that individual.  This is just a modern expression of “I’m not my brother’s keeper”, used as a way to deny responsibility for someone else.  While this is true in some sense, in the Body of Christ, we ARE our Christian brothers’ and sisters’ keepers.  This is particularly relevant when we differ in matters of conscience, so this post will examine our responsibility in keeping other saints from stumbling to discern when exercising our Christian liberty becomes sinful.
Shared Responsibility
To say we are not someone else’s keeper goes all the way back to Genesis: “Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?”” (Genesis 4:9).  This comes after Cain murdered Abel, which parallels the original sin of the Fall.  God spoke to both Adam and Cain beforehand, both men succumbed to temptation, and both tried to evade responsibility when God questioned them.  Cain was essentially blaming Abel for his own murder.  Abel was righteous and accepted by God, which angered Cain who was rejected by God (1 John 3:12-13).  Cain may have thought his smooth words would absolve him of responsibility, but God cannot be fooled.  As we saw when examining abortion, Cain would not have been justified in killing Abel unless Abel was actively trying to kill him.  Cain was responsible for his own motives, emotions, thoughts, words, and actions—as are we all.  As individualistic Americans, we understand individual responsibility, but as we saw when discussing the nature of responsibility, there is also shared responsibility.  Recall that individual responsibility always exists, establishes guilt, and can be retained or delegated but not shared.  If multiple people are responsible for something individually, each is responsible for the particular aspects he or she had authority over.  On the other hand, shared responsibility is not about guilt but fixing problems.  In shared responsibility, we recognize that our words and deeds impact other people and therefore acknowledge our contribution to their thoughts, emotions, motives, words, and deeds even while we do not accept individual responsibility for them.  Therefore, we are prone to two errors in misunderstanding the nature of responsibility.  The error of critical theory is to treat shared responsibility as individual responsibility and punish accordingly, which is unjust and therefore abhorrent to God (Deuteronomy 24:16).  But we must also avoid neglecting shared responsibility by assuming that someone else’s individual responsibility absolves us of any responsibility of our own.  Scripture is clear that we Christians are responsible for one another.
Members of One Another
In the Body of Christ, we have responsibility for one another because we are members of Christ and therefore members of one another (Romans 12:5, 1 Corinthians 12:27).  We are not independent but highly interdependent just like all of the parts of our bodies.  What we do affects the rest of the Body, and what others in the Body do affects us—whether we know it or not.  You need only to stub you toe to be reminded this fact.  This interconnectedness leads to interdependency that is seldom acknowledged in many churches of the individualistic West.  Scripture does not describe the Church as a group of collocated strangers, social club, or political party but as a body, family, and building.  Though we are many and diverse, we are one, reflecting our Triune God: “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:12-13).  God has determined the place for every individual and gifted him or her accordingly.  That means that everyone in every church needs everyone else in that church—not in spite of our differences but because of them.  So we cannot say that because we do not have a particular role or possess certain gifts we are not part of the Body (1 Corinthians 12:12-20).  Nor can we say that anyone else does not belong to the Body because he or she does not have a particular role or gifts (1 Corinthians 12:21):
On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
-1 Corinthians 12:22-26, ESV
Notice how the members of the Body care for one another for the good of the entire Body.  When one part suffers, the other parts feel it and compensate so that the suffering part can heal and the whole body can continue functioning.  For the rest of the body to ignore the suffering part and continue on normally is to aggravate the injury, which ultimately increases the pain to the entire body.  So since we are responsible to use our gifts to build up the Body, we are responsible for other members of the Body.  This includes calling one another to repentance and restoring them when they do: “Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted” (Galatians 6:1 cf. Matthew 18:17-19).  Since this is a command—and God gives us the authority to obey Him—we have the authority to call one another to repentance and do what is necessary to restore each other much as a leader has authority over subordinates.  And since authority cannot exist apart from responsibility, we have shared responsibility for each other.  Therefore, we are each responsible for ourselves and yet also responsible for each other: “Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.
Read More
Related Posts:

In our day it is especially important to be confessional.  When we looked at the dismal state of theology in the American Church, we saw significant and disheartening errors in the average Christian’s views of Scripture, God, man and sin, salvation, the Church, and current issues like extramarital sex, abortion, gender identity, and homosexuality.  Basically all of these errors are clearly addressed in the confessions, so adherents to the confessions can easily avoid them.

Teach and urge these things. If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.
-1 Timothy 6:2-5, ESV
In our series on Reformed theology, we have covered the Reformed view of salvation through the five solas and the five points of Calvinism.  But salvation is only one part of theology, so Reformed theology must go beyond the five solas and Calvinistic soteriology (salvation) by subscribing to a theologically-holistic Reformed confession.  Therefore a Reformed church must not only be Calvinistic but confessional. This post will look at the impIortance of confessions and the relation between the need to be always reforming with the need to follow a historic confession in order to avoid straying from what Scripture clearly teaches.
The Importance of Confessions
From the earliest days of the Church, defining what we believe has been extremely important.  Throughout the epistles, we see evidence of various heresies that dogged the Church, requiring divinely-inspired reiteration of what Scripture teaches.  One extra-persistent early heresy was Arianism, which denied the divinity of Christ.  In large part to refute this, the early Church adopted the various creeds: the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, and Chalcedon Definition.  When we consider this context, it is easy to see why these creeds so strongly affirm Christ’s divinity.  Each generation faces new challenges to the faith, forcing the Church to strongly state what Scripture clearly teaches about those specific topics.  An example in our day is the challenge to biblical manhood and womanhood from feminism, homosexuality, and transgenderism.  To address this, a pair of ecumenical councils quite similar to Nicaea produced the Danvers and Nashville Statements that we addressed here.  Since such statements address particular heresies, they are somewhat limited in their scope.  But by the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church had strayed so far from the teachings of Scripture into a wide variety of heresies that a complete and robust definition of what Scripture teaches on all of faith and life was required.  As the Reformation spread, different groups began to form with varying interpretations regarding secondary doctrines, so those groups needed to define their beliefs.  This as the origin of the various confessions of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries which ultimately became the defining documents of various Reformed denominations.
We have need of the same comprehensive definition of beliefs. Many Christians do not venture beyond soteriology in defining their doctrines, thus leaving themselves open to various errors.  They chant “no creed but Christ”, and therefore stumble into all manner of heresy.  Lacking a Scriptural foundation, they ultimately worship a god so different than the God of the Bible that their worship is idolatry.  The confessions like the ancient creeds prevent such errors by keeping us grounded in the faith, providing vital guardrails against new and strange teachings.  It is true that only Scripture is inerrant and timeless while the confessions are the product of men.  However, this does not prevent them from being useful to us.  Error comes not only from the denial of what Scripture clearly teaches but from new and creative interpretations of Scripture. There is nothing new under the sun, so any new error derived from a creative interpretation is likely just a restatement of an error that has appeared at some point in Church history.  Therefore, most of these errors are addressed in the Reformed confessions.  But when we ignore Church history, we exalt ourselves over our spiritual ancestors as if we are far wiser and more enlightened than they were, only to fall prey to the folly that they have already so wisely and eloquently addressed.  The errors of Rome at the time of the Reformation were so pernicious and comprehensive that God was especially gracious to gift the Church at the time with many wise scholars well versed in Scripture to create the confessions. We would be foolish to ignore them.
The Reformed Confessions
Last time, I mentioned the importance of John Calvin documenting all of the doctrines that characterized the Reformation—not just soteriology—in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, which was essentially the first Reformed systematic theology.  Others built upon this by codifying what Scripture teaches on all topics of faith and life.  As the different Reformed groups began to distinguish themselves from each other, it became vital to distill these beliefs down into a single, Scripture-based document that all of the ministers within the group could agree on.  These were their confessions, which laid out their beliefs on Scripture, God, man, sin, the church and sacraments, civil authorities, the home, and eschatology (the end times).  They are often accompanied by catechisms, which are sets of questions and answers used to teach what the confession contains.  Together, these form a robust theology for faith and life.  The confessions were so important to this period that it has been called “confessionalization”.[1]  They became even more important during the rise of liberalism and the Enlightenment of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, at which point many churches abandoned the robust theology of the confessions in favor of conversion-focus and individual experience.[2]  That mentality has persisted to this day such that many churches reject the notion of confessions altogether, dismissing them as antiquated human works of little value today.  But the historic confessions provide a necessary bulwark against the liberalism of mainline denominations and the individualistic emotionalism of seeker-sensitive American evangelicalism just as they have historically defended the Church against Roman Catholicism and other heresies.  Therefore, to be truly Reformed is to be confessional.
To be confessional requires understanding the Reformed confessions enough to subscribe to one of them.
Read More
Related Posts:

All in all, the five points of Calvinism like the Five Solas recognize that God is the one who works salvation so only God deserves glory for every aspect of it.  God is the one who predestined all of the elect before time began apart from any merit of our own.  Jesus Christ’s atoning work purchased salvation for all of the elect.  The Holy Spirit works in the elect so that they desire to repent and believe such that God’s grace is irresistible.  And God will cause all of the elect to persevere to the end.

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us….For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
-Romans 8:28-34,38-39, ESV
Last time, we began to discuss the distinctives of Reformed theology with the Five Solas that represent the core reasons Protestants had to break away from Roman Catholicism.  John Calvin expanded on this, so this time will focus on the distinctive of most Calvinists, the five points of Calvinism: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints.
Calvin and Arminius
As the Reformation spread, various positions began to form on the finer points of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.  One of the foremost second-generation Reformers was John Calvin, who articulated a complete theology in one of the great works of church history: Institutes of the Christian Religion.  His work was is foundational to what we now call Reformed theology, but he is best known for how his followers responded to a strong opponent regarding salvation.  Jacobus Arminius disagreed with Calvin’s view of predestination—that God determines who will receive salvation.[1]  His followers believed in the total depravity of man, but they also believed in conditional election based on faith in Christ, unlimited atonement (Christ died for all people not just the elect), that God’s grace was resistible (people can reject it), and conditional perseverance of the saints (a person had to remain in Christ in order to be truly saved).[2]  In response to these five articles, Calvinists laid out what we now know as the Five Points of Calvinism.  John Piper explains them in his book Five Points.
Total Depravity
The first point of Calvinism is one with which true Arminians would largely agree: that all people are totally depraved.  This does not mean that every person acts in as depraved a manner as possible but that our natural condition is depraved.  John Piper describes it this way: “The totality of that depravity is clearly not that man does as much evil as he could do. There is no doubt that man could perform more evil acts toward his fellow man than he does. But if he is restrained from performing more evil acts by motives that are not owing to his glad submission to God, then even his “virtue” is evil in the sight of God”.[3]  Arminians and Calvinists can agree on this because it is so clear throughout Scripture.  All have sinned (Romans 3:23) so there is no such thing as a righteous person who seeks after God (Romans 3:10-11 cf. Psalm 14:1-3, 53:1-3).  Even our “good” is so polluted by sin that it is unacceptable (Isaiah 64:6).  Plus, sin includes anything not done in faith (Romans 14:23), any good we fail to do (James 4:17), and any impure thoughts or motives, so we sin incessantly.  We are dead in sin apart from Christ, unable to do anything to save ourselves (Ephesians 2:1-3).
Despite the clarity and prevalence of human depravity in Scripture, our society largely denies it.  Most Western churchgoers today would say that people are basically good and any evil is largely due to circumstances.  Critical theory, socialism, cultural Marxism, and the like are built on this error.  Any church that ascribes to these has therefore followed Rome into the error of glorifying human teaching over Scripture.  But even it we officially agree with total depravity, we still significantly downplay our sin and cannot fathom that we deserve hell along with everyone else.  But when we honestly consider our vast sin in thought, word, deed, motive, action, and inaction, we should be cured of that error.  We are far worse than we think we are, so we should all say with Paul: “wretched man that I am, who will delivery me from this body of death?” (Romans 7:24).
Unconditional Election
Where Arminians and Calvinists begin to differ is on how God elects those He saves.  Scripture is clear that God chose those He saves in eternity past (Ephesians 1:4, 2 Timothy 1:9), but what does that mean?  Arminians would say that God foreknew all who would trust in Christ and elected to save those people, so election is conditional.  But those God foreknew are the ones who receive salvation: “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified” (Romans 8:29-30).  This passage is the most complete form of the ordo salutis (order of salvation) in Scripture, explicitly listing God’s foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, and glorification while alluding to adoption and sanctification.  This only happens for believers, so foreknowledge can only refer to those God has chosen for salvation.  Predestination then is not God knowing who would choose Him and then choosing them but God choosing who He would save before even creating them (Ephesians 1:5,11).  This election is completely independent of anything we do.  Total depravity means we cannot choose God unless He first chooses us.  God made His choice before time began, and any choice we make is a result of that choice:
Read More
Related Posts:

A return to the centrality of Scripture and right soteriology is only the first step in letting Scripture shape every aspect of life and doctrine.  Just as individuals are progressively sanctified by the Holy Spirit, we should expect the Church as a whole to be progressively sanctified.  Semper reformanda means that even today the Church is in need of reforming.  I have pointed out various heresies that are official Catholic doctrine, but how many Protestants hold to similar doctrines?  

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”
-Romans 1:16-17, ESV
I readily admit that Reformed theology is the perspective of my posts and theology page.  But what does it mean to be Reformed?  This is important for those who find themselves in a Reformed church since the doctrines and practices of churches that call themselves Reformed are actually quite varied.  But there are some distinctives that truly Reformed churches will have in common.  That will be our focus in this brief series.  This post will lay the foundation that all Reformed churches can agree on: soteriology (salvation).  Next time we will expand on this with Calvinism.  Then, we will discuss the importance of confessionalism and finally covenant theology.  This will all lead into the topic of covenant renewal worship, in which I will briefly explain why we do what we do on Sunday morning.
The Reformation Foundation
What does it mean to be Reformed?  Alistair Begg once defined it like this: “You start by reading your Bible, then you become biblical, then you’re Reformed”.  That is the essence of Reformed theology: studying Scripture and then letting Scripture dictate everything else.  But isn’t that just being biblical?  It certainly is, which means that all churches that are being biblical should be “Reformed”.  That so many are not indicates that few Christians know Scripture and fewer make Scripture the final authority over faith and life.  This is not to say that those who do not call themselves Reformed are not Christians or that they do not believe the Bible, but goes to show that the Church as a whole has a long way to go in being conformed to the image of Christ.  So why call it “Reformed”?  Essentially, getting back to obeying the Bible was the driving force behind the Protestant Reformation, so we are following in the footsteps of Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, etc. Their emphasis was on salvation, so the Reformed view of salvation is one that most Christians can agree upon, even if they do not call themselves Reformed.  To understand this, we need some background on what led to the Reformation in the first place.
By the time Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg on October 31, 1517, the Roman Catholic Church had strayed quite far from Scripture, and they have yet to recant.  As a result, the Roman Catholic Church cannot be considered a true church but heretical and apostate, having abandoned Scripture’s clear teaching on primary doctrines.  That is not to say there are no true Christians who are Catholics.  God can still work amidst much false teaching, so just because they were taught false doctrines does not mean the Holy Spirit cannot regenerate them.  So just as we should pray that Jews repent and embrace their Messiah, we should also pray that Catholics discover the true Christ and His salvation as Luther did.
How can I call the largest denomination in the world heretics and apostates?  Here is just a partial list of Catholic doctrines that directly contradict what is clearly taught in Scripture.  We have previously discussed their false doctrines about Mary, baptism, and communion, but these are relatively minor when compared to their false doctrines regarding Scripture and salvation.  By the Sixteenth Century, they had exalted the pope and church tradition above Scripture and made salvation about works rather than faith.  Instead of trusting in Christ, salvation became about storing up merit, of which most were deficient but some (the saints) had a surplus.  Instead of Christ as the only mediator between God and man, the pope and all of the cardinals, bishops, and priests below him placed themselves in the mediatorial role along with Mary and the saints.  They then taught that after death comes Purgatory, which is a place of torment where people continue to pay for their sins.  All of this plays into their teaching on indulgence: transferring surplus merit from the saints to others so that they can escape Purgatory.  What set Luther over the edge was that Rome was actually selling indulgences.  All of this contradicts Scripture in several places, so it can only be described as heresy.  These heresies are not the result of Scriptural study but of corruption.  It can be argued that this began as soon as Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire and peaked in Luther’s day when Rome was the only entity uniting the disparate peoples of Europe.  Rome had immense power during this time, and these doctrines enabled them to hold onto that power.  But Jesus promised that not even the gates of hell can prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18) and that He would destroy anyone who destroys His Church (1 Corinthians 3:17), so a return to Scripture was inevitable.  Starting with Luther then spreading throughout Europe, the Reformation took different forms in different places, but can be summed up in the Five Solas: sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), solus Christus (Christ alone), and soli Deo gloria (glory to God alone).[1]
Sola Scripture (Scripture Alone)
The first (and arguably most important) sola is sola Scriptura: Scripture alone is our highest authority, so the Reformation began with a return to the supremacy of Scripture.  The Bible stands alone as the Word of God, so only Scripture is perfect, infallible, and inerrant.  Only Scripture was inspired by God and contains everything we need for life and godliness.  Only Scripture is the ultimate source and standard for truth, so only Scripture can claim ultimate authority over what we believe and how we live.  This theme was woven throughout our discussion of submission in the church, workplace, community, marriage, and parenting: no one has the authority to disobey Scripture or compel anyone else to disobey Scripture.  The Christian cannot participate in or endorse Pride Month activities, use pronouns clearly inconsistent with biology, support or facilitate the murder of children in the womb, or many other things because Scripture forbids it—and we must obey God rather than man.  But in the same way the Christian cannot pray to Mary or the saints, try to earn salvation by works, go to any mediator other than Christ, or believe any of the other Catholic heresies because Scripture forbids that too.  Scripture alone is our highest authority, and we must reject anything that contradicts Scripture.
Read More
Related Posts:

In the end, any personal vengeance we could pursue or desire is pitiful and useless in comparison to the wrath of God that awaits anyone who remains unrepentant.  If that desire is against our fellow saints, it is a great affront to Christ who has born that wrath already.  Still, it is appropriate to cry out to God asking how long until His wrath rights all wrongs (Revelation 6:10-11).  But when we ask that, we must remember that the answer is “one more saint”.  God’s ultimate wrath will come when all of the saints are brought in—and not a nanosecond before (Matthew 13:24-30,36-43). 

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
-Romans 12:19-21
When we are wronged, our natural tendency is to seek vengeance.  Since Scripture forbids that, our faith in God’s wrath helps us expel any thoughts of vengeance, giving us comfort amidst affliction.  When we consider God’s wrath, comfort is probably the last thing that comes to mind, so my aim is to show how God’s wrath is a place of hope for the saints that can satisfy our desire for justice infinitely better than vengeance ever could.
The Problem of Human Vengeance
The sinful desire for vengeance comes from the natural and good desire for justice.  When we perceive injustice, the response is anger which can manifest in appropriate or sinful ways.[1]  When we or those close to us are wronged, we want to right that wrong, so vengeance is to return the wrong by responding in kind.  If we were able to return that wrong in a perfectly just manner, vengeance would be appropriate, but since only God has perfect knowledge of and power over everything, only God’s vengeance is infallible.  We finite humans are incapable of dispensing vengeance in a perfectly just manner, so it is forbidden: “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD” (Leviticus 19:18).  The first time we see vengeance in Scripture is when self-righteous Lamech, the epitome of the evil line of Cain, brags about killing a man who merely wounded him (Genesis 4:23-24).  Had it not been for Abigail’s skillful intercept, David would have wiped out Nabal’s household for his insult (1 Samuel 25:32-35).  Even when God raised up nations to judge other nations, they either failed to fully carry out that judgment or went too far.  The latter has often triggered endless cycles of violence. In short, our propensity to self-righteousness and unrighteous anger means that we cannot be trusted to seek vengeance appropriately, so we must avoid it.  Vengeance enacted by fallen humans can never balance the scales of justice, so it will never accomplish its intended goal.
The Christian must reject vengeance, and since sin begins with our thoughts and motives, we must reject even the desire for vengeance.  A common form of this in our day is critical theory, which advocates an oppressed group oppressing their former oppressors as a way to get even for past wrongs.  We have previously examined how this is unjust because it mistakes shared responsibility for individual responsibility.  Plus, it does nothing but foster self-righteousness and division when Scripture calls us to humility and unity.  Like all desires for vengeance, it directly violates the command of Jesus:
You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.  You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
-Matthew 5:38-45, ESV
This command from the Sermon on the Mount clearly excludes any possibility of seeking vengeance, so we cannot obey Jesus and support critical theory.  Instead, Jesus is saying that when we are wronged we should lean into the wrong and do good instead.  It is important to note that this passage does not require us to overlook evil, tolerate injustice, or refrain from all forms of defending ourselves or others.  Scripture is full of commands not to overlook evil, as we saw when discussing abortion.  None of the examples Jesus gives are life-threatening—a slap not a murder, a small lawsuit not an attempt to ruin, and a compulsion to walk a reasonable distance not a kidnapping.  Instead, Jesus is exhorting us to a new strategy that reflects the nature of God, who graciously withholds His vengeance from all of us who incessantly sin against Him.  It is also not being a pushover but is in fact being strategic.  We are called to do all we can to live in peace, but even that command comes with caveats (Romans 12:18).  So to obey Jesus’s command here is to wisely look at the situation.  If there is a reasonable chance that “turning the other cheek” will result in peace or turn a life around as in Les Misérables, we should pursue it: “If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink, for you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD will reward you” (Proverbs 25:21-22, cf. Romans 12:20).  Such unexpected generosity stands a very real chance of disarming an enemy.
When the Syrians discovered that their plans against Israel were being thwarted by Elisha’s prophecies, they sent an army against him.  After God struck them with blindness, he led them into Samaria—right into the hands of Israel’s king who excitedly asked if he should kill them.  Elisha responded: “You shall not strike them down. Would you strike down those whom you have taken captive with your sword and with your bow? Set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink and go to their master” (2 Kings 6:22).  Arguably, the greatest show of power is restraint.  Power restrained is meekness, and Jesus said the meek will inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5).  One of the greatest power plays then is to do good when you have the power to do harm.  When faced with a threat, the weak have no choice but to fight or flee while the strong have the ability to calmly respond with kindness while still maintain the ability to fight if necessary.
Read More
Related Posts:

There are many examples of people rightly taking responsibility in the Bible—and many examples of people trying to avoid it.  The latter was a major component of the Fall.  Adam and Eve both tried to avoid their responsibility by blaming others, but God still held them—and Satan—accountable for their own sins.  A great example of the former is David, who he became a leader by taking on the responsibility for the entire nation by volunteering to fight Goliath (1 Samuel 17).  More importantly, while he sinned in some egregious ways, he was quick to repent when confronted.

And David said to God, “Was it not I who gave command to number the people? It is I who have sinned and done great evil. But these sheep, what have they done? Please let your hand, O LORD my God, be against me and against my father’s house. But do not let the plague be on your people.”
-1 Chronicles 21:17, ESV
In October 2008, two senior leaders were fired for something that happened on the other side of the world.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired both the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force when it was discovered that four nuclear missile fuses had been mistakenly shipped to Taiwan from Hill AFB, Utah in 2006.  To make matters worse, the Air Force was still reeling from a 2007 incident in which six nuclear warheads were mistakenly loaded onto a B-52 bomber and flown from Minot AFB, North Dakota to Barksdale AFB, Louisiana.  Even though the official report from that incident placed the blame on base-level leadership and below, the two incidents taken together proved that the issues were much more systemic.  This highlights important truths about the nature of responsibility, which is a crucial but often overlooked component of leadership.
Leadership Require Responsibility
Responsibility is integral to leadership first because it is integral to any job.  To have any duty is to have responsibility, which means that in formal leadership, to assume a position of leadership is to take on the responsibility of performing all of the required duties of leadership.  In an informal sense, leadership can be defined as taking responsibility for those around you. Therefore, as Simon Sinek pointed out, leadership in a very real sense is responsibility.  In my leadership paper I showed that good leaders care for those they lead in addition to coordinating their efforts for the good of the organization, so a leader is responsible for the people and for the job.  In other words, leadership is taking responsibility, so without taking responsibility for others you cannot be a leader.  Authority therefore exists to enabling leaders to fulfill their responsibilities to their people and the organization, so legitimate authority cannot exist without responsibility. 
Since responsibility can be described as duty, everyone at every level has some measure of responsibility.  And just like in leadership, every duty requires a certain amount of authority.  This means that to delegate a task is to delegate both the responsibility for the task and the authority required to complete the task.  To give people responsibility without authority is a recipe for failure and discouragement.  Unless people the authority required to do the job, can we really claim they have the responsibility to do the job?  The responsibility rests with the one who has the authority, so a leader who fails to delegate authority is responsible for the team’s failures.  It is therefore unjust for leaders to hold subordinates responsible for tasks they did not have the authority to properly complete.  But by the same logic authority is inherent with delegated responsibility, so as a former boss of mine once said, “always assume the authority to do your job”. 
Individual and Shared Responsibility
This brings up an interesting question about responsibility: when you delegate it do you relinquish it?  To answer this, we must look at the concept of shared responsibility.  In our individualistic culture, it is easy to focus on individual responsibility.  In this view, an individual who gives responsibility does not retain it.  But responsibility is not a zero-sum game, so when it is given it is still retained.  The subordinate has responsibility to do the job, but the leader still has the responsibility to ensure the job gets done.  Furthermore, the leader is responsible for the subordinate.  Therefore, they both share responsibility.  So when things go wrong it is proper to hold both individuals and leaders accountable for the particular ways in which they all failed to fulfill their responsibilities.  We are all responsible for our individual actions, words, responses, and negligence.  We are all responsible for the decisions we make and must therefore own the consequences of those decisions.  In essence, we are responsible for ourselves as well as anything and anyone we have authority over.  Both W. Edwards Deming and Joseph Juran famously place responsibility of “the system”—and therefore the vast majority of issues—on leaders.  This means that while all workers are responsible for the work they do, the leaders are responsible for the tools, training, processes, policies, facilities, environment, organizational culture, and everything else they need to do the job.  When something goes wrong it is often appropriate to point to both workers and leaders, sometimes appropriate to point only to leaders, and almost never appropriate to point only to workers. 
With this in mind, let’s look again at our nuclear incidents.  In the Taiwan incident, various workers were responsible for mistakes in identifying, pulling, and shipping the fuses, so they were justly held accountable for their negligence.  At the same time, the incident was in large part caused by various factors that were outside of the control of those workers and therefore the responsibility of leaders at various levels, so they were also justly held accountable.  Similarly, the Minot incident involved many personnel failing to properly prepare, load, and inspect the warheads, leading to rightly-deserved adverse actions.  But the organizational culture that allowed this perfect storm to happen was the responsibility of leaders at various levels who were also rightly held accountable.  Both incidents together pointed to enterprise-wide issues, which were the responsibility of the Secretary and Chief of Staff, meaning that they were rightly held accountable as well.  To borrow the analogy we discussed here, there were bad apples (individuals), bad barrels (units), and a bad barrel maker (the Air Force as a whole).  Properly solving the problem therefore required people at all levels to be held accountable for what they were responsible for. 
Properly solving the problem also required an immense amount of pain and effort for everyone in those units and across the Air Force for years.  Many people who were completely uninvolved suffered the consequences of these incidents and therefore bore responsibility as well.  This may seem unfair to our individualistic culture, but this is the reality of shared responsibility. 
Read More
Related Posts: