True Compassion and LGBTQ Weddings
Those who suggest that a Christian can and should attend an illegitimate, sinful “wedding” have suggested that attending the wedding of a friend or loved one is the compassionate thing to do so that we as Christians do not appear judgmental and that it is sometimes necessary for preserving the relationship. True compassion, however, does not approve of sin or give the slightest appearance of approving sin. It is never compassionate to approve of, silently bear witness to, or celebrate the very sins that are the grounds for eternal damnation for those who refuse to repent.
True Compassion in the Parable of the Prodigal Son
Perhaps no parable is more beloved than that of the prodigal son in Luke 15:11–32. It speaks to universal concerns and experiences. We all can feel the heartache of the father in the parable as we consider the sadness and pain of having a wayward child or friend, longing for our loved one to return in repentance and faith. We can also relate to the Prodigal Son because of our sin. We are like him when we turn from our sin and to our heavenly Father, knowing that He does not forgive reluctantly or give us mere table scraps, but rather that He celebrates our repentance. Moreover, many of us have known professing Christians who are like the older brother in the parable and who look down on repentant sinners with resentment because our heavenly Father has forgiven them. Maybe even we ourselves have acted like the older brother at times.
It is a good thing that this parable is so familiar and beloved for both its insight into the heart of God for the lost and because it addresses different kinds of human responses to God’s grace. At the same time, our love for this parable can make us miss all that the Lord Jesus Christ is teaching us through it. Further, our good and proper desire not to act like the older brother can make us susceptible to emotional manipulation from people who may be motivated by compassion for lost sinners but fail to make certain that their compassion is biblically consistent, being founded firmly on the unchanging truth of the whole counsel of God.
To understand what the parable of the prodigal son teaches us about the true compassion of God and the biblically grounded compassion that He calls us to have toward sinners, we must first look briefly at the immediate context of the parable in Luke 15:1–10. The parable of the prodigal son is the third in a series of parables about lost things—the lost sheep (Luke 15:4–7), the lost coin (Luke 15:8–10), and the lost son (Luke 15:11–32). Jesus tells these parables in response to the scribes’ and Pharisees’ grumbling that Jesus would receive and eat with sinners (Luke 15:1–2). From Jesus’ remarks in verses 7 and 10 over the joy in heaven over repentance, we can conclude that the scribes and Pharisees did not understand the extent of God’s mercy and grace. The actions of the shepherd in the parable of the lost sheep and the woman in the parable of the lost coin confirm this. God receives and rejoices over those who were once lost in their sin but are now united to Christ, having turned from their sin and trusted Christ by God’s grace alone. Jesus also teaches us about the compassion and care of God, who will do all that is necessary to find and rescue His lost sheep and bring them into His sheepfold, much as the shepherd and the woman stop everything else that they are doing to find the lost sheep and coin (Luke 15:3–10). God rejoices when people repent (Luke 15:7, 10), and it is His kindness that leads us to repent (Rom. 2:4). The Pharisees and scribes were wrong to grumble because their doing so meant either that they did not want sinners to repent or that they thought that those who repent of egregious sins do not deserve to receive the same warm, gracious, and celebratory welcome from God that those who repent of less heinous transgressions receive.
That brings us to the parable of the prodigal son. The younger son is a picture of those who sin grievously against the Lord. His asking for his inheritance from his father before his father died was tantamount to telling his father, “I wish you were dead.” To make things worse, the son did not remain with his family once he received his inheritance, but he abandoned them, fleeing to a far country where he squandered his inheritance in “reckless living” (Luke 15:13). The depths of his fall are further illustrated in his having to go to work feeding pigs once his money ran out. Pigs were unclean to the Jews, and no Jew would be around them, let alone care for them, unless he had become thoroughly unclean himself (Luke 15:11–16).
The younger son was finally humbled and became broken and contrite over his sin and his situation, and he resolved to go home and confess his sin to his father. The younger son was repentant—convinced of his sin and misery and eager to seek his father’s mercy and forgiveness. He thought that his father would receive him back as a mere servant and not as his beloved son; instead, the father threw a party for his son, giving him the best robe and ring and preparing the most expensive food. He spared no expense in celebrating his son’s return home (Luke 15:17–24). The lesson here is clear as well—God’s grace and mercy are so abundant that He celebrates when sinners come back to Him in repentance. As Dr. R.C. Sproul comments on this parable: “This son who had disgraced the father coming home in filthy rags was greeted by his father, who fell upon his neck and kissed him. That’s what God does for every sinner who repents. He runs to you and He hugs you and He kisses you in your filth. That’s the way God works.” The father doesn’t hold a grudge against his son when he repents and returns home.
If we are not careful, however, we will miss what the father does not do in the parable. He does not go into the far country with his son. The father does not encourage the son in his sin, and he does not fund his son’s sinful exploits. In his rebellion, the son cuts off the relationship with his father, and, in his compassion, the father wants his son back. The picture in the parable is of a father who, while he does not go into the far country with his son, stands ready to receive him when he turns from his debauchery and returns home. The father waits on his front porch, as it were, looking and hoping for his son to return. He is so eager for that return that he is able to see his son coming back toward him while the son is yet far off (Luke 15:20). He recognized his son and had “compassion” on him, the parable says. This compassion was a readiness to receive a repentant son even while refusing to encourage, silently bear witness to, celebrate, or fund his son’s egregious sin. If we are to be imitators of God, as Paul instructs us to be (Eph. 5:1), the lesson is clear: We are to be ready to receive anyone who repents, but we are not in any way to encourage, silently bear witness to, celebrate, or fund the person’s sin. If our refusal to do these things leads them to cut ties with us, the fault is theirs, not ours. Christians are to obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29). A willingness to love and embrace a wayward sinner does not entail affirming or embracing their sinful waywardness, lifestyle, or decisions to maintain a good relationship with them. As Christians, we are to be the most gracious and compassionate people the world knows as we pray for sinners to turn from their ways through the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet the Word of God is clear that we are not to do anything that might demonstrate an approval of sin to maintain our relationship with our loved one or friend, for “[love] does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth” (1 Cor. 13:6).
The last part of the parable concerns the response of the Prodigal Son’s older brother, who resents his father for celebrating his son’s return. The older brother had not claimed his inheritance prematurely or used it to engage in egregious debauchery. Thus, thinking that his brother got something that he the faithful son deserved, the older brother refused to join the father’s welcome-home party for his brother, choosing instead to accuse his father of unfair treatment. The elder brother’s attitude, which was akin to the attitude of the Pharisees and scribes to whom Jesus first told this parable, exemplified a hatred for the father that was masked by outward piety. In response, the father explained that the older brother’s heart was not in the right place. The older brother had every good thing from his father while the Prodigal Son was away and even after he returned. His receiving of his repentant son did not mean that the older son would lose out (Luke 15:25–32). The lesson is plain: God’s grace and mercy are enough to receive back wayward sinners without taking anything away from those who have been comparatively more faithful (see Matt. 20:1–16). The older son should have known that and should have known the father well enough to understand that the right response to repentance is celebration. The response of the older brother calls into question how well he really knew his father and thus how well the Pharisees and the scribes knew God. We are not to be like the older brother but should celebrate even when the most heinous of sinners turns to God in faith and repentance.
The problem with the older brother was not that he disapproved of his brother’s past sin. Jesus isn’t suggesting that the proper response of the older brother would have been for him to approve of his younger brother’s sin. The older brother’s problem was not that he thought it wrong to do things that might indicate or be construed as approval of sin. Rather, his problem was his refusal to receive back his brother with joy when he repented.
The True Compassion of Christ
It is clear from the above exposition of Luke 15:11–32 that God is full of compassion and grace and that He celebrates the repentance of lost sinners who turn to Him through faith in Jesus Christ. God’s compassion for lost sinners is grounded in both His mercy and His righteousness. In His sovereign providence, He permits sinners to go their own way, and sometimes He gives them over to their sin, but He never does anything that in any way signifies approval of their sin. Jesus ate with sinners, but He never encouraged or celebrated their sin. Jesus was a friend of sinners with true compassion for them, and it is precisely because of this that He called them to repent and believe.
-
Is Darwinian Evolution Running Out of Time?
The theory of intelligent design is often dismissed as religion pretending to be science. Critics argue that the theory doesn’t make any predictions or contribute to our knowledge of the natural world, and plus, it’s not taken seriously in any peer-reviewed scientific journals. However, a new paper published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Theoretical Biology makes a strong case for the need for intelligent design.
The paper is called “On the waiting time until coordinated mutations get fixed in regulatory sequences.” If that title is all Greek to you, don’t worry; you’re in good company. This technical, math-intensive paper was written by intelligent design researchers Ola Hössjer, Günter Bechly, and Ann Gauger. As Casey Luskin explains at Evolution News, the project came out of the Discovery Institute’s ID 3.0 research initiative, which aims, in part, to test how plausible Darwinian evolution is on a mathematical level. And though it’s just a beginning, this paper’s conclusions should make die-hard Darwinists nervous.
Here’s the background. The fossil record has been a perpetual problem for Darwin’s theory ever since it was first published in 1859. Put simply, the fossil record doesn’t look like the theory predicts it should.
If, as Darwin proposed, all the diversity of life on earth developed through natural selection, sorting random variations over untold eons, living things should change very gradually. This means the record of evolution we find in rocks should look gradual, too. Invertebrates should turn slowly into fish, which should turn slowly into amphibians, which should turn slowly into reptiles and mammals, and so on.
What we actually find is the basis of what philosopher of science Stephen Meyer calls “Darwin’s doubt”: the fossil record consists of numerous “bursts” of biological diversity, such as the famous “Cambrian explosion,” in which new body plans and animal phyla appear in the fossil record seemingly without ancestors.
Read More -
Stop Calling Faithfulness a Sacrifice
We need to stop talking about faithfulness as sacrifice. It isn’t. It is for our own good that we obey the commands of Christ. It is in full knowledge that there is something better for us in being faithful.
We need to stop calling obedience and faithfulness to the commands of Christ “sacrifice”. There, I said it. It is not sacrifice to do what Jesus asks us to do. Full stop.
There are a bunch of reasons we need to stop this. First, we subtly convey God’s commands to be hard and burdensome. But Jesus specifically said, ‘my yoke is easy and my burden in light’ (Matthew 11:30). John tells us ‘this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3). The Bible insists these things are NOT hard. When we call our obedience and faithfulness a matter of sacrifice, we suggest otherwise.
Second, not only do we suggest Jesus’ commands are difficult and burdensome when he says they aren’t, but we also convey that they are not fundamentally good when we call it a sacrifice to do them. The reason Jesus commands the things he does is not because he loves bossing us about. It is because he ultimately wants our good. Indeed, his commands are good because he is good. But when we call it a sacrifice to obey, we are suggesting that we are having to give up something good for the sake of Christ.
But this simply isn’t true. When we reject sin, we are giving up something bad for us and pursuing what is specifically good for us. We are shunning the sin that would ensnare and ruin us and pursuing what Jesus says makes for human flourishing. The language of sacrifice suggests Jesus is keeping us from good stuff and we nobly give it up because we love him and he wants us not to do it. But actually, we are rejecting what will damage us and obeying Jesus because his commands keep us from what will not serve our good.Related Posts:
-
American Academy of Pediatrics Captured by Gender Ideology; Mainstream Professionals Are Calling Them Out
The so-called “gender affirming” model puts young people on track to start an often deeply invasive, irreversible, and radical medical and surgical regimen at odds with where biology and their own natural development would have taken them.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), a 92-year-old, 67,000 member organization, prides itself as the paragon of wisdom on all things good and wise concerning the medical health of our children. But facts say otherwise.
It is no secret that the AAP has been captured by radical leftist politics of late, even to the serious detriment of their professional mission. This is particularly true when it comes to their policy statements and actions on gender ideology. In fact, this organization has been utterly captured and controlled by radical gender activists. Fortunately, its positions are being challenged by some important voices in the medical community.
A major article in the online magazine Quillette details much of the AAP’s troubling and unscientific gender activism, demonstrating how it is contrary to the health of children. The author, Stella O’Malley, a parent and psychotherapist living and working in Ireland, has become deeply critical of the ideological capture taking place in too many professional medical and mental health organizations. She believes too many professional medical organizations are being overrun by gender dogmatists pushing dangerous views of what it means to be male and female at the expense of good science. In her Quillette piece, O’Malley explains the foundations of the AAP’s problematic position on children and gender issues,
And so the AAP continues to endorse an affirmation model whereby “social transition” begins in kindergarten or grade one, with five-year-olds being encouraged to inform adults of their preferred name and pronouns, and to seek entry into bathrooms corresponding to the opposite sex. Children aged between eight and 12 can be given puberty blockers and, following this, in their teen years, cross-sex hormones, followed by possible surgical procedures that alter their appearance, sex characteristics, and reproductive system. The age of consent for cross-sex hormones and surgeries varies depending on the state, but children as young as 13 are sometimes able to get their breasts removed. These steps often lead to the patient becoming permanently sterile and unable to achieve orgasm.
This so-called “gender affirmative” model is what some are selling as health care, essentially setting the patient up as the one making the diagnosis and the medical professional is discouraged from asking tough diagnostic questions to determine if the very young patient might have some other type of co-morbidity driving their gender confusion. This turns the medical profession on its head. That patient tells the doctor what the solution is and the doctor must do the patient’s bidding. Questioning the patient’s self-diagnosis is called “transphobic.”
This is not only bad science for obvious reasons, but also because most young people who report gender dysphoria end up naturally aligning with their natal gender by the time they reach puberty. This fact is well documented in the academic literature. This means the so-called “gender affirming” model puts young people on track to start an often deeply invasive, irreversible, and radical medical and surgical regimen at odds with where biology and their own natural development would have taken them.
Read More
Related Posts:
