Your Excuses are Exhausting
Jesus called people out for their sin and their lack of belief. He didn’t make excuses. He called on people to take responsibility. And then, Jesus took responsibility for our sin. Jesus took our sin and shame and punishment. No excuses.
I am an expert excuse generator. It is part of my nature. Not my spiritual, redeemed nature. Excuse-making comes from my sinful, flesh nature.
We offer excuses because we do not want to take responsibility. Just consider the way that they are explained. You give an excuse. You take responsibility.
An excuse is that which you offer others to hide your sin, your shame, your insecurities, your weaknesses, your guilt. Responsibility is the mantle that you take upon yourself so that you can relieve others of the burden.
When we make excuses, we work to shift blame. We work to burden someone else. When we take responsibility, we own the blame. We carry our own burden.
Adam was the first excuse-maker. When God questioned Adam in the garden, “Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” Adam answered,
The woman you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree and I ate.
Adam, unwilling to own responsibility for his failure to protect his wife and for his failure to obey the Lord, seeks to shift blame. Who does Adam blame? God and his wife.
Since that time, we have all imitated our first father. We are not only sinners, we are excuse-makers and blame-shifters.
Like Adam, we look for someone else to blame. We avoid mirrors and point fingers.
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
How Can We Sing the Lord’s Songs in Babylon?
This world is Babylon—the world in rebellion against the Lord. It presses in on us constantly, trying to squeeze us into its mould. It may seem like God is absent, that he has been ousted by the more powerful gods of Babylon—not Marduk, Ishtar and Adad any longer, but Self, Equality and Freedom. We may find ourselves asking the same question that the exiles asked by the Euphrates River as we are mocked for our out-dated beliefs: ‘How can we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land?’ How can I live for God in the twenty-first century USA?
Can you picture the scene? A group of Jewish exiles have gathered for their daily catch-up by the banks of the Euphrates river at the end of another working day. Everywhere they look are reminders that they don’t belong in this pagan, alien land. Man-made pyramids, called ziggurats, with temples to false gods like Marduk, Ishtar and Adad look down on them. The Sabbath day is unknown and desecrated every week. They are hundreds of miles from their promised land. Many of their loved ones are dead back in Judah. The king’s own sons had been slaughtered in front of him before being blinded taken captive, to end his days tormented by that last horror he ever saw. Other members of the royal family were made eunuchs to serve in the king’s palace. Three tidal waves of destruction swept over Judah altogether, over the course of twenty years. When they closed their eyes they could still see the massacre of their people by Babylonian soldiers, hear the screams that were suddenly cut short by Babylonian steel, and smell the smoke from the fire that engulfed the royal palace, every important building in Jerusalem and above all the holy Temple of the Lord. They could still see the gloating, arrogant soldiers carrying the sacred vessels of the Temple—how dare they pollute those holy things with their unclean hands! Why didn’t God strike them down as he struck down Uzzah all those centuries ago for daring to touch the ark?
All these memories must have been replayed over and over whenever the wretched exiles in Babylon met, as they multiplied their grief by sharing their stories of anguish day by day. The Babylonians showed no sympathy however. Perhaps they came to the Euphrates to gloat or mock or rub salt in the wounds of these devastated captives. Perhaps they were just oblivious to their pain. Either way it was a torture to the exiles. ‘There our captors asked us for songs, our tormentors demanded songs of joy; they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”’
But the people had no heart for singing the psalms of their homeland while their homeland was in ruins and they themselves were captives in a foreign land. Instead, by the rivers of Babylon, they sat and wept as they remembered Zion. Their instruments hung on the trees untouched.
Read More
Related Posts: -
One Pastor’s Thoughts on This Year’s PCA Overtures
The greater issue before us is [the] disturbance of the peace and purity of the church. We ought not hinder ourselves from rectifying a clear and present problem today, on the possibility that it might not be a perfect solution.
Every year dozens of Overtures are sent to the General Assembly of our denomination for consideration. For those who aren’t aware of our polity and process, an Overture is a proposal from a lower court (think church or presbytery) to a higher court (the General Assembly) with regard to a specific action. In short, it’s how things change in our denomination. Each year, dozens of Overtures are submitted, considered, and voted upon. If an Overture passes at the General Assembly, it must then be approved by 2/3’s of the Presbyteries, before returning at the following year’s General Assembly for final approval. In June, the General Assembly voted to send down 12 overtures to be considered by the Presbyteries. Most of these overtures are not controversial, but several are in response to controversies in our denomination, and have caused much discussion. While others have written about how best to prepare for these upcoming discussions at the Presbytery level, my desire is to simply share my opinions regarding these matters, and how I think the PCA should respond. I’ll skip over the overtures that passed the Overtures Committee with 90+%, or passed the General Assembly in Omnibus(without debate), in order to focus my thoughts on the 4 overtures which have been deemed the most “controversial”.
ITEM 4 (Overture 29)
Amend BCO 16 by adding 16-4 Regarding Qualifications for Church Office:
This Overture would add the following paragraph to chapter 16 of our Book of Church Order, on the subject of qualifications for Church Officers:
16-4 Officers in the Presbyterian Church in America must be above reproach in their walk and Christlike in their character. While office bearers will see spiritual perfection only in glory, they will continue in this life to confess and to mortify remaining sins in light of God’s work of progressive sanctification. Therefore, to be qualified for office, they must affirm the sinfulness of fallen desires, the reality and hope of progressive sanctification, and be committed to the pursuit of Spirit-empowered victory over their sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions.
This overture is a “re-do” of Overture 23 from last year. Many of the arguments against the previous versions of this overture had to do with the language of “identity”, which has been removed here. I voted for Overture 23 last year, as I did not agree with the concerns surrounding the identity language. I voted for Overture 29 this year, as the qualifications listed here are consistent with a biblically orthodox, and confessionally faithful understanding of how a church officer is to understand his battle against sin, and the work of progressive sanctification. I believe Overture 29 should be passed, as it is a helpful overture, which really shouldn’t be controversial.
ITEM 5 (Overture 31)
Amend BCO 21-4 and 24-1 by adding the following paragraphs regarding requirements for ordination:
21-4.e In the examination of the candidate’s personal character, the presbytery shall give specific attention to potential notorious concerns. Careful attention must be given to his practical struggle against sinful actions, as well as to persistent sinful desires. The candidate must give clear testimony of reliance upon his union with Christ and the benefits thereof by the Holy Spirit, depending on this work of grace to make progress over sin (Psalm 103:2-5, Romans 8:29) and to bear fruit (Psalm 1:3, Gal. 5:22-23). While imperfection will remain, when confessing sins and sinful temptations publicly, the candidate must exercise great care not to diminish the seriousness of those sins in the eyes of the congregation, as though they were matters of little consequence, but rather should testify to the work of the Holy Spirit in his progress in holiness (1 Cor. 6:9-11).
24-1 In the examination of the nominee’s personal character, the Session shall give specific attention to potential notorious concerns. Careful attention must be given to his practical struggle against sinful actions, as well as to persistent sinful desires. The nominee must give clear testimony of reliance upon his union with Christ and the benefits thereof by the Holy Spirit, depending on this work of grace to make progress over sin (Psalm 103:2-5, Romans 8:29) and to bear fruit (Psalm 1:3, Gal. 5:22-23). While imperfection will remain, when confessing sins and sinful temptations publicly, the nominee must exercise great care not to diminish the seriousness of those sins in the eyes of the congregation, as though they were matters of little consequence, but rather should testify to the work of the Holy in his progress in holiness (1 Cor. 6:9-11).
Read More
Related Posts: -
How the Transgender Movement Fuels Conspiracy Theories
No matter how far-fetched a given conspiracy theory might seem, it will not be as far-fetched as the idea that there are now 72 genders. In fact, considering which narratives the progressive establishment defends most fiercely, it seems to many that the only truly credulous position to take would be that of leaders who cannot even define what a woman or a man is, who reject established science on issues of ideology, and gaslight us when we try to point that out.
Ask anyone in your life to define a ‘conspiracy theory,’ and you’ll likely get a different answer. From elections to vaccines, from the ‘deep state’ to Ukraine, there is only one thing that most people now agree on: that establishment narratives are false. There are a range of key contributing factors to this—the internet and social media, the collapse of trust in institutions, increasing polarization, and much more. But one prominent issue that has proven to be a catalyst for all these trends has been largely ignored: the rise of the transgender movement.
What do I mean by a ‘catalyst’? A catalyst is “an agent that provokes or speeds significant change or action.” Thus, the change is already occurring, but the catalyst accelerates it. The transgender agenda, which has been imposed from the top down by the establishment in just a few short years—government, the press, the entertainment industry, academia, and activists—has radically increased distrust in institutions and increased polarization by destroying the common ground where compromise has traditionally been possible. If we can’t even agree on basic biology, what can we agree on?
Progressives seem oddly blind to the effect their radicalism on this issue has on ordinary people. Police bulletins featuring photos of bearded male rapists identifying them as ‘women’; men identifying as women being sent to female prisons; males with all of the male equipment (‘her penis’) competing against girls in sports; sex change ‘treatments’ for minors; and the never-ending insistence that all of this is normal, that nothing has changed, and that we are bigoted for pointing out that this is all very new and even those of us in our early thirties remember when it was different—all of this has a profoundly radicalizing effect in turn.
The reply from the progressive establishment has been censorship, demonization, and a threatening question: Who are you going to believe—us or your lying eyes? When average people in possession of common sense see the experts and elites aggressively pushing absurd things, most reach one of two conclusions.
Read More
Related Posts: