Tag: Tabletalk

Boundaries

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Carl Trueman wrote an excellent article for the July 2012 issue of Tabletalk magazine entitled “Why Do We Draw the Line?” Trueman starts the article by highlighting the recent trend toward “uniting around the center”–focusing on the doctrines and beliefs around which believers agree rather than highlighting the areas of disagreement. Trueman states–correctly, I would have to say–“Frequently, those who talk of the center as all-important contrast themselves favorably with those they see as emphasizing boundaries.” But then that is culture we love in; Trueman continues, “…evangelical talk of centers rather than boundaries has a lot to commend it. To make the point concisely: it is consonant with both the desire of Christians for unity and the cultural, political and psychological aesthetics of our time.”

The remainder of the article, though, is spent explaining why boundaries are indeed important. Trueman mentions that the “world at large” seems usually to consider boundaries as “something to be transgressed, and that continuously.” Trueman explains that the boundaries God has given in His Word, though, are put in place not to stifle or restrict us, not to quash our fun, but to “enable us to be truly human.” Boundaries from the Lord serve the same function as boundaries from state to citizen, from parent to child–to protect. Parents do not allow their children to run out into traffic, despite the fact that prohibiting them from doing so is a boundary, because the potential consequences are lethal. States do not allow citizens to shout “Fire!” in crowded theaters or to shoot guns in populated areas, because the potential consequences are dangerous. Similarly, God has given each human being a free will, and we have the ability to choose to do whatever we want. But God has instituted boundaries to protect us from the potential dangers that we likely would not consider before plunging into whatever seems like fun or seems the best thing to do at the time. Using the “hedonism of Hugh Hefner” as example, Trueman writes that “…one cannot simply cross a boundary and then stop: that merely establishes a new boundary, which others will transgress in more radical and extreme ways.”

Trueman also argues–again, rightly–that boundaries can in fact liberate. The “exclusion from wider society of serial killers and pedophiles” is not “bad or oppressive” he writes; on the contrary, there is greater freedom for all by knowing that those individuals (at least once they are known) will be prohibited from being inside the boundaries of “regular society.”

Numerous studies have shown that children actually thrive when boundaries are present, contrary though that may be to what most people would claim to expect. For example, children who are inside an enclosed playground area are likely to run around and play freely throughout the entire enclosed area, whereas children on a playground without boundaries (such as a fence) tend to stick closer to each other and to the playground equipment. Why? Because the fence–the boundary–provides a sense of safety and security that is unknown where there is no fence.

That is, after all, why boundaries exist–to help us know where we are safe and where we would be in danger. Boundaries, when observed, prevent all manner of possible injury and heartbreak. Ravi Zacharias writes wisely about the benefits of boundaries in marriage in his book I, Isaac, Take Thee Rebekah: “Lines must be drawn not at the level of acting but at the level of thinking. Lines must be drawn not at the level of doing but at the level of desiring. Lines must be drawn not at the level of contact but at the level of sight.” Zacharias recognizes what so many of us prefer to ignore–that is we do not allow ourselves to think about getting inappropriately involved with another, there is almost no chance that we will actually do so. If we do not look lustfully or longingly at another, there is very little likelihood that we will get involved in inappropriate contact. Without the boundaries in place we might still know where the edge is, but our human tendency is to delight in getting as close as we can to the edge, boasting in our ability to hang precariously over the edge without plummeting. The problem is, when we spend so much time hanging over the edge almost anything could cause us to fall–and when we fall over the edge it will be too late. Boundaries serve to keep us a safe distance from the edge so that even if we do fall, we fall within the boundaries–we fall somewhere where we are still safe.

Trueman also highlights another aspect of the boundaries discussion which is very often overlooked or ignored: “[C]enters and boundaries are ultimately dependent on each other–one cannot meaningfully talk of one without assuming the existence of the other. In a circle, the central point is a function of the perimeter. I know where the center is only when I see the circle as a whole and judge its location on the basis of the circumference.” Discussion of abandoning boundaries then, or of allowing each person to decide his or her own boundaries, is to deny the existence of a center…something surely no believer would ever claim to want to do.

Let us beware, then, to appreciate the boundaries rather than seek ways to expand, stretch, avoid, circumvent or remove them. God has placed them there because He loves us, and there is nothing beyond the boundaries that we need.

Bridling the Tongue

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Mark Ross has an article entitled “Guarding Our Speech” in the October issue of Tabletalk magazine. The article is not limited to discussing political speech, but Ross does use that as an example at the beginning of the article, and it is quite timely for this particular time of this particular year. After all, one week from today the voters of the United States will be deciding whether Barack Obama will serve another four years as president, or whether he will be replaced in January by Mitt Romney. The vote next week will be the conclusion of months and months of campaigning, advertising and debating. According to a recent article, this year’s presidential campaign is going to cost more than $2 billion all told. That’s a lot of speech!

Of course, that is only the paid speech that comes from the campaigns and the various groups that seek to influence the outcome of the election through paid communications. In other words, is does not take into consideration at all the millions of hours of conversation pro and con around cafe tables, kitchen tables and water coolers. And while the content of the paid advertising is relevant, it is this informal conversation that is what I want to address.

Ross writes, “Discussions of politics are especially notorious. Few people hesitate to represent candidates of the opposing party in the worst possible light. Did you know that all Democrats are left-wing liberals bent on turning the whole U.S. economy into a socialist state? Did you know that all Republicans are extreme right-wing conservatives who have no compassion for the poor or any sense of social responsibility? These and other ‘truths’ like them are purportedly discerned simply from a person’s party affiliation. It is not necessary to meet any of these people or speak with them about their views at any length.”

His analysis is sad but true. Far too many of us jump to quick conclusions about politicians based solely on their party, and then we shape our opinions–which shape our speech–around these assumptions.

Even worse, perhaps, is the vitriolic rhetoric that “we the people” tend to throw at elected officials and political candidates. There is nothing wrong with being politically involved (I encourage it, in fact) or with trying to influence the opinions of others, but there is something wrong with hurling insults, half-truths and even outright lies at those with whom we disagree.

Far too often this happens most easily in forums like this one–a blog–or on social networking sites, like Facebook or Twitter. We see or hear something and want to reply, and, let’s face it, we get a kick out of stoking the fires of the debate, so we will post something that is over the top. Maybe we do it specifically to get a reaction, maybe we really believe it; regardless, it’s wrong. The Scripture has plenty to say about bridling our tongues and carefully choosing our words. I believe those passages apply equally to our blog posts, status updates and tweets.

Jesus made it clear that the sixth commandment’s prohibition against murder is violated not only by actually taking a life, but by angry and insulting words. Numerous passages of Scripture refer to the one who is careless in speech as a fool.

Should we engage in political debate? Yes. Should we avoid critiquing or criticizing those with whom we disagree? Not necessarily. But we need to stick to the issues, not attack the people, and we need to, to the fullest extent possible, adhere to the facts. Scripture is equally clear, by the way, that those in positions of authority are there because God has placed them there or allowed them to be there, and as such they are His representatives–and their positions are worthy of our respect.

Heard and Seen

~ jbwatson ~ 3 Comments

In the June issue of Tabletalk magazine Ed Stetzer has an article entitled, “Preach the Gospel, and Since It’s Necessary, Use Words.” You may recognize the well-known saying Stetzer is addressing in his article; supposedly St. Francis of Assisi said, “Preach the gospel. Use words if necessary.” At least that’s Stetzer’s rendering of it; I have seen it in a slightly different version, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. In the first paragraph of his essay Stetzer says that there are “two basic problems with this quote and its supposed origin. One, Francis never said it, and two, the quote is not biblical.”

I am not concerned with whether or not Francis said it. Stetzer says that according to Mark Galli there is no record of Francis ever having said it, and I reckon I’ll just take his word for it because, as I said, it really doesn’t matter. What I think does matter though is Stetzer’s assertion that the idea is not biblical. Before I share my thoughts on that, though, I think I should let Stetzer speak for himself (and quote Galli).

Stetzer cites Galli’s claim that the quote suits our culture well with this quote: “‘Preach the gospel, use words if necessary’ goes hand in hand with a postmodern assumption that words are finally empty of meaning. It subtly denigrates the high value that the prophets, Jesus and Paul put on preaching. Of course, we want our actions to match our words as much as possible. But the gospel is a message, news about an event and a person upon which the history of the planet turns.” (I don’t know where Galli wrote this; Stetzer doesn’t say). Stetzer then goes on to say that the quote “gives an incomplete understanding of the gospel and how God saves sinners. Christians are quick to encourage each other to ‘live out the gospel,’ to ‘be the gospel’ to our neighbors, and even to ‘gospel each other.’ The missional impulse here is helpful, yet the gospel isn’t anything the Christian can live out, practice or become.”

Stetzer makes a bold claim when he asserts that the idea articulated in the quote in question is not biblical. After all, for a Christian, that is–or certainly should be–the deciding factor. If something is not biblical, that is synonymous with saying that it is wrong. So, I suppose I will need to respond with a bold claim of my own. While there are several words that come to mind, I’ll go with this one: ridiculous. For Ed Stetzer to suggest that preaching the gospel without words is not biblical is ridiculous. According to dictionary.com that means “causing or worthy of ridicule or derision; absurd; preposterous; laughable.”

Stetzer goes on to say that, “The gospel is the declaration of something that actually happened. And since the gospel is the saving work of Jesus, it isn’t something we can do, but it is something we must announce.” I do not disagree with this, of course. The gospel–literally, the “good news”–is that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to earth as a human, lived a sinless life, died on the cross to pay the penalty for my sins (and yours), was buried, rose again three days later, was seen alive by thousands, ascended to heaven where He now sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come again some day. None of that is anything I can do, and it is, as Stetzer writes, something I, and every other believer, is called to announce.

The trouble comes in the fact that Stetzer seems to assume that the announcement has to be made by words. I–and whoever it was who said what has been attributed to Francis–do not agree. It is not enough for me to simply say I do not agree, though–or at least it should not be. Rather, let me explain to you why I do not agree, and provide biblical support for my position.

First, Paul, when writing to the church at Philippi, wrote, in 4:9, “What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things…” (ESV). I would, for the purposes of this discussion, emphasize that four-word phrase “and seen in me.” The message of the gospel requires a verbal announcement (words) but it also requires a demonstration–a life lived out in a manner that is consistent with the words that are proclaimed. And, I might add, it generally requires this both before and after the words. The actions are the book ends that support or hold up the words.

In the same letter, Paul encourages the believers to “let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ. Why? “[S]o that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit…” (Philippians 1:27, ESV). In other words, Paul told the believers to preach the gospel with their lives, and if they did so, he would hear about it. Actions would lead to words.

In Matthew 5 we read Jesus Himself teaching that actions are indeed an essential part of preaching the gospel. In verse 13 Jesus calls believers to be salt. That takes action. After all, salt is an actual thing; to borrow from and rearrange another passage of Scripture, it will not do you any good if you ask for salt and I say, “There you are, pretend your food has been salted.” Nope; that won’t work. You need me to give you real salt. In the next verse Jesus says that each believer is like a light, and that believers are not to hide their lights but to “let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). Same thing–action required.

Another well-known quote I heard numerous times growing up but have no idea who originally said is, “If you were on trial for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?” The meaning is, of course, that if someone really believes the gospel it will be evident in the way he or she lives their life. Belief leads to action. While I agree with Stetzer that the gospel message needs to be proclaimed with words, I dare say that his assertion is far more dangerous than any danger he sees in the “live out the gospel” position. Why? Because there are many, many believers who preach, teach and live like the gospel message is nothing but words. What I mean is that I have heard many times–and likely you have, too–someone say, “If you’ll just say this prayer,” or “If you ask Jesus into your heart….” If this is news to you than I hate to disappoint, but there is no magic in saying the words. Words in and of themselves are just that–words. They do not mean anything; they are mere sounds that literally linger but a moment in the air. It is the meaning of the words that matters, and the meaning comes from whether or not I act in a way that indicates my belief in the words I speak.

Stetzer gives only one nod to the point I am trying to make in his article, and that comes in this statement: “While the process of making disciples involves more than verbal communication, and obviously the life of a disciple is proved counterfeit when it amounts to words alone, the most critical work that God has given to the church is to ‘proclaim the excellencies’ of our Savior.” Stetzer ends his article with four ways in which Christians should use words, and I do not disagree with any of them. Sadly, however, the words alone simply are not enough.

If I tell my wife I love her but my actions never demonstrate that love will she believe me? Not for long. Neither will anyone else. That’s why the words in and of themselves are not enough; the action is required. In fact, if you want to take Mr. Stetzer’s argument to its logical extreme, the very gospel he so wants Christians to proclaim with their words would not exist if words were all that was necessary.

What do I mean by that?

Well, if words were really the most important thing, God could have had His Son come to earth and tell everyone that He was the Son of God and that He could pay the penalty for their sins–and that if they would just believe Him their sins would be forgiven. If words were what mattered, Jesus did not have to die. Instead, I–and anyone else–could simply express my belief that Jesus could die, rise again, conquer sin, hell and the grave, and provide a way for my sins to be forgiven. But God is not concerned with whether or not I think Jesus could do that; He wants to know if I believe Jesus did do that.

So, Mr. Stetzer, I respectfully disagree with your premise. Not only do I disagree with your assertion that to preach the gospel always and when necessary to use words is not biblical, I would actually embrace the exact opposite argument–that to suggest that the gospel can be preached without actions is what is not biblical. The gospel demands action; it demands lives that are “worthy of the gospel of Christ.” So let us live lives that draw people to Christ, that open doors for words to be spoken, and that cause those outside of the church to ask about Jesus.