Divorce, remarriage, and abuse

The third, and final, part of my review of Pastor Jeff Crippen’s book, A Cry for Justice: How the Evil of Domestic Abuse Hides in Your Church, deals with the somewhat controversial topic of divorce and remarriage. There are a wide variety of interpretations on this subject, even within the conservative, evangelical world.

Pastor Crippen begins the chapter, “What about Divorce?” by defining some of the different views on abuse and divorce and giving examples of well-known Christian leaders who espouse them. On one end of the spectrum is something called the “permanence” view of marriage: “no divorce, no remarriage for any reason at all as long as one’s spouse is still living.” (284)  This view has been defined in the book, Divorce and Remarriage: A Permanence View, by Jim Elliff and the other elders of Christ Fellowship Church, Kansas City. They are not the only ones holding this view. Both Voddie Baucham and John Piper also teach that divorce is never allowed and that remarriage is only allowed if a spouse has died.

A second approach allows for divorce in the case of adultery or desertion but not abuse. An example of a book teaching this view would be, The Divorce Dilemma: God’s Last Word on Lasting Commitment, by John MacArthur. In an article quoted by Pastor Crippen, MacArthur explained:

Abuse is not a biblical cause for divorce. A woman may have to find shelter and protection through her church, but she has not been given the right by God to divorce her abuser (283).

Interestingly, when I went to check the link for this article, I found that there had been a revision to this section. It now reads:

Divorce is not always an option, either–Scripture does not automatically permit divorce in the case of a physically abusive husband.

But it does still say that if a wife is not in physical danger, then she must stay with her husband:

If you are not truly in any physical danger, but are merely a weary wife who is fed up with a cantankerous or disagreeable husband–even if he is an unbeliever who is hostile to the things of God–God’s desire is that you stay and pray and sanctify that husband by your presence as a beloved child of God (1 Corinthians 7:10-16). The Lord will protect you and teach you in the midst of the difficult time.

Of course, pray for your husband, submit to him in every way you can, encourage him to seek advice and counsel from other biblically-knowledgeable men–and do everything you can to heal the problems that cause him to be angry or abusive.

A third view is that “divorce is permitted for adultery, desertion and abuse – understanding abuse as a kind of desertion.” (284)   Pastor Crippen recommends Barbara Roberts’ book, Not Under Bondage: Biblical Divorce for Abuse, Adultery & Desertion, as a good resource for understanding abuse as desertion. Another book he recommends is Divorce and Remarriage in the Church: Biblical Solutions for Pastoral Realities by David Instone-Brewer. This is the view that Pastor Crippen holds and is the one he spends the chapter explaining.

Pastor Crippen starts by using Jesus’ teachings on the Sabbath as an analogy and illustration of the greater principles involved. The Pharisees had gotten so wrapped up in their interpretation of the law that they had forgotten the purpose of the Sabbath and they’d forgotten mercy:

It is my contention that this is the very thing that has happened in the evangelical church in regard to marriage and divorce. Yes, I realize that there are evangelical “libertines” who do not hold diligently enough to the holiness of marriage and are far too liberal in permitting sinful divorce and even other perversions of marriage. But the solution to these evils is not to race to another extreme by maintaining a no-divorce view that essentially contends that man was made for marriage, not marriage for man.

When we tell abuse victims that God does not permit them to divorce their abuser, and that if they do so and then remarry, they will be guilty of adultery, we are condemning the guiltless and demanding sacrifice rather than extending God’s mercy to the weak and helpless: “They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger” (Matthew 23:4) (286-287).

So what are the greater principles that are often forgotten when considering divorce and abuse? Pastor Crippen writes that they are:

• God desires mercy.
• Marriage was made for man.
• We are to zealously protect and advocate for the poor and helpless.
• We are to defend human life. (287)

The Biblical grounds for divorce in the case of abuse is that abuse is desertion:

Marriage vows (contracts) can be destroyed by adultery or desertion. We maintain that biblical desertion is not only effected by literal leaving one’s spouse, but also by abuse. Abuse is desertion because it is a refusal to live with one’s spouse as husband or wife in the context of marriage, as defined by the vows of the marriage covenant (297).

Pastor Crippen explains that this type of desertion is “constructive desertion:”

Constructive desertion occurs when one partner’s evil conduct ends the marriage because it causes the other partner to leave. But it is the abuser who is to be construed as the deserter, not the victim. The victim bears no blame (304).

Pastor Crippen also makes it clear that in the case of abuse (physical,emotional, verbal, sexual, etc.) a divorce is simply the public acknowledgement that the marriage contract has already been broken. How has the marriage contract been broken? By the persistent, unrepentant actions of the abuser:

In the case of abuse in marriage, the abuse victim is not the one destroying the marriage when he or she decides the marriage contract has been rendered null and void. That has already been accomplished by the abuser who has refused to love, honor, and cherish as he vowed before God to do (296).

It’s important to remember Pastor Crippen’s definition of abuse here. This is not just someone having a bad day or the typical arguments that all couples have:

Abuse then, is a mentality of entitlement and superiority in which an abuser uses various tactics to obtain and enforce unjustified power and control over another person (18).

Also, we should remember that Pastor Crippen’s conclusion is that abusers, as defined in his book, are unregenerate:

Therefore, we must necessarily conclude that an abuser simply cannot be a Christian, no matter how convincing his masquerade of Christianity might be. His very mindset remains unchanged, as his perseverance in his abuse demonstrates (243).

In the context of marriage, this means that abusers are unbelievers who refuse to live with their wives (or husbands) according to their marriage vows. The abuser perpetually and unrepentantly breaks his marriage vows:

Abusers destroy their marriages by trashing the marriage contract which included their promise to love, cherish and protect their partner. An abuser so wounds his victim, so exposes her to hardship and suffering that, despite her best efforts, the marriage bond of love and respect is destroyed (303).

Pastor Crippen anticipates the question that many readers will likely ask: “Won’t this view of marriage and divorce result in a kind of divorce epidemic like we see all around us?” (300) His answer is that allowing divorce in the case of abuse will not “open the floodgates.” He quotes from Barbara Roberts’:

Many Christians are afraid of “opening the floodgates” of excuses for divorce. However, allowing for divorce for constructive desertion is not the same as allowing divorce simply for “mutual incompatibility”. Nor does it imply that a Christian spouse can separate in reaction to a transient incident or a light offense. Even in heavy offenses and repeated abuse, efforts should be made by the believer to bring the abuser to repentance. All efforts to urge a perpetrator to repent should be done with humility and a readiness to forgive.

However, it is important to be aware that most victims of abuse have already made many efforts in this direction before they seek help from a pastor or other professional. Indeed, the victim has usually borne too much for too long and the pattern of abuse has become deeply entrenched (300-301).

Given all of this, pastors, churches, leaders, and Christians in general, should be careful not to add to the abuse that victims have suffered by heaping guilt and condemnation on them regarding their decision to divorce. Protect the weak and innocent. Stand up to abusers. Have mercy on those who carry the scars of abuse.

I’ll conclude with Pastor Crippen’s advice for any victim of abuse whose church holds to the no-divorce for abuse view:

I encourage any victim of abuse who is in a church that binds people in such a manner, to leave that church for her own safety, sanity and health and find a church that does not make the error of going beyond Scripture. It is my conclusion that, even though it may come from zeal for the Lord, teaching people that God forbids divorce for abuse (as abuse has been defined and presented in this book) is spiritual malpractice. To bring church discipline to bear upon victims is to compound this injustice and I must believe that it is obnoxious in God’s sight (288).

He heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds. (Psalm 147:3, ESV)

Abusers in the church

Tags

A Cry for Justice, Abuse, Church, Jeff Crippen

I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church. – 3 John 1:9-10 ESV

In his book, A Cry for Justice: How the Evil of Domestic Abuse Hides in Your Church, Pastor Jeff Crippen gives an excellent description of an abuser’s tactics and mentality. Having studied what abusers do and how they act, Pastor Crippen realized that not only are there domestic abusers “hiding out” in churches, there are also people who use these same abusive tactics to attempt to control churches. Sometimes these are members of the congregation, and sometimes these are leaders of the church: pastors, elders, deacons.

Pastor Crippen uses the 3 John passage quoted above as an illustration of the type of person who uses the tactics and mentality of an abuser to bully his or her way around a church:

I originally planned to entitle this book In Search of Diotrephes, because abusers, like Diotrephes, so effectively disguise themselves as “sheep” and hide in the local church. If you are a faithful pastor or church member, the probability that you have met one or both characters in this evil duo is quite high. In Scripture, Diotrephes and Jezebel were both abusers. Today, they still exist within many if not most churches. Masquerading as pious saints, they set themselves up in power and expect the pastor, the elders, and the people to do their bidding, all the while ready to punish any who resist them. Diotrephes and Jezebel are bullies (263-264).

As a pastor’s daughter and a faithful church member, I can vouch for the truth of Pastor Crippen’s statement. I have seen these abusive men and women in many churches. I’ve even been on the receiving end of this type of abusive behavior myself. Pastor Crippen devotes a chapter in his book to applying what he’s learned about an abuser’s tactics and mentality to the Diotrephes type abusers in the church.

So who are these abusive people?

These are people who have caused great harm to Christ’s flock, and in particular, to Christ’s under-shepherds- pastors. Such people see themselves (as Diotrephes apparently did), as entitled to power and control over the flock, and thus regard their abusive tactics, which they use to gain and maintain power, as fully justified. This is one of the most common reasons pastors have short tenures in many churches (264).

Going back to 3 John, Pastor Crippen lays out a description of Diotrephes in the church:

• He opposes genuine servants of Christ.
• He undermines the real work of Christ.
• He exercises an evil power and control over the flock of Christ.
• He slanders Christ’s servants.
• He works to isolate Christ’s people from genuine servants of Christ.
• He opposes the Word of Christ, not acknowledging the Apostles.
• He drives genuine believers out of the church.
• He is motivated by a craving to be first. (265)

Pastor Crippen believes that Christians should not be surprised to find these “worst of the worst” in our churches. Scripture warns believers many times that there will be wolves in sheep’s clothing in the church. We should be prepared for people who seem pious but are not actually regenerate. When we recognize them, we should, as John writes in 3 John, expose them for what they are doing. (265)

What kind of tactics can Christians expect from modern Diotrephes in the church? Just as we saw with domestic abusers, there will be:

• Blaming, false guilt.
• Re-writing the facts.
• Playing the victim.
• Pitting people against one another.
• Threatening in order to instill fear.
• Morphing the victim’s words (and God’s Word).
• Accusing.
• Deceiving with a cloak of excessive charm.
• Gathering allies.
• Particularly targeting the pastor and other genuine believers who are active in the Lord’s work. (Sometimes Diotrephes is the pastor himself. An entirely new dynamic of abuse occurs in such a case.) (266)

A pastor who has come under the influence of a Diotrephes may very well exhibit certain signs and symptoms in his behavior:

• A loss of personhood.
• A mind dominated by the presence of the abuser.
• Erosion of his ability to focus his thoughts, prayers, and energies upon his flock.
• A loss of confidence.
• Loss of enthusiasm.
• A sense of isolation.
• A burden of guilt and a sense of failure. (271-272)

That last point is one that I’ve seen a number of times. As Pastor Crippen points out, having created an unbearable atmosphere of division within a church, the abusers are “quite masterful at convincing everyone, including the pastor, that this division and unpleasantness is all his fault.” (272)

So what is a pastor or church member to do when a Diotrephes has been sowing division and abusing the church? Pastor Crippen believes that the best approach is to confront them. He highly recommends that pastors and leaders familiarize themselves with the tactics and mentality of abuse. When we know who we are dealing with, we will be better equipped to recognize them and to confront them. (273)

We should also be familiar with the weapons we have to fight against this enemy. Knowing that abusers are not harmless, we must stand against them, and we must put on the whole armor of God. (277) Pastor Crippen uses the passage from Ephesians 6 to show how we must prepare ourselves to do battle against Diotrephes:

These are not imaginary or mystical items. They are very, very real. And they are mighty! They work! In fact, the powers of hell cannot stand against them. He who is in us is greater than he who is in the world (1 John 4:4) (278).

At the end of the chapter on abusers in the church, Pastor Crippen describes four types of approaches that pastors (and others) should be aware of:

1. The Flatterer: This type of approach is used by abusers to appear pious and draw others into trusting them. Always be careful of those who lay the praise on way too thick. (280)

2. The Concerned Citizen:

Feigning a genuine concern for the cause of Christ, the abuser uses this deceptive tactic to launch what is actually a wicked, discouraging accusation. If you feel a fearful, uneasy knot “in your gut” when someone does this, recognize that you are feeling this way for a valid reason. … As soon as you feel that “pang” of fear or sense that you are talking to an unsafe person, take a deep breath and slow down. Very often your feelings will tip you off before your thoughts will! (280)

3. The Setup:

Abusive, entitled individuals often work to “set up” the pastor for criticism. … Set-up scenarios are most often launched in front of other people int he church. … The best way to respond is to not respond. By this, I don’t mean not saying anything, but rather not permitting yourself to be drawn into a question which is really an accusation (280-281).

4. The Friend: This approach may take a long time to unmask. Abusers are good at hiding their real actions and motivations. Be aware that abusers will attempt to win you to their side. (281)

Interestingly enough, when I had just finished reading this section of the book, I was contacted again by my own personal Diotrephes, a “friend” who turned out not to be. While I would never equate my experiences with those of the victims of domestic abuse, it was both encouraging and freeing to realize what was happening to me. Thanks to having read Pastor Crippen’s book, I was able to recognize her behavior for what it was and act accordingly.

Again, I highly recommend Pastor Crippen’s book, especially for pastors and leaders. Too many people have been hurt by abusers, both domestic and ecclesiastical. Too many churches have been damaged as well. I share Pastor Crippen’s hope that greater familiarity with the tactics and mentality of abuse will allow the church to protect victims and to stand up to abusers.

A Cry for Justice: How the Evil of Domestic Abuse Hides in your Church

Tags

A Cry for Justice, Book review, domestic abuse, emotional abuse, Jeff Crippen

A couple of months ago, I was contacted by a reader of this blog and asked if I would be willing to read and review his book on abuse and the church. The author, Jeff Crippen, is a pastor and former police officer. His book, A Cry for Justice: How the Evil of Domestic Abuse Hides in your Church, was written after his church went through a terrible and eye-opening experience. Pastor Crippen’s desire is to equip pastors, elders, church leaders, and even church members to recognize the signs of abuse and to be prepared to help the victims.

I agreed to read Pastor Crippen’s book, and he was kind enough to send me a copy. After reading it, I decided to write a series of articles addressing the main themes of the book. The first article, this one, will be on the basic premise of the book: what is an abuser, what typically happens in a church when a victim seeks help, and how to help a vicitim. The second will be on recognizing and dealing with abusers in other relationships. The third will be on the very sensitive topic of divorce, remarriage, and abuse.

First off let me say that I highly recommend Pastor Crippen’s book. It is an extremely important topic, and I believe all pastors and anyone else in leadership would benefit from reading this book. Pastor Crippen’s website, A Cry for Justice, is also a great resource for those who would like additional information.

Now, to get down to the purpose of this article, Pastor Crippen begins his book by explaining that there is a growing problem within the evangelical church:

The local church is one of the favorite hiding places of the abusive person. Conservative, Bible-believing religion is his frequent choice of facade. Within the evangelical church, women (and sometimes men) are being terribly abused in their homes and marriages. The children of such abusers are suffering as well. And when those victims come to their churches, to their pastors, and to their fellow Christians, pleading for help, well … Victims of abuse are often discounted by their churches (12).

According to Pastor Crippen, the church doesn’t understand the true nature of abuse and the effects abuse has on its victims. (128) His goal in writing, then, is “to educate the reader in the nature and tactics and mentality of abuse and, in doing so, to help us all to come to understand the pathology of this unique sin (15).”

So what, then, is an abuser? How does one recognize him? [As Pastor Crippen points out, the vast majority of abusers are men. Because of this and for the sake of brevity, he (and I) will use the masculine pronouns, although we are not suggesting that men are the only ones who are abusers.] Pastor Crippen spends a good majority of the book explaining the “tactics and mentality” of abusers. Here is a brief definition of “abuse” and “abuser”:

Abuse then, is a mentality of entitlement and superiority in which an abuser uses various tactics to obtain and enforce unjustified power and control over another person. The abuser thinks that he is absolutely justified in using these tactics to maintain this power and control over his victim. Abuse is effected in many ways: both physical (including sexual) and non-physical (verbal). It can be active (physically or verbally) or passive (not speaking, not acting). Abuse, therefore, is not limited to physical assault. Indeed, the non-physical forms of abuse often are far more damaging, deceptive, and cruel (18).

And,

An abuser is a person whose mentality, mindset, and even worldview is dominated by:

• Power

• Control

• Entitlement (to that power and control)

• Justification (in enforcing that power and control) (19)

Pastor Crippen points out that “it is a serious mistake to assume an abuser thinks like everyone else does.” (19) An abuser has no problems doing horrible things to others and then sleep like a baby at night, without any remorse or attacks of conscience. (42) This is because very often abusers “operate in a world largely or entirely devoid of a functional conscience.” (48) Because of this abusers do not act like everyone else, instead they:

• Lack shame.

• Have no empathy.

• Experience little or not real anxiety.

• Display false repentance very convincingly.

• Lie, even in the face of plain facts that controvert their lie.

• Use what appears to be real emotion or feeling, but in fact is just an act designed to manipulate. (49)

Pastor Crippen believes, despite the fact that many of these abusers are members of churches, that abusers are very likely unregenerate as they do not show evidence of saving grace or true repentance. (43)

While I’m sure that certain abusive tactics are familiar to most people, Pastor Crippen give a list of common tactics used by abusers. Some of these are: controlling the activities of others, abusing things that belong to the victim, harsh criticism (usually with very vulgar language) of victims physical appearance, isolating his victim, sleep deprivation, keeping his victim in poverty, preventing adequate medical care, cruelty to pets, and alienating the children from the victim. (33-34)

There is a great deal more information in A Cry for Justice on the tactics and mentality of abusers. It’s important to remember that not all abusers will use exactly the same tactics. However, after familiarizing yourself with the typical behaviors described in the book, you will be much more aware of the warning signs.

One of the main reasons that Pastor Crippen wrote A Cry for Justice is that all too often churches, pastors, and well-meaning Christians end up hurting victims and protecting abusers. Here is an example from the book that outlines what happens when a victim comes to her church for help:

1. Victim reports abuse to her pastor.

2. Pastor does not believe her claims, or at least believes they are greatly exaggerated. After all, he “knows” her husband to be one of the finest Christian men he knows, a pillar of the church.

3. Pastor minimizes the severity of the abuse. His goal is often, frankly, damage control (to himself and to his church).

4. Pastor indirectly (or not so indirectly!) implies that the victim needs to do better in her role as wife and mother and as a Christian. He concludes that all such scenarios are a “50/50″ blame sharing.

5. Pastor sends the victim home, back to the abuser, after praying with her and entrusting the problem to the Lord.

6. Pastor believes he has done his job.

7. Victim returns, reporting that nothing has changed. She has tried harder and prayed, but the abuse has continued.

8. Pastor decides to do some counseling. …

9. As time passes, the victim becomes the guilty party in the eyes of the pastor and others. She is the one causing the commotion. She is pressured by the pastor and others int he church to stop rebelling, to submit to her husband, and stop causing division in the church.

10. After more time passes, the victim separates from or divorces the abuser. The church has refused to believe her, has persistently covered up the abuse, has failed to obey the law and report the abuse to the police, and has refused to exercise church discipline against the abuser. Ironically, warnings of impending church discipline are often directed against the victim!

11. The final terrible injustice is that the victim is the one who must leave the church, while the abuser remains a member in good standing, having successfully duped the pastor and church into believing that his victim was the real problem (21-22).

It may sound far-fetched, but I know of a woman whose experience fits this to a “T.” This is the all too common experience for many, many women (and some men) in our churches. This should not be so.

So, how then can churches, pastors, and concerned Christians help the victims of abuse? The first step is to become very familiar with the tactics and mentality of abusers. Books such as A Cry for Justice or Barbara Roberts’ book, Not Under Bondage, can help a educate leaders and others on what abuse looks like and how abusers and their victims often behave.

When a victim comes to you for help, you will need to be ready. Pastor Crippen lays out some guidelines to help leaders do the right thing. The first is to believe the victim. Pastor Crippen points out that this is not blind acceptance but that “in most cases those who report abuse are speaking with honesty.” (186) Other guidelines include not being swayed based on who the abuser is, understanding that all forms of abuse (not just physical or sexual) are serious, reporting abuse to police and allowing the justice system to act, protecting the victim from accusations, a warning not to attempt to cover up the abuse, and preach

ing on the topic of abuse to prepare and protect your congregation. (186-188)

In addition to giving guidelines on how to help victims, Pastor Crippen also gives a list of rules for how to deal with abusers:

1. Question everything. Even “facts” he states with absolute confidence.
2. Believe nothing without corroboration.
3. Assume he is attempting to deceive you.
4. Accept nothing less than full, unqualified repentance.
5. Do not pity him, no matter how emotional he might be.
6. Accept no excuses.
7. Do not let him blame others. (237-238)

If this seems harsh to you, remember the definition of abuse and the abuser:

Abuse then, is a mentality of entitlement and superiority in which an abuser uses various tactics to obtain and enforce unjustified power and control over another person. The abuser thinks that he is absolutely justified in using these tactics to maintain this power and control over his victim. Abuse is effected in many ways: both physical (including sexual) and non-physical (verbal). It can be active (physically or verbally) or passive (not speaking, not acting). Abuse, therefore, is not limited to physical assault. Indeed, the non-physical forms of abuse often are far more damaging, deceptive, and cruel (18).

Abusers are not acting and thinking like everyone else.

In closing, I’d like to say to anyone who recognizes her (or his) situation in reading this article, to please seek help. There are good resources available to you. If your church will not help, please find one that will. Pastor Crippen’s website may help you as well. My prayers are with you.

Lord willing, parts two and three of this review will be finished soon.

The New Legalism: Missional, Radical, Narcissistic, and Shamed

Tags

Anthony Bradley, for the city, in the city, Keller, legalism, missional

Anthony Bradley, Associate Professor of Theology and Ethics at The King’s College in New York City, has an excellent article today over at the Acton Institute’s Power blog. He starts with an observation he made recently on Facebook and Twitter:

Being a “radical,” “missional,” Christian is slowly becoming the “new legalism.” We need more ordinary God and people lovers (Matt 22:36-40).

He goes on to explain his comment:

I continue to amazed by the number of youth and youth adults who are stressed and burnt out from the regularly shaming and feelings of inadequacy if they happen to not being doing something unique and special. Today’s Millennial generation is being fed the message that if they don’t do something extraordinary in this life they are wasting their gifts and potential. The sad result is that many young adults feel ashamed if they “settle” into ordinary jobs, get married early and start families, live in small towns, or as 1 Thess 4:11 says, “aspire to live quietly, and to mind [their] affairs, and to work with [their] hands.” For too many Millennials their greatest fear in this life is being an ordinary person with a non-glamorous job, living in the suburbs, and having nothing spectacular to boast about.

Dr. Bradley goes on to explain two major factors in how this happened:

Anti-Suburban Christianity:

This despising of suburban life has been inadvertently encouraged by well-intentioned religious leaders inviting people to move to neglected cities to make a difference, because, after all, the Apostle Paul did his work primarily in cities, cities are important, and cities are the final destination of the Kingdom of God. They were told thatGod loves cities and they should too. The unfortunate message became that you cannot live a meaningful Christian life in the suburbs.

and Missional Narcissim:

As a result, living out one’s faith became narrowly celebratory only when done in a unique and special way, a “missional” way. Getting married and having children early, getting a job, saving and investing, being a good citizen, loving one’s neighbor, and the like, no longer qualify as virtuous. One has to be involved in arts and social justice activities—even if justice is pursued without sound economics or social teaching.

Dr. Bradley goes on to say that all of this has led to a new legalism and a great deal of shame for young people in the church today:

The combination of anti-suburbanism with new categories like “missional” and “radical” has positioned a generation of youth and young adults to experience an intense amount of shame for simply being ordinary Christians who desire to love God and love their neighbors (Matt 22:36-40). In fact, missional, radical Christianity could easily be called “the new legalism.”

As someone who has experienced this “missional,” “anti-suburban,” and shaming “new legalism,” I am so pleased to read someone finally addressing this very important issue. I highly recommend reading the whole of Dr. Bradley’s article.

If you are in a church that is preaching this and you are feeling the weight of never being able to live up to this legalistic standard, remember that, as a Christian, you are free from slavery to the law. Then, find a church that preaches the gospel and practices the ordinary means of faith. Let the gospel refresh you like water on parched ground.

Should being a Christian have a visible effect on our lives?

Tags

cursing, holiness, Sanctification

There are a couple of articles today that I think are worth pointing out. The first is, The Death Of New Calvinism by Stephen McCaskell. In his article, McCaskell addresses what he sees as a problem within the “New Calvinist” movement:

The idea of holiness is almost a peculiar doctrine for the new Reformed movement. I know many young and old in this tradition who feel no obligation to actively and passionately with their entire being, to pursue a life of holiness. They wouldn’t explicitly say this, but their lives wouldn’t reflect otherwise. …

The problem young reformers seem to have is in regards to the fruit of that “Great Exchange” – the fruit of our lives, the good works we are to do, the life of holiness. It’s clear throughout God’s word that we are to love our neighbor, serve the poor, give generously, cloth the naked, etc. We aren’t doing these things to obtain Jesus, but because Jesus has obtained us we do these things. In other words, we are to do these things FROM our position in Christ, not FOR our position in Christ.

His concern is that this new brand of reformers have forgotten that as Christians our lives should be marked by a pursuit of holiness. Not because we make ourselves worthy of Christ, but because He has already made us worthy. Our lives should show evidence of His work and the work of the Spirit. I think he makes a very good point.

The other article while published separately and unrelated to the first is a good illustration of what McCaskell is talking about. The Trouble with Cussing by Carolyn Arends discusses a trend among some Christians to defend using expletives or foul-language:

Except … it’s cool these days to be a Christian who swears. It gives the curser an “I’m into Jesus, but I’m not legalistic” badge. A recent tweet about a behavioral study that linked swearing and honesty went viral among my church friends (although no one could produce a link to the actual study). Many of these friends point to the arbitrariness of the cuss-word system. …

Contempt is a mixture of anger and disgust, expressed from a position of superiority. It denigrates, devalues, and dismisses. It’s not hard to understand why even subtle levels of contempt are damaging—not only in marriages but in all human interaction.

If profane language has a privileged place in the lexicon of contempt, then Christians have a unique mandate to avoid profanity. It’s not that abstaining from pejorative language outfits us with some holier-than-thou halo. It’s that we are called to live with a servant’s heart, affirming the dignity of every human and the sacredness of existence.

I have heard at least one pastor in the PCA say that cussing (to use the Southern word) isn’t a sin. I’m not so sure he’s right. It seems to me that Arends makes a good point. I think that the Scripture gives plenty of warning to us on the need to control our tongues. I think we should expect our lives to bear witness to who we are as believers.

What do you think?

Do you have a “Sandpaper Person” in your life?

Whether or not you’ve heard the term used, I’m fairly certain you have at least one “sandpaper” person in your life. These are people that just rub you the wrong way. They irritate, annoy, bother, harass, and generally make life difficult. When I first heard the term, I did some research into it, and apparently, an author named Mary Southerland has written a book on how to deal with sandpaper people. (I haven’t read the book, so I’m not endorsing or critiquing it here.)

I first heard of this when someone described herself as being a sandpaper person in my life. It got me to thinking about the idea and whether anyone should want to define themselves this way.

Of course, we all have people in our lives that are difficult to handle. Southerland’s book is geared towards helping Christians see these difficult people as a means God uses to sanctify us. The image of these people being used to rub off our rough edges is how you get the term, “sandpaper” people.

This is all well and good. It certainly is appropriate for us as believers to remember that God is working on us even through the trials and tribulations of life. Remembering this can help us focus on His work and not on ourselves.

But what do you do with someone who is a self-appointed sandpaper person in your life? What I mean is, what if someone decides that they know best how God should be working out your sanctification and that they just know that God is using them to rub off your rough edges?

Is being a sandpaper person a gift of the Spirit that Paul forgot to mention?

Of course, all parents have to discipline their children, and therefore, will be an active part of the sanctification process for their children, especially in the young years. Pastors and elders will also be called upon to help members of their congregation see that their behavior is sin. And certainly, there are occasions when Christians must come to a brother or sister in Christ and lovingly speak the truth to them.

But that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about a person who sees himself (or herself) as on a mission to refine you. Maybe you do need refining in the area they noticed. But maybe you don’t. Maybe instead of rubbing off the rough edges, this self-proclaimed agent of sanctification is actually cruelly injuring an area that is already tender.

I think there is a great danger when we focus on the sanctification of others instead of our own. God may very well use us and our sinful behavior as a means of sanctifying someone we know. But I don’t think we should volunteer for the job.

In fact, from the little bit I’ve read of the book, the author, Mary Southerland, believes that sandpaper people are abrasive and difficult because they don’t understand how to treat others. She even has a chapter called, “Be Confrontational: Caring Enough to Confront.” She points out that abrasive people need to be confronted about their behavior so that they can learn to change.

So let’s be gentle with each other and remember that God is working on each of us in different ways. Sanctification is a lifelong process. God alone knows all the work He is doing in our lives. And as I tell my children, let’s remember to give each other the same grace we want to be shown.

Wright, Reformation, and Gospel

Reblogged from The Reformed Reader:

I’ve found Cornelis Venema’s The Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ to be a great Reformed resource for interacting with recent revisions of justification as found in the New Perspectives on Paul.  Venema’s chapter describing N. T. Wright’s perspective on Paul is especially helpful, clear, and fair.  As I read this chapter (5), I tried to capture the main points by writing marginal notes. 

Read more… 924 more words

Pastor Shane Lems has an excellent summary of what is wrong with N.T. Wright. While Wright can be extremely difficult to follow, this summary is very clear. It also makes it obvious why Wright's teaching is contrary to Reformed doctrine.

He Is Risen!

Tags

And Can It Be, Easter, Indelible Grace

In the Name of the One who Turned Water into Wine

Tags

Authority of Scripture, Creation, Jesus, miracles, Water into wine

In preparing for Easter, I’ve been thinking on what John says about Jesus:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (John 1:1-5, ESV)

Jesus, who came and lived and died for the sins of His people, is the One through Whom all things were made. Scripture tells many ways in which He demonstrated His authority over the world He created. One of my favorite of those accounts is from the wedding at Cana, His first miracle. I love that it was at a wedding feast. What a beautiful foreshadowing of the coming Wedding Feast! And what an appropriate focus for us as we celebrate His victory over sin, death, and Hell. He is risen, and He will come again!

Here some thoughts on the miracle at Cana:

One of the fruits of the Reformation is the hermeneutic of using Scripture to interpret Scripture. How does that apply to the discussions of Genesis and origins? Well, we have many examples of miracles that Jesus performed. Since Jesus is the Word through whom and by whom everything was made, it seems reasonable to compare His work at Cana with His work at creation. Here is something I read recently on the authority of Scripture versus the authority of science:

As for determining what science says versus Scripture, how does one decide what is miraculous and what’s not?

For example, suppose there was an expert wine maker at the wedding feast at Cana, and let’s suppose that he was hired to make the wine selections for the father of the bride. Being an expert wine maker he would know the age of the wines and the vineyards they came from and could speak of their relative merits and taste.

Suppose that when Jesus turned water into wine the wine maker tested this wine for its age, maturity, bouquet and such, based on his knowledge of wine he would declare that this wine was years old and came from a wonderfully cared for vineyard. Using the best science of assessing wine, he would be forced to draw this conclusion.

So what would his response be when the servants told him that this exquisite wine wasn’t years old but just a few minutes old, that a few minutes before there was only water in the pots and that this man Jesus turned the water into wine.

Which authority would we believe? The science that has the corner on wine making or in Jesus who is able to act supernaturally? Why is it so hard to believe that the one who changed water into wine instantly and supernaturally could not also create the universe, visible and invisible, by the word of his power?

In the Name of the One who turned water into wine,
Rachel

Supernatural Creation of Man: Dr. Belcher addresses the historicity of Adam and critiques Dr. Jack Collins’ “mere-Adam-and-Eve-ism”

Tags

historicity of Adam, Jack Collins, Richard Belcher, Theistic Evolution

Last week, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary hosted their Spring conference. The topic of the conference was “The Doctrine of Man:”

Reformer John Calvin wrote that the two most important things for any person to know are who God is and who man is. In order to know God properly, one must know the truth about himself. In our day, there is much confusion about who man is. Is the Bible correct that God made man in His image from the dust of the earth or were the first humans made from primal hominids? Was there human death before the Fall? What role do the creation mandates have in the church today? Because of the seriousness of these questions and others concerning mankind, the faculty and trustees of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary are devoting our 2013 Spring Theology Conference to the study of what the Bible says about man.

A number of men spoke on various topics related to creation, Adam, and the fall. Dr. Guy Water spoke on the Covenant of Works. Dr. Joel Beeke spoke on temptation and the fall. Rev. Matthew Holst discussed the issue of death before the fall. Dr. Bill Vandoodewaard discussed Thomas Boston’s “Human Nature in Its Fourfold State.” Dr. Nelson Kloosterman spoke on imago dei and the relationship between the Cultural Mandate and the Great Commission. Dr. Joseph Pipa discussed original sin and depravity.

Dr. Richard Belcher, Professor of Old Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary-Charlotte, opened the conference with a discussion of the “Supernatural Creation of Man.” Dr. Belcher focused his discussion on Genesis 2:7:

Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. (ESV)

He spoke particularly about the current attempts by some to reinterpret the creation of Adam in order to reconcile it with some form of evolution. He cited the push to get Christians to accept evolution as the way in which God created. He gave the examples of Francis Collins and BioLogos, which Collins helped found. BioLogos states that they are “committed to exploring and celebrating the compatibility of evolutionary creation and biblical faith.” Bruce Waltke, in a video for BioLogos, said that the church must accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution or risk becoming a cult. Tremper Longman, in his book Science, Creation, and the Bible: Reconciling Rival Theories of Origins, wrote that Darwinian evolution doesn’t threaten Christianity. Peter Enns has written that evolution is a game changer which should cause the church to reinterpret Scripture. All of these men are Old Testament scholars and all have sold out to evolution. All of their arguments for reconciling evolution with Christianity depend on their interpretation of Genesis 2:7, how God created man.

Dr. Belcher stated that his goals in his address were to give an exegesis of Genesis 2:7, present some of the models that attempt to reconcile evolutionary theory with the Bible, discuss the hermeneutical principles that are sacrificed by those models, and consider the implications for the church.

First, Dr. Belcher spoke on the meaning of Genesis 2:7: the creation of man from the dust. Dust in this passage means dirt, dust, loose soil. Looking to other passages to support this reading, Dr. Belcher pointed out Genesis 3:19 “for you are dust, and to dust you shall return. (ESV)” Referring to Genesis 2:18-22, he noted that the creation of Eve shows that among the animals there were no helpers suitable for Adam. No other living creature would have been a match for Adam. Eve was unique in that she was created from Adam, and she represented the unity of the human family. All humanity comes from Adam. All humans are descended from Adam and Eve. This rules out the idea that Adam and Eve were a couple of existing hominids adopted by God out of a population of other hominids.

Next Dr. Belcher gave a brief overview of some of the current attempts to reconcile evolution with Genesis 2:7. Evolutionary theory teaches that life evolved gradually over time by means of natural selection and genetic mutations. This lead to lower life forms to develop into higher forms. Eventually this gave rise to hominids, of which humans are a part. The evolutionary models all accept that the genetic diversity found in modern human DNA could not have been the result of a single couple.

One evolutionary theory is that humans developed first in Africa and then spread out. Using this theory, some theistic evolutionists suggest that Adam and Eve represent a population of humans from whom the rest of humanity descend. This, in their view, would maintain Adam and Eve as the source of human life now.

Another evolutionary theory is that humans developed in different places around the world at the same time. With this view, theistic evolutionists suggest that Adam and Eve were a couple of neolithic farmers that God selected. God then gave them a spiritual awareness which set them apart from the rest of the neolithic farmers. Adam and Eve would then be the head of humanity, even though there were others who were physically the same around them.

Dr. Belcher then summarized the evolutionary theories as they relate to Adam and Eve. According to the theories, human like creatures existed before Adam, so Genesis 2:7 can’t be a literal account of how man was created. One option for reconciling the Scripture with evolutionary theory is that Adam and Eve were selected by God out of a group of humans. Another option is that Adam and Eve weren’t the first couple, and so they aren’t the source of all humanity. A third option is that Adam and Eve didn’t actually exist. Instead they represent a much larger population of people. This incorporates the genetic evidence. A further consequence of this attempt at reinterpreting the creation of man is that according to these theories there was no original pristine condition, physically or morally, since humans inherited their sinful tendencies from their animal ancestors.

Dr. Belcher moved on then to his next point. Since there is such a difference between how Genesis 2:7 describes the creation of man and the evolutionary theories on the origin of man, how does theistic evolution reconcile the two? This is where hermeneutics becomes key. According to Dr. Belcher, there are three ways theistic evolutionists seek to blunt the meaning of Genesis 2:7.

First, theistic evolutionists begin by identifying the genre of Genesis 1-11 as mainly symbolic. According to the theistic evolutionists, the purpose of Genesis 1-11 is to teach theology, not history. It’s story, not history. It’s stylized and symbolic. It’s purpose is to explain aspects of human life like marriage, toil and labor, pain in childbirth, and sexual desire. Genesis account of creation can’t be history since no one was there to witness it. Symbolic elements like the talking snake and the Garden of Eden seen as a type of temple illustrate that the proper genre for Genesis is not history.

Second, Genesis 1-11 should be read and understood in light of the other Ancient Near East (ANE) creation myths like the Enuma Elish. According to this theory, the author or authors of Genesis borrowed sequences, themes, and motifs from the ANE myths, including the creation of man from clay. Peter Enns has written that since the foundational stories of Genesis fit so well with the ANE myths, how can we claim that Genesis recounts revealed, unique events? Because these ANE myths are older, then they must be source material for Genesis. Genesis, therefore, can’t be the original events revealed by God. Dr. Belcher pointed out that this hermeneutical approach question both the historicity and relevatory nature of Genesis.

The third hermeneutical approach used by theistic evolutionists is to see Genesis 1 and 2 as contradictory accounts. According to this view, there are great and insurmountable differences between Genesis 1 and 2. Therefore, Genesis 1 has an unknown number of men and women created on day 6. Genesis 2 tells the specific creation of a single man and woman. Since they believe that the difference between Genesis 1 and 2 can’t be resolved, the best answer is that the creation accounts are symbolical not historical.

In summary, Genesis is mythical or symbolical, and Genesis 2:7 can’t be understood as a literal account of the creation of man.

So then, Dr. Belcher asked, what should our response be? There is a good solid response which Dr. Belcher called the historical, biblical, confessional view: Adam was formed from the dust as the very first human being. Dr. Belcher noted that Dr. Jack Collins had written his own response to the question of the historicity of Adam, Adam and Eve: Did They Really Exist? However, Dr. Belcher stated that Dr. Collins’ response falls short because he accepts too many of the hermeneutical assumptions that are foundational to the evolutionary approach to Genesis chapter 2.

The positive side of Dr. Collins’ book, according to Dr. Belcher, is that Dr. Collins wants some form of the traditional view of Adam to be maintained. However, Dr. Collins defines that traditional view as containing three things: the supernatural origins of mankind, Adam and Eve as the headwaters of human race, and an historical fall. Dr. Collins does not include in his traditional view the meaning of Genesis 2:7.

According to Dr. Belcher, Dr. Collins hermeneutical approach to Genesis is not that different from the theistic evolutionists discussed earlier. Dr. Collins accepts two of the three assumptions: Genesis as symbolic and the similarity of the ANE myths. He does not accept that Genesis 1 and 2 contradict.

Dr. Collins writes in his book that Genesis 1-11 are not straight history, but rather historical. By this he means that it refers to actual events, but it contains a high level of figurative and symbolic description. While Dr. Collins doesn’t believe that Genesis is myth, he does believe the better approach is to read it as symbolic.

Dr. Collins also agrees that Genesis 1-11 are best read in the context of the ANE origin stories. Like the ANE stories, Genesis refers to historical events, but in a symbolic way. Since we don’t take the ANE stories literally, we shouldn’t take Genesis 1-11 literally either. Dr. Collins concludes, then, that Genesis 1-11 contains an historical core. This core includes the historicity of Adam, but does not include the way in which Adam was formed. According to Dr. Collins we should not be too literal with Genesis 2:7. This approach is compatible with evolution.

Dr. Belcher gave an example from a Christianity Today article where Dr. Collins said that if the genetic evidence says that one couple can’t be the source of all humans, then Adam and Eve should be seen as a tribe with Adam as the chieftain. Also, in Dr. Collins book, Science and Faith, he writes that while he prefers the view of dust in Genesis 2:7 as loose soil, he can commend the view that dust is the body of a hominid. Dr. Belcher disagreed. Dust cannot mean the body of a hominid. He gave the example of a judicial case from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church that addressed that very question. The OPC decision was that dust can’t mean the body of a hominid.

According to Dr. Belcher, Dr. Collins approach gives away too much hermeneutically. It can’t be used to support the historical, biblical, confessional view of Adam.

Dr. Belcher then offered his response. The literary nature of Genesis 1-11 is key, he said. Genesis should be read by it’s own literary character. There is no difference in genre between Genesis 1-11 and Genesis 12-50. The Hebrew narrative use of the WAW or VAV consecutive is consistent throughout the whole of Genesis. Dr. Belcher also said that it is a false dichotomy that narrative history can’t be theological. Genesis is narrative, historical, and theological. He also said that the exegesis of the passage must determine if there are symbolic or literary devices, not assumptions made about the text beforehand.

Dr. Belcher went on to say that it is a misuse to use the ANE myths as a guide for understanding Genesis. The similarities that exist between Genesis and the ANE myths are superficial and insignificant in light of the differences between the them. Genesis is not dependent on the ANE myths, nor are the ANE myths guides to Genesis. That approach downplays the supernatural relevatory nature of Genesis. Instead, Dr. Belcher said that the ANE myths should be seen as derivative from the original stories, the ones given to us in Genesis, handed down over time.

Dr. Belcher also pointed out that Genesis 1 and 2 do not contradict each other, but can be understood as a broad versus a narrow look at creation. Genesis 1 gives the broad view, and Genesis 2 focuses on the events in the Garden of Eden.

Lastly, Dr. Belcher spoke about the implications for the church in accepting evolution as the way God created. Most importantly, it affects other passages of Scripture. If Genesis 2:7 isn’t actually how God created man from the dust, then the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib is also out. However, Paul refers to the creation of Adam and Eve, and the specific details, like woman made from man. Was Paul wrong?

If Paul was wrong there, was he also wrong when he makes the great parallel between the first Adam and the last Adam, Christ? Paul’s use of Adam to explain the origin of sin and to contrast that with salvation through sacrifice of Christ argues for the necessity of an historical Adam. If Adam wasn’t the first human through whom all humans descend, then there is no salvation for those who are not descended from Adam. Christ took the nature of Adam and died for those in Adam. Any who are not of Adam would, therefore, not be saved.

Dr. Belcher closed with a call for the church to stand firm in preserving this truth. Pastors and seminaries must teach the truth. Presbyteries must be careful in examining men regarding their views on evolution and Adam. As he noted earlier, there are those who would say that they believe in the historicity of Adam but mean an evolutionary Adam. The confessions are clear on the supernatural creation of Adam.

Dr. Belcher also noted that given the changing nature of scientific theories it’s dangerous to attach ourselves to one of these theories as it could easily change in time. In our society, evolution has become a “sacred cow” which must not be questioned. When science and the Bible disagree, it seems that the Bible must always be the one to give ground.

However, opposing evolution is hardly the only unpopular view held by Christians. The church holds the minority position on almost all modern ethical debates. What we believe is abhorrent to society. Salvation by Christ alone is considered intolerant. Sex outside of marriage is seen as prudish. The ordination of men only is seen as out of touch. Believing homosexuality is wrong is seen as bigoted and hateful.

If the culture hates our views on all these, why then are we surprised that the view of the historicity of Adam is also seen as uneducated and out of touch with mainstream culture. Are we willing to stand for the truth of God’s Word even if that means we are looked down on as uneducated? The inerrancy of Scripture and the gospel of Christ are at stake. May God give us the courage to stand for His truth.

[Note: Conference audio may be purchased by emailing bookstore@gpts.edu, or by calling the seminary at (864) 322-2717.]