Through my meditations in the Force, I sense my writer’s block slowly fading. I’m not sure where my writing will be led next, but I do know that the first post after the FBC Starbucks reposts will be a Beliefbusters post. And I already know exactly what the topic will be. I’m going to tackle the myth of human “free will,” as it is commonly described today. Don’t be surprised; those of you who actually read your Bibles ought to be able to discern exactly what I’m getting at! Here’s a few verses for you to look at; I won’t provide the text, I’d like for you to actually open your Bible and read it! Please withhold all judgment and knee-jerk reactions until you have actually read both the Scriptures and what I have to say.

John 8:34
Romans 6:15-22
1 Corinthians 7:21-23

Thanks for your patience as I deal with writer’s block, and join us as I re-start the engines soon!

Stephen’s Note:  Stephen is dealing with writer’s block.  As such he is reposting classic offerings from the Silent Holocron.

FBC Starbucks (3a)

Before we get into the next objection, I want to backtrack and give you an addendum to the last post. I had wholly forgotten this one; in fact, it is one of the more common objections I have gotten. In “younger SBC-ers” circles today, it is likely the most common reason given for leaving SBC churches. That objection?

What if I have problems with the church leadership?

Okay, let’s flesh that objection out, attempting to answer it as we go along. Let’s start by asking the question, what kind of problems are you having with the leadership of your church? Here are some potential ways of saying this:

I don’t go to church on Sunday/Wednesday because I don’t like the pastor. Okay. Fair enough. Let me probe a little bit: Do you divorce your spouse because you don’t like him/her anymore? Do you now see the uselessness of your objection? “But Steve,” you object further, “I’m not married to the church!” Of course you aren’t. You were never a part of the church in the first place; you were only dating the church. That church will be much better off without you than with you. You are nothing more than chaff. You are a goat. The church is for wheat and sheep. You are neither; you are deadwood that must be cut loose. I question the integrity of your testimony if this is the kind of attitude you have about the Body of Christ.

You see, when we become believers, we became “married” to Christ. We play out this “marriage” in the local church. The pastor, though he be a sheep, represents Christ to the congregation. The congregation, in submitting themselves to his teaching, is obligated to remain faithful to that pastor. If you have problems with your spouse, you will bear through and work them out, would you not? You would not divorce him/her. In the same manner, if you have problems with your church leadership, you should be just as committed to resolving them. To behave otherwise is sin, sin against the church generally and sin against the pastor specifically. Ultimately, you are sinning against Christ. The fact that many of you have this problem speaks volumes as to how flippantly you treat being a church member.

I don’t go to church because I have been hurt by the pastor. Okay, also a fair question. Let me probe once again: Do you divorce your spouse because he/she hurt you? This is also another useless objection. In a marriage, when one spouse hurts the other, the offended spouse ought to call the other to repentance and seek reconciliation. By refusing to do this you have, in effect, sinned a greater sin. You have “let the sun go down on your anger.” Instead of resolving the hurt and reconciling, you have allowed it to take root as bitterness. That is a dangerous thing to have in a church. Anger, fear, aggression: the dark side are they.

I am assuming here the kind of “hurt” you have experienced is not of the criminal kind, of course. I don’t mean things that you perceive as “sin” against you (addressed in the next paragraph) but actually are not. I’m talking about things like hurt feelings, bruised egos, squashed pride. Be honest with yourselves and examine your “hurt” to determine if you are guilty of these or something similar. If a pastor tiptoed through the tulips, he’d never change anyone’s life with the Gospel. Sometimes one must utterly squash the flowers before hearts of stone are transformed into hearts of flesh.

I don’t go to church because the pastor sinned against me. Now, this is a much, much more legitimate and serious objection. These are the kind of objections that ought to be taken seriously, especially by pastors. But again, I must ask: Do you divorce your spouse because he/she sinned against you? It is here that the church member has any legitimate standing.

At first glance, the answer is no. Just because my wife sins against me does not give me carte blanche, that is, full permission, to divorce her. She could call me every dirty name in the book purposely, or intentionally be snarky with me, or usurp my authority in our marriage, and I still wouldn’t have any excuse to divorce her. The only reason I would divorce her then, according to Christ, is because of the hardness of my own heart, not hers. By this same token, sin against you by a pastor is not an authorization to leave your church.

At second glance, however, the believer is given legitimate means of resolving this conflict, and both of the previous objections. We must follow Matthew 18. That is, the believer must first confront the offender privately. If that fails, the believer must tell the situation to at least two others so that it may be documented and proven, then take those fellows and confront the offender again. If that fails, then the entire affair must be presented to the church for official discipline. If even that fails, the offender is to be treated as if they were an unrepentant sinner and an unbeliever.

The first two situations above are more likely than not going to be corrected during steps 1 or 2, especially if they are nothing more than misunderstandings, personality clashes, hurt feelings, squashed pride, or bruised egos. But those first two situations are never an excuse not to attend church. The 3rd one, by contrast, is more serious and more biblical. If, after having been through steps one and two, a pastor does not repent of or even acknowledge his sin, stage 3 of the process has him in danger of losing his job. No pastor of any sort of integrity would allow documented, proven, unrepented sin to endanger his ministry. If he does, your church has every authority under heaven to expel him from his position. Why? Because your pastor, by his refusal, has trampled the Gospel underfoot. He has made the Gospel “of no account” in his attitude and in his life.

So you see, a case of sin by a pastor is not legitimate reason to leave your church. Quite the contrary. Sin by a pastor is the call for a congregation to exercise their Biblical authority to keep their pastors accountable. If you fail to hold the pastor accountable by leaving the church, you are sinning a greater sin than your pastor did. In doing this, you are also making the Gospel of no account in attitude and life.

This brings me to a second part of this third objection:

I don’t go to church because the pastor is preaching heresy. This is the most serious charge of all. It is the congregation’s responsibility to make sure their pastor is preaching no other Gospel than the one once and for all delivered to the saints. Let me ask my question once again: Do you divorce your spouse because he/she has been unfaithful? According to Christ, the answer is “yes, you may.” But notice here, Christ never says “go ahead.” He simply says it is “permissible.” That is an astounding permission. If God “permits” something, that ought to indicate that the thing He is permitting is not His ideal. It is still ungodly. But God will permit it. If Tricia ever cheats on me or I on her (God forbid and protect us from such temptation!), we are permitted to divorce, but God would much rather that we remain faithful to each other. Why? Because God remained faithful to His spouse (Israel and later the Church) despite repeated infidelity. Instead of forsaking Israel and the Church, God worked diligently to restore her. That is true commitment.

So, if your pastor is clearly preaching heresy, you are permitted to leave, but it is clear that God does not want you to leave your church. You would be better advised to follow the process outlined in Matthew 18. If your pastor repents, you have gained a faithful pastor. If not, your church should show him the Left Foot of Fellowship. Give him the boot. If you decide, instead, to leave, you are still doing something not very good or right or godly, but God will permit it. The Lord would much rather you stayed and worked to restore the broken relationship.

But what if even the church refuses to correct an erring pastor? Well, then, you have two options. The first is to examine yourself carefully against Scripture to determine if, in fact, the pastor is erring. You yourself may be in the wrong. But after doing so, and asking people to whom you are accountable, and even after having things “explained” to you by the pastor and the church, you are still convinced you have not erred, you have no other choice but to leave that church and not look back. That church has trampled the Gospel, and you would only be pierced to the heart by the continuing heresy promoted by that church.

As an example, let me give you one of Mr. Frank Turk’s illustrations of this (roughly recalled, of course). Suppose I caught my pastor engaged in something we’ll just say is unbiblical with another man’s wife. Not only that, I have video evidence. I confront the pastor and this woman, and they laugh it off and tell me it’s nothing. Astounded, I go to two godly and trustworthy men in church, and present them the evidence. Agreeing, the three of us confront the pastor and this woman. Again, they laugh it off and tell us it’s nothing. Astounded, we bring the issue before the church. After deliberation, the church itself laughs it off and tells us it is nothing. Furthermore, they call on us to repent and reconcile with the pastor and this woman. I am fully justified in shaking the dust off my feet, leaving that den of iniquity, and never looking back, because that church has trampled the Gospel of Christ underfoot. This is the kind of thing I am talking about. My ducks are in a row, and yet the Gospel is still made of no account.

I did not address above what constitutes heresy, because there are some out there who would say such moronic things like (for example) “speaking in tongues is heresy,” or “advocating Christian liberty in drinking is heresy,” or even something infinitesimally stupid as “Calvinism is heresy.” Heresy isn’t in the eye of the beholder, as most of those who claim heresy over things that are Scriptural seem to think. Heresy is a belief that rejects orthodox tenets of a religion. Speaking in tongues, alcohol consumption, and Calvinism do not reject orthodox Christian tenets. Heresy speaks to the very heart of what it means to be a Christian. So if you think your pastor is preaching “heresy,” you better have your ducks in a row. Make sure what you are objecting to directly impacts the Gospel.

I hope I have impressed upon you the seriousness of such an action as leaving the church. Leaving your church is not a matter to be handled lightly, for frivolous reasons. It is a serious fracturing of the Body of Christ that should only happen under the most serious and dire of circumstances. Tomorrow, we will address the objection, “What if I miss church to evangelize?”

Stephen’s Note: Due to a bout of writer’s block, Stephen is reposting classic Silent Holocron posts for the time being. Enjoy!

FBC Starbucks (3)

I said we’d take a look at Matthew 18:20. So with no further ado:

For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them. (ESV)

At first glance, this would seem to close the case and give certain people the right to declare me a stinkin’ legalist. Where two or more people are gathered in the name of Jesus, He is there. If I sit down and have a prayer with my wife, Jesus is there. If I meet one of my church members for a time of sharing and prayer, Jesus is there. According to the people mentioned in the first post in this series, that constitutes “being the church.” But does it really?

No, it doesn’t. And to show you just how it doesn’t, let’s look at the context of the verse:

¹⁵If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. ¹⁶But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. ¹⁷If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. ¹⁸Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ¹⁹Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. ²⁰For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them. (ESV)

Do you see where I am going? Okay, so you might not. Let’s walk through this one.

First, the context of verse 20 is set by verses 15-17. That context is church discipline. Church discipline, according to this block of text, is something that is very personal, individual; and at the same time it is corporate. Notice how church discipline begins: personally. The offended Christian is expected to resolve the issue personally. I would even say such an issue is to be handled quietly and discreetly. None of this loud bullfighting we Southern Baptists are famous for. None of this loud gossip-mongering we Deaf people are famous for. Church discipline begins in a quiet, discreet, and totally non-corporate way. And that is as it should be: if Moses couldn’t handle dealing with the daily grumblings of Israelite against Israelite, what makes you think your pastor can handle yours?

Second, it is clear that Christ is present explicitly when His people are gathered for the purpose of being the church. The context makes that glaringly clear. Church discipline does not take place in a vacuum, folks. It takes place as a stated function of the Body of Christ. Some would have us believe Christ is present only when church discipline is occurring, since that is the thrust of the text here. Technically, they may be right. However, practically I think they are wrong. Christ is present when the church has come together to perform churchly functions, and as such Christ is present when your church meets on Sundays and Wednesdays.

When you meet a Christian friend at Heine Brothers’ Coffee for prayer or fellowship in lieu of attending Sunday worship or Wednesday prayer, Christ is not present in the same way in which He is present at your church at that moment. You are not being the church. Why? Because you have violated Hebrews 10:25. You have willingly set aside the established worship time of your local church that, by virtue of membership, you have agreed to be in submission to. You have told your church that worshipping with them is not important. Worse, you have told Jesus that you don’t think much of being a part of His body. And so you don’t forget, that’s called sin.

Listen, there are reasons we tell people “I’ll meet with you before/after church.” One is that corporate worship is essential to our spiritual health. A non-believer isn’t going to understand that, nor will he respect it. And that’s to be expected — the Bible says a non-believer thinks God’s things are stupid. A believer who doesn’t respect that is guilty of sin against God and His church. A believer, quite frankly, ought to know better. That’s where a believer is going to get the prayer and encouragement he/she needs. That’s where a believer is going to be fed by the Word. That’s where the believer is going to learn the Gospel in order to share it with the non-believer. And to forsake all that is not a very bright move.

Another reason is one that I’ve hinted at, and will now bring into glaring relief: we are in submission to our local church. Some of you really aren’t going to like me after reading that. So be it; have fun being a pseudo-church of one or two or three. But let’s broaden the context of Matthew 18 again: directly before our passage in verses 10-14 we have a “lost sheep” parable. Let’s think about the concept of us being sheep. As sheep, who is in charge? The sheep? Um, no. Shepherds in that day actually led their flocks instead of herding the flock from the rear willy-nilly, if cultural historians are to be believed. The shepherds led, the sheep were expected to follow. Wayward sheep were quickly brought back into line.

Most of the time, we look at this passage and think about all the ways a pastor is supposed to minister to his sheep — think of the hours of relationship building it takes for a shepherd to lead the flock instead of herding it from behind. And there’s a lot to be said for that angle in exegesis. But if we look at the fuller picture, we see sheep that have submitted themselves to the shepherd. And the shepherd cares for those who have done so, even to the point of leaving the rest when one goes astray.

But when you as a sheep refuse to submit to the shepherd and meet with the rest of your flock, you’re in sin. You’re fracturing the Body of Christ. You’re depriving the Body of a hand, or an eye, or a foot, or an ear. When you joined your local church, you in principle agreed to submit yourself to them. You agreed to meet when they met, worship with them when they worshipped, pray with them when they prayed together. You agreed that the needs of the Body were greater than the needs of the one. Yet you are making your desires a greater priority than that of the Body of Christ. In other words, you’re being a selfish, self-righteous lout.

Who gave you the right to determine you didn’t have to meet when the whole Body was getting together? Who said it was okay for you to go somewhere else when Jesus was assembling his various body parts? I’d like to see you explain to Jesus why you, as His middle finger, decided to stand up to Him in a Starbucks instead of being glorified on His hand.

I say these words with a certain amount of “preaching at self” — there were times in my life where I was just as guilty. And it is because of those times that I can confidently say what I’ve said here this morning — I deprived myself of the benefits of submission to my local church and contributed to its fracturing. All of my profs at Southern have repeatedly emphasized that being “healthy” includes involvement in worship at a local church, not getting up and watching Charles Stanley or the seminary chapel or chatting and praying in the seminary cafe — all of which, by the way, I have done in the past. And look where that got me — burnout and a couple of extra years of seminary education. And the irony of it is that I know better than that. I was a seminary student, for crying out loud. I should have kicked my behind out of bed on Sundays and gotten in a local church. I should have put away the books on Wednesdays and gone to prayer meeting.

So, you see, just meeting a friend at Starbucks doesn’t meet the criteria of “being the church,” because you’re not really there for the purpose of being the church. So let’s stop pretending that is “corporate” worship. Let’s start calling it what it really is — rebellion, whether knowingly or unknowingly. Let’s start actually being the Body by meeting with the rest of that Body at the times set by that Body.

Stephen’s Note:I’ve got writer’s block!

I can’t finish the divorce post. I can’t get motivated to blog the rest of my T4G reflections. I can’t even get started blogging the Puritan Challenge stuff I’m behind on! And I’d really like to blame it on the Wells review, which is the best review I’ve ever written (why the heck couldn’t I have written like that while I was in seminary?!?!?), but I can’t. I’m just…stuck.

So in lieu of a regular post, I’m going to follow the lead of some of the giants of the blogosphere these days and repost some “classic” posts from The Silent Holocron. Over 4th of July weekend I’ll be reposting the ones that got me in trouble last year: the FBC Starbucks series. We’ll start with part 2, the first real post in the series. Enjoy!

First Baptist of Starbucks (2)

To recap, I said in this post:

Read in the blogosphere after returning home from work this morning:

“He thinks meeting a Christian friend at $tarbuck$ is just as valid “worship” as attending the Body of Christ.”

To which I briefly responded:

I was posed with this assertion a month or so ago by a member of my church. Said member was challenging my teaching in discipleship class that it is wrong for us to pass up our church’s established worship and prayer times for reasons other than illness or work. Starbucks was changed to Heine Brothers Coffee. And my answer was a flat and unequivocal “Heck no.” Just meeting someone at the Heinie is no more “worship and prayer time” than reading this blog is, even though I tend to preach at ya from time to time.

I’m going to start off my approach to this topic by asking a simple question: “What is the church?” If you answered, the universal body of believers, also known as the “invisible” church, you’d be right and you’d be wrong. You’d be right because we are all the Body of Christ. You’d be wrong because we’re talking about the local church.

So let’s nuance that question. “What is the local church?” The answer is also simple — it is the local body of believers. But we’d still be wrong to a degree, because not every believer goes to the same church. So what we are really talking about here is the church of which one is a member. With me so far? Good; now let’s nuance that question one more time:

“What is the local church of which one is a member?” Now we’ve asked the right question. I argue the answer is the local body of believers that has agreed to meet at a certain location at certain times for the purposes of being the church, to which one has submitted oneself to. In other words, the local church is that congregation in which you practice being “of the Body.” This is true whether you are Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Pentecostal, or Catholic. Everyone belongs to a local church whether they admit it or not, whether they appear on a membership roll or not.

Now I am not, in my denial of the above quoted assertion, saying that churches who meet in Starbucks are not being the Body, as an astute commenter pointed out in the last post. Quite the opposite. I’ve actually established that a church meeting in Starbucks — or a movie theater, or a high school gym, or even in a bar that has light beer and Guinness on tap — is a real live church. For the sake of those who will no doubt want to nit-pick my ecclesiology, I’m assuming these places have the marks of a true church.

What I am denying, quite frankly, is that two or more Christians meeting in a bar (be it Starbucks, Heine Brothers Coffee, or the local Irish pub) for anything other than “being the church” constitutes worship. This denial raises a whole host of questions (and I’m sure others will get raised in the meta, if a meta even starts), which I intend to tackle in this mini-series. The very first objection (which is ironic because I almost always open prayers with this very thing) is the affirmation in Matthew 18 that “wherever two or more are together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” We’ll critically examine this Scripture, and I’ll even explain why I use this Scripture so often during prayer at church.

Stephen’s Note: This review has been posted as part of the collaborative book review of David Wells’ The Courage to Be Protestant over at Said at Southern. Go there to read the excellent reviews of the other chapters of this book.

Summary
In this sixth chapter of David Wells’ book The Courage to Be Protestant, the author takes on the subject of “Christ.” Rather, I should say that Wells does not take on Christ proper; instead he takes on the concept of “Christ.” Specifically, Wells is in this chapter concerned with the difference between our modern concept of “Christ” and the Scriptural presentation of Christ.

There are two types of spirituality in life, according to Wells; one that begins above and moves down, and another that begins below and tries to move up or within. “One starts with God and reaches into sinful life whereas the other starts in human consciousness and tries to reach above to make connections in the divine. One is Christian and the other is pagan. There are the two fundamental spiritualities in the West today (p. 176).” Rather than being variations on a theme, as most modern people would view them; they are in Wells’ words stark alternatives. You and I might say polar opposites. This is because in the one from above, God reaches down in grace; whereas in the one from below, the sinner reaches up (or in) in self-sufficiency. This reveals that there are two very different worlds at play here, one moral and the other psychological. And this difference in reality is the underlying problem the church must face: will we approach Christ morally, that is, from a perspective outside of ourselves; or will we approach Christ psychologically, from the flawed and alienated perspective found within ourselves?

Wells flatly states that the latter approach is lethal to biblical Christianity. What bewilders him is that the church – the evangelical church – is the biggest proponent of this inward approach to Christ; specifically the seeker-sensitive and emergent churches. They are, he says, “selling spirituality disconnected from biblical truth (p. 178).”

Wells then embarks on a brief but in-depth examination of these two spiritualities. The spirituality from below, he writes, is characterized by a private search for meaning, a search for connection to something larger than the self; a self-constructed spirituality. This is because the private search yields information that comes directly from experience, rather than information that is mediated from another source. Since authority cannot be trusted, the postmodern might say, I cannot accept authority’s words as true unless my experience confirms it. My faith must be self-made.

The church has bitten the lure hook, line, and sinker. Instead of promoting a faith that is authoritative and normative, the church has promoted a faith that is as discardable as a choir robe. Underneath the robe are “the same old street clothes that have been there all along (p. 181).” Instead of calling people to cultivate a mindset that sees these robes as indispensable, the church has given in to the consumerist nature of the seeker and postmodern worldview. We must (this church says) appeal to a person’s needs, present ourselves in a way that their makes their experience relevant, promote a faith that encourages the journey they are taking.

The problem with this spirituality from below, Wells cautions, is that the seeker ends up controlling what is sought. Truth comes to us on our terms, when we want it, and only what we want to accept; much like the goods we buy in our malls and supermarkets. This makes doctrines of sin and divine sovereignty irrelevant and passé to the postmodern mind; they simply do not fit our consumer needs because they are offensive and unpalatable and therefore unnecessary to purchase. If it fits what we are talking about in our personal journey, only then is it worthy of purchase as “truth.” This, to Wells, means that postmodern worldviews are an exercise in utter meaninglessness.

The spirituality from above, in contrast, is from a completely different “universe” than the other. “It starts with the premise of the utter, incomparable holiness of God; we, in our spiritualities, start with our own self-perceptions and our own acceptability to the sacred (p. 192).” Christ began in a place where he was “above;” that is, holy. He came “below” into human life with all its sufferings and conflict; confronted and defeated sin, death and the devil; was raised from the dead; and returned “above” where he now reigns. Quite simply put, Christ comes from outside of human existence, enters our existence sovereingly and convincingly to save us from our self-centeredness, and then returns to the place from which he came, drawing our eyes, our perceptions, our worldviews to him. We can no longer live in this fallen, experiential spirituality if indeed that which is outside has come inside, changed the world, and returned to the true reality.

Indeed, Wells argues that with the coming of Christ, a “new age” has dawned. The old spirituality from below has been put to death and the true spirituality from above is now the only reality. To be sure, the old spirituality is in its death throes, and the intersection of this new age and the passing age is what Scripture terms “the last days,” or the coming of “the kingdom of God,” in which we now live. What an intriguing concept! This present age is dead! Yet to our perspective, it is very much alive. This distinction gets to the heart of the Christian message – we think our attempts to help ourselves to live will work, yet we are dead and can only assure our continued death. It takes an attempt from outside of ourselves if we are to have any hope of living. And the biblical Christ has done just that through his descent, death, and resurrection; and in this work he has established the reign of God. We ourselves cannot bring about this reign, only God can.

Wells closes with a word about hope. “Christian hope is not about wishing things will get better. It is not about hoping that emptiness will go away, meaning return, and life will be stripped of its uncertainties, aches and anxieties. Nor does it have anything to do with techniques for improving fallen human life, be those therapeutic, spiritual, or even religious. Hope has to do with the knowledge of ‘the age to come.’ The sin, death, and meaninglessness of the one age are being transformed by the righteousness, life, and meaning of the other (p. 206).”

Observations
I find myself deeply convicted by this chapter, and thus the reason for such a lengthy review. Much of evangelicalism today is focused on “needs-preaching.” That is, we tend to preach towards the “felt needs” of our people rather than focusing on Christ, which is what people actually do need. Or, if we preach on spiritual needs (such as our need to live lives of Christian service, giving, etc.), we preach about the individual benefit that comes from obeying these spiritual directives instead of our sole need to be redeemed by Christ, from which these things flow. Oftentimes during this chapter I perceived Wells writing directly to me, admonishing me to contend for a Scriptural faith rather than one concocted within myself or my church members. This is an important corrective for all of us – we must seek a spirituality that does not come from ourselves, “from below;” but rather one that comes from “above,” from the God of Scripture and Jesus Christ whom he has sent.

Questions for Discussion

1. How has the “personal, private experience of spirituality” prevalent today affected the way you present the Gospel?
2. What must we do to bring spirituality out of the private, subjective realm and make it more public and normative?
3. How can we confront postmodernism in our churches and in the world? That is, how can we show that Christ is not something we ourselves can create, but rather something that we must receive “from outside?”
4. Can the modern church be restructured from an inward focus to an outward focus? That is, can we move the eyes of the church from “this present age” to “the kingdom of God,” relying on Scriptural truth instead of our preferences?
5. On a personal level, have you allowed biblical truth to come to you on its own, or have you forced truth to come to you on your own terms? Have you become a “theological consumerist?” If so, will you repent of it today?

If there is only one thing — other than a saving knowledge of Christ — that I am able to teach my little Grace that sticks til she dies, it would be this:

Once they had all had their say, a minister’s wife looked across the table at me. “Christine, what are your thoughts.”

“You wouldn’t care to know. I’m young and single. What do I know?!”

At this the women in the room turned their attention to me, assuring me that my thoughts mattered.

I began slowly.

“I believe that a man feels most loved when he knows that he is respected.”

I went on to describe how I desired to serve my husband and show him respect to himself, in front of our children, and before others (whether he was present or not). In matters of submission, I imagined the thrill of being able to serve my husband even if the task was small. I longed for the Lord to bring me a mate that I could run along side of as we ran the course God had set before us, cheering him on … quenching his thirst … rejoicing at his/our victories.

I did not qualify my statements by saying that I would only do these things if he proved to be a godly leader and lover. I knew that many of their husbands were not. However, wives are responsible for their own actions and attitudes … not those of their husbands. Scripture does not describe the marriage relationship as “Wives, submit to your husbands when they lead you in godliness.” Instead, 1 Peter 3:1 states, “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives—”

I have sought in my own living to apply King Lemuel’s mother’s advice to her son. She described a godly wife who’s husband is confident in her and her abilitites. She seeks to do him good and not evil all the days of her life. All the days … even before she is married? Indeed. Take God’s inspired Word seriously, ladies. Look at the married women around you. Are they disrespectful? Do they leap at the opportunity to bite off their man’s head? Do they ignore their husbands? Have they grown bored in their marriage? Single women, like myself, this is not your fate. Do what is necessary today to love your future husband. It’s really no different than living the Christian faith. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength … and … love your neighbor as yourself. Being conformed into the likeness and image of Christ, living the gospel daily, and removing selfish pride from your life is essentially the ulitmate preparation to living with and respecting and loving a husband.

Go and read the entire fantastic story here.

Grace’s first time in a swimming pool! This was so much fun. Put your mouse over the pic to get a caption.

Pay attention to how badly ignored Reese looks in the background.

Here’s a few things that have been happening recently, for those interested:

• I finished my review of David Wells’ The Courage to Be Protestant, chapter 6 yesterday. The chapter is entitled “Christ.” Look for it over at Said at Southern next Monday. I do plan to post it here as well for those of you too lazy to click the link.
• Things appear to finally be slowing down life-wise, so that may herald the return of more regular blogging. As always, said blogging is subject to Providence, so stay tuned.
• Speaking of blogging, the divorce post has been going very slowly due to the aforementioned real-life. All I’m gonna say is it’ll get here when it gets here. Hey: it’s my blog. If you don’t like it, go start your own.
• Speaking of Providence, I was given a flyer advertising jobs opening at a certain plant here in Louisville. If my wife could get a job there, we’d be financially secure until I could go full-time at UPS or the Lord moves me to a full-time ministry. We’ll be praying for God’s guidance on this, since it is extremely difficult for Deaf people to get good jobs here in the ‘Ville.
• On going full-time at UPS; I’m going to start the process of enrolling at the University of Louisville to pursue a business-related degree. UPS will pay full tuition and most of the books. If I want to move to a good full-time position (not necessarily the next level of management, full-time supervisor), I need a business related degree. Counseling degrees can only take you so far.
• Wonder of wonders, I learned just last night that one of my best friends from high school is moving to Louisville. He is also a minister, a graduate of Asbury Seminary near Lexington, KY. He’s been in youth ministry for his entire ministry and will be serving as young adult minister (ages 18 to 30) for the first time in a Methodist church somewhere in town. I’m excited ’cause I haven’t seen the guy in 10 years! Incidentally, he’s also prettier than I am - he’s got more hair.
• In other wonderful news, we learned that our tax rebate will arrive this week. That’s fantastic because all the little bills from Grace’s birth that keep popping up unexpectedly will finally go away. We’ll take care of that, gas up the cars, and then use the rest of it to take a major chunk out of our student loans.
• I’m reading D.A. Carson’s The Cross and Christian Ministry in my downtimes at work. I have God’s Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible by Adam Nicolson as well as Worship Matters by Bob Kauflin as my bathroom readers. See the sidebar to see which Puritan Paperback I’m reading this month.
• Grace bought me The UBS Reader’s Greek New Testament for Fathers’ Day. I must be raising her right for her to get me a Greek New Testament.

Well, that’s it for a while. Just wanted to make sure you knew I wasn’t dead or drowning in a pool of baby diapers and spit-up.

Steve Weaver found this unusual and hilarious baseball video. He asks the question: What would happen if a switch-hitter had to face a switch-pitcher? The video is hilarious! Enjoy and watch lots of baseball this summer! Here’s the ESPN story on the video.