Veritas numquam perit

Adrian Warnock is a visionary and pioneer in Christian blogs (AKA Godblogs). He is the genius behind the Blogdom of God and, more recently, has created “10 Christian Blogs,” a compilation of the some of the best and brightest Christian bloggers out there.

At first glance, this may appear to be the establishment of an elite class of successful Christian bloggers who have joined together to separate themselves from the rabble. Sort of a spiritual “gated community,” if you will, like some women’s ministries that exclude working women by having all their functions during the work day.

But nothing could be further from the truth. Dr. Andrew Jackson at Smart Christian (himself one of Adrian’s “ten mighty bloggers”) sheds some light on what the group is all about.

My own experience with Adrian’s Ten Mighty Bloggers has been encouraging and rewarding. Whatever modest success I have had during my brief (three months) time as a Christian blogger, it has come about because of the grace and kindness of such fellow believers. They have linked to me and included me in their blogrolls.

Others, like David Wayne at Jollyblogger and Brad Hightower of 21st Century Reformation, were gracious enough to email their answers to a specific question I had about Reformed theology. There was no reason for them to do that other than grace and love. Such is the nature of the Christian bloggers I’ve met.

Thus, one of the joys of being a Christian blogger is the experience of fellowship, community, and cybersphere body life I’ve encountered. Everyone works hard to make everyone else successful. It is something that most churches would love to experience.

The reason these ten blogs in particular were chosen to be in this group was not because they are excellent blogs (although they are), but because they have tried to do more to promote others than most of us have. They are servants of the hundreds of others (like me) who are finding our way through the crowded Blogdom of God. And they are setting an example for the rest of us to follow.

Not many of us like to have our cages rattled or our chains jerked. We like the status quo, for the most part, and view events or information contrary to our perception of the world as threats and intrusive.

This is why we choose friends that think like us, share our values, and respect our boundaries. It’s why we go to the churches that we do. We want to be affirmed and confirmed in our correct and biblical viewpoints, as well as in biases and blind spots. We have our comfort zones, after all, and feel entitled to them.

Jesus will have none of it. He is interfering, intrusive, meddling, prying, and nosey. He is a continual threat to our categories and world view. Just when we think we’ve got our theology and Christian life all figured out and nailed down, we hear a sermon or read a passage that raises a question.

Of course, we can shoot the messenger if it’s a sermon or book, but when the book happens to be the Bible . . . well, maybe we gloss over it or mark as something to be studied and considered later. Later, as in “when I get to heaven I’m going to ask God about that.”

When we are confronted with such information, we can do one of two things with it: we can assimilate it or we can accommodate it. To assimilate new facts or ideas means to fit them into our pre-existing categories; we like to assimilate because we don’t have to change. Or we don’t have to change in a direction that we don’t want to go. Assimilation is our friend.

Accommodation, however, means we have to create new categories or abandon old ones that don’t fit any longer. Accommodation is being transformed by the renewing of our mind, conformed to the image of Christ. Accommodation is sanctification.

Some day, read one or all of the gospels through the eyes of a Pharisee, Sadducee, or any other of the many opponents Jesus accumulated during His ministry in Judea. You’ll find a troublemaker, an iconoclast, and – above all – serious threat to the lives of the comfortable. You’ll be disturbed. That’s Jesus: disturbing the comfortable, comforting the disturbed.

Next: Jesus the Holy Irritation, Part One

For the people in power during the days of Jesus, life was pretty good. They didn’t like being the subjects of the Roman empire, but they had been granted some special privileges that made it palatable and tolerable, if not desirable.

Most of all, the “haves” of the day enjoyed a pretty comfortable and prestigious lifestyle. While the zealots, remnant, and other “have-nots” may have been looking for a Deliverer, the in-crowd had other things on their collective minds. “If we let Him go on like this,” whined the chief priests and Pharisees, “all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”

No room for accommodation in their minds. Maintain the status quo. Crush or crucify anything or Anybody that poses a threat.

Jesus knew what they were like, of course, but that didn’t deter Him from confronting them. He wasn’t about to pander to the elite, powerful, or “righteous.” So He said things that threatened them and angered them. He did it deliberately and frequently because the truth and holiness were more important to Him than His own safety or comfort.

Here’s an apple cart that Jesus discovered and upset:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’
“But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
“For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
“If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” – Mt 5.43-48

To be “perfect” does not mean to be sinless or without any imperfection (although this is certainly true of God). One lexicon defines perfection as “consummate human integrity and virtue; full grown, adult, of full age, mature.” This is the standard of behavior Jesus establishes.

The Jews in general, and the powers-that-were in particular, hated the Romans and hated the Samaritans. They liked hating them: it helped them feel self-righteous and superior. Besides, we all need identifiable enemies to help define who were are and who we are not. Even Jesus allowed that: “Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way.” – Lk 6.26. Jesus wasn’t denying the responsibility to be discerning; Jesus was talking about how we treat our enemies.

He told a story to clarify both who our neighbor is: our neighbor is our enemy. At the same time, He described how we ought to treat our neighbor/enemy.

This was not popular with the self-righteous, comfortable Jews. It threatened their theology and their lifestyle; it intruded upon their religious categories and comfort zones. It was irritating and disruptive. They resisted it and, in the end, killed the Source of the menace.

Next: Jesus the Holy Irritation, Part Two

In the Western world during these nascent years of the 21st Century, we don’t have the Romans or Samaritans to despise. Those of us in the United States are not presently being subjugated by an external power such as the Romans and most of us are half-breeds like the Samaritans. But we do have our enemies.

We deplore the activities of abortionists and their killing mills, where millions of emerging image-bearers have been scraped into eternity like unwanted barnacles or vacuumed out as though they were nothing more than dust that’s collected around the baseboards of our homes. The disregard for human life is mind-numbing and intolerable at the same time.

We detest those who promote same-sex relationships and marriages, seeking to normalize that which God calls an abomination. We rightly find their philosophy abhorrent and seek to protect our children and the children of others from being blindly drawn into a disturbing and sinful lifestyle.

We are angry with those who would seek to limit our freedom of religious expression even as they give carte blanche to every other form of so-called spirituality. The foundations of our culture are not only being rejected but are being restricted. If these groups are allowed to succeed, they will eliminate all vestiges of our faith.

Hated, too, are the evolutionists, journalists, psychologists, and every other “-ist” that seeks to marginalize Christianity and the basic tenets of our faith. We are engaged in spiritual warfare – this we know – and sometimes recall that we are battling forces unseen. Generally our assessment of the threat such individuals and groups pose are accurate and biblical.

But that is not the point. The point is this: How do we talk about them and treat them? How often do we pray for them?

Jesus said we should pray for them. That we should treat them even as the Samaritan treated the Jew he found lying on the side of the road. That we should count ourselves blessed when we are mistreated, misunderstood, and misrepresented by the enemies of God. And that our reaction should be humble, not angry or defensive or vindictive. Conciliatory, not condemning.

Our responses to those who threaten us and endanger those things that are dear to us should be miraculously different from how they react to us. We are not to speak disparagingly of them, or malign them, or cast aspersions on their character and motives. We are to pray for them and to treat them with dignity. We are to value them because they are slaves to spiritual forces of which they are completely unaware. They are blind and dead in their sins.

If the unbelieving people in the world are going to seriously consider our claims, they will have to first observe some seriously different behavior than what they anticipate. We are called to bless them and to be a blessing to them. We are to love them and do good to them.

In short, we are to show them the same sort of compassion, long-suffering (which implies patience in the face of contemptuous behavior), love, grace, and mercy that Jesus Christ had toward us when we were ungodly and opposed to Him. The very same love He has for us now as a group of people who know better, but often fail to behave as we should.

Non-Christians are only doing what they are moved and ordered to do by their master; they are doing the best they can do. We are called to no less: to do that which our Master desires and commands, and to do so as best we can in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Or, “Attention Theologians: There’s Blood in the Water!”

Although it’s been awhile since I’ve done it, I used to come up with what I called my “heresy of the month:” it was an idea, concept, or belief that was original with me and perhaps not so traditional. I would run it past trusted friends when I had the opportunity and would discover: (a) my idea was not biblical, for reasons X, Y, and Z; (b) my idea was not original, having been stated by someone else previously, or (c) my idea had some merit or was at least plausible, even if it didn’t have much value.

The last “heresy” I recall was my musing that perhaps what happened to Paul on the Damascus Road was that he got struck by lightning. His subsequent symptoms fit and God does seem to work through natural means quite frequently to accomplish spiritual ends. He used an electrical storm 1,500 years later with Luther, didn’t he?

Well, my friend and former professor Dr. James Beck of Denver Seminary laughed when he read it in an email and replied that I was always thinking outside the box. Actually, I don’t just think outside the box; I live outside the box.

I was reminded of one of my older heresies earlier today as I was reading “Taking the T.U.L.I.P. Out of the Garden”, a book review by Nathan Bierma of Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport: Making Connections in Today’s World by Richard J. Mouw.

I am not a Five-Point Calvinist (as they are sometimes called), parting company with them over the “L” and the “P.” The latter refers to the doctrine of the Perseverance of the saints, i.e., the “once saved, always saved” belief. I, too, believe in eternal security, but tweak the “P” to represent the Perseverance of the Savior, or the Preservation by the Savior. The emphasis is on Christ’s faithfulness, not my own. Many Calvinists may also mean this, but many do not and stress an evaluation of one’s works for assurance of salvation.

But that is not my point or heresy - or, at least, it’s not the one I’m talking about right now. Mine has to do with the “L” in the TULIP: Limited Atonement, or (as Mouw optimistically labels it), “mission accomplished.” This means that, although Christ’s death was sufficient for all, it was not efficacious for all. (For more on the Five Points, go to The Calvinist Corner).

My belief is that Jesus Christ did make atonement for all but that the atonement is not efficacious unless it is united with faith. Christ died for all, but not all believe; thus, not all are saved and they are condemned for not exercising faith in Christ. Saving faith, however, is also a work of the Holy Spirit that enables the person to believe; salvation is a work of God: we are completely unable to either earn salvation or even choose salvation apart from His work.

This is where my heresy comes in. I asked one of my New Testament profs about it once, but there wasn’t enough time to get an answer. So now I throw it out to all of you for your consideration and (if necessary) correction.

In Jn 16, Jesus teaches the disciples about a particular ministry that the Holy Spirit will perform when He comes. Jesus says,

“And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.” – vv. 8-11

Tell me if I’m wrong here, but it seems that Jesus is saying that the sin that condemns a person is failure to believe in Him. His substitutionary death on the cross paid the price for every other sin of omission or commision, but to reject the work of the Holy Spirit is to be guilty of a sin that results in judgment.

The determinative factor in salvation is Jesus Christ, not how good a life we lived or how badly we treated others. It all comes down to a single issue: has a person trusted in the sacrifice that was made on his or her behalf by the Son of God?

When Christ’s atonement is united with faith, salvation is the result. Even as the blood of the lamb at the initial Passover had to be applied to the door to be effective, so must the Blood of Jesus Christ be applied by faith for it to be salvific.

Well, that’s it. As I said before, this is my “heresy of the month” (although I’ve thought about this for more than twenty years). If anyone can demonstrate to me biblically that I am truly wrong, I would greatly appreciate it so I can correct my error. I am not asking to be persuaded into a Limited Atonement position here – that might be a worthwhile discussion at another time – but am asking whether or not this notion of all sins being atoned for except for the rejection of Christ is valid.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Check out this video. It’s the perfect car.

Dr. Andrew Jackson has an interesting series over at Smart Christian regarding the evangelical identity.

As usual, he’s thoughtful and thought-provoking The latter alone makes it worth the trip and the time.

He was a big man with a broken heart; his wife, sitting next to him, was equally crushed by the events of the last few days.

The teenage daughter of these two Christian people had just informed them that she was a lesbian, had always felt like a lesbian, and was going to pursue being a lesbian. The big man and his wife were devastated: faithful members of their church, Sunday School teachers, the envy of other parents with struggling teenagers, they believed that their daughter loved Jesus Christ. They had no categories to deal with the news that had invaded their home with all the irresistable force of a spiritual tsunami.

The father was, understandably, angry: he had responded well to his daughter at first, but now the anger was beginning to overwhelm him. He wanted to punish her, to take away things that she valued, and to not give her things that had been promised. He couldn’t stand, he said, to even look at her picture anymore and wanted to leave the room whenever she came into it.

“She doesn’t know what she’s doing,” he protested, “she doesn’t know how hard her life is going to be or how this is going to affect her relationships with the family and her friends.” He was probably right, since their daughter is barely seventeen. Most teenagers don’t grasp long-term ramifications for choices.

“She’s like a leper,” he said with disgust and sorrow mixed together.

Yes, I thought to myself, she is exactly like a leper. And, as Christians, we know what we should do.

The scene, although modified to disguise the family, is true. It is played out in my office with tragic regularity as parents try to face the horrifying reality of what their children are telling them. These are, for the most part, Christian families whose children have been raised in the church and in ostensibly Christian homes. They come to me for help, hoping I can somehow make it all go away or, at the very least, tell them what to do and how to handle the situation.

There are a lot of homosexuals in the Christian church, some practicing and some not. They are, for the most part, in the closet: they know that Christians have a reputation for shooting their wounded; they know that they are deeply wounded. And bleeding profusely.

The father of the teenage girl wanted to pull away from her, to essentially excommunicate her from the family. Something like that may be necessary in the future, but it’s not the place to start. Their daughter may be trying this on to see how it fits; rejecting her now throws her into the arms of people who will be all-too happy to confirm her confused sexual feelings.

Homosexuals are the present-day lepers of the Christian church. We don’t like them, they scare us, and we don’t know what to do with them or for them. AIDS comes to mind almost immediately.

In Jesus’ time, there were genuine lepers walking around the streets and paths of Judea. They were ostracized and shunned by the religious people of their day, too. Here is part of the leprosy law of Lev 13.45-46:

“As for the leper who has the infection, his clothes shall be torn, and the hair of his head shall be uncovered, and he shall cover his mustache and cry, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’ He shall remain unclean all the days during which he has the infection; he is unclean. He shall live alone; his dwelling shall be outside the camp.” (NASB)

Contact with a leper resulted in ceremonial uncleanness; to be cleansed from the defilement meant sacrifice, loss of privileges regarding the temple, and isolation. Leprosy was contagious, after all.

It is this that makes Jesus’ reaction to the man with leprosy in Mark’s history so remarkable.

“And a leper came to Jesus, beseeching Him and falling on his knees before Him, and saying, ‘If You are willing, You can make me clean.’ Moved with compassion, Jesus stretched out His hand and touched him, and said to him, ‘I am willing; be cleansed.’” - Mk 1.40-41 (NASB)

Jesus touched the leper. The ceremonial law - which governed the religious life of the community - was superceded by the law of love. Jesus didn’t chastise the man for not announcing his approach, for endangering others; He didn’t send him away in shame or turn His back and walk away. Jesus stretched out His hand, the text says, and touched him. This is amazing. Would you touch a leper? Do mouth-to-mouth resuscitation on a homosexual?

It is also an example for us to follow. For the most part, the church has failed to embody the love and compassion of Christ in touching the untouchables in our midst. We, too, have had a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy with regard to sins such as homosexuality. And so these particular damaged people (as we all are) leave the church and disappear in the shadows of life. Or death.

Our job - and the job of the father who came to me - is to move toward the unlovely people in our lives, to embrace them, to show them the love of Jesus Christ, and to help them in their struggle against their own personal variation of Sin. Whatever reasons we might have or offer for not helping these people, it will not hold up at the judgment seat of Christ. The church is to be a healing community. That means there are going to be sick people in our midst. We need to help them.

I’m not suggesting that churches throw doctrine or discipline out the window; I am suggesting that churches think long and hard about how to come to the aid of Christians who have fallen prey to whatever behavior is currently labeled as unacceptable in our subculture. Homosexuals are not valueless people; they are people for whom Christ died. And they not only desperately need our help, they are entitled to it.

For Christmas, one of my colleagues gave me a compass. I’m not sure what to make of that but, since he’s off guarding the President at the inauguration, I don’t ask (as I write, he’s scanning the crowds in D.C., armed with his 9mm and an elevated score on the Psychopathic Deviate scale of the MMPI-II. This is why I don’t ask.).

At any rate, it’s a cool compass. It’s got a mirror with a small hole at the bottom, an arm with a peephole to look through, and lots of precision-looking devices and numbers under the glass. I keep it at my office. I have no idea whatsoever how to use the thing. That’s what cell phones are for, after all.

Well, it was densely foggy this morning when I took my dogs out for their daily romp at the park. I couldn’t see familiar landmarks or the homes that line the perimeter of the park. I found myself thinking about the compass at that time and, in a foggy stroke of creativity, thought that maybe my colleague gave me - not a compass but - a metaphor.

I’ve often said to him (I repeat myself monotonously with my friends) that the Bible is not a map, it’s a compass. I believe this to be true. When I first became a Christian I frustrated myself because I expected the Bible to show me exactly which step to take next and in what direction I needed to go. It didn’t work, anymore than my compass would have helped me find the landmarks and houses at the park if I had treated it like a map.

God has given us a compass, not a map; He has given us the Bible. But if we do not know how to use the compass that He has provided, then we may be worse off than if we had no compass at all. We might wander off in a direction that we think is the correct one, but it may be the very opposite of the right way. We are prone, after all, to follow the inclinations of our hearts rather than the compass. And, given enough distance, we all walk in circles.

Understanding a verse, passage, or book takes no small amount of work; given our “instant” culture, we want results, not formulas. God, however, doesn’t seem to be interested in what we want, only in what we need. This is fair, I guess, since this is His creation and my life belongs to Him. That sorta gives Him the right to do what He wants: seeing how He’s omniscient and good, I suppose He’s entitled to do that.

Does this mean we all need to invest years of study in seminaries, learning Hebrew and Greek, systematic theology, and - most relevant - principles of interpretation so that we can understand the Bible better? No. I would recommend it to anyone who has the time and money, but it’s not absolutely necessary. We have, thanks to moveable type, media, the internet, and an incredible thing called the church, a wealth of information at our disposal. Hopefully, we are all involved in a church or body of believers where we can find a wiser, more learned believer than ourselves so we can ask her what she thinks.

Two verses in particular bear upon my point. The first is 2 Tim 2.15, where Paul tells us to be careful to handle the word of God properly. The second verse is 2 Tim 3.16-17. The latter has the amazing promise that God’s word is able to equip us for every good work. Not just most or a lot or almost all, but every good work.

To have the Bible and Holy Spirit accomplish that remarkable feat in us, we have to learn how to accurately read the compass. It takes time, as I said before, but do you really have something more important to do with your life?

I am old.

I know this because the other day a teenage client said to me, “I just love Britney Spears! ‘…Baby One More Time’ is a classic, you know,” giggling as she said so. Calling upon all my professional training and experience, I was able to restrain myself from throttling her and hiding her body in an industrial landfill.

I don’t listen to Britney (I am proud to say), although I do listen to Maroon 5 and Cake on occasion. Mostly I listen to my own “classic” music, i.e., that which was produced in the late ’60s and ’70s by the likes of Pink Floyd, The Beatles, The Who, Led Zepellin, Eric Clapton (especially with Cream and Blind Faith), and a few groups from the early ’80s like Talking Heads and The Police.

What I also don’t listen to, though, is music by Christian artists. Oh, once in a blue moon I’ll toss a WOW collection into the player and drive around. But I don’t listen to it for the content so much as for the music: “It’s got a good beat and it’s easy to dance to! I give it a 75!” (Whoa, now I’m really dating myself.) Once in awhile there’s a Christian song that moves me, like Colored People by DC Talk or Ross King’s As Much for Me.

I do listen to Bob Dylan’s music, both BC and AD. He’s a Christian artist, I suppose, but I guess I feel like he belongs in a category all by himself. He is a music giant and an astute social observer. “Neighborhood Bully” is a great, great song.

The Christian music I prefer is found in the lyrics of non-Christian (ostensibly) artists. They not only deliver a biblical message sometimes, but they do so with incredible creativity and talent. There are a bunch to choose from, but let me limit it to one for right now. Perhaps later I’ll look at “Once in a Lifetime” by The Talking Heads or “Eminence Front” by The Who. And then there’s the whole rock opera “Tommy” to consider.

Right now, though, I want to dig into one of my favorite Christian songs from one of the most unlikely of groups. The group is The Rolling Stones, and the song is “Sympathy for the Devil.” I’ll provide the lyrics and make comments along the way. Maybe I can convince you that this song is, in fact, Christian in its message. No gospel, but biblical truth.

“Please allow me to introduce myself
I’m a man of wealth and taste
I’ve been around for a long long year
stolen many man’s soul and faith.”

A couple of things from the opening verse: first, notice that Satan is described as “a man of wealth and taste.” Scripture teaches us that he describes himself as an angel of light. Mick Jagger knows where to look for the devil, even if sometimes I don’t.

“I was around when Jesus Christ
had His moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
washed his hands and sealed His fate.”

According to Jagger, it was Satan who was the motivator of those who crucified Christ. Not the Romans or the Jews (although they were willing subjects), but Satan.

“Stuck around St. Petersburg
when I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the Tzar and his ministers,
Anastasia screamed in vain.”

This, of course, is a reference to the Russian revolution of 1917 that ushered in communism.

“I rode a tank; held a gen’rals rank
when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank.”

World War II and the Holocaust.

“I watched the glee while your kings and queens
fought for ten decades for the Gods they made.”

The Hundred Years War in Europe.

“I shouted out ‘Who killed the Kennedys?’
when after all it was you and me.”

John and Bobby Kennedy; Teddy’s killing himself.

“Let me please intruduce myself :
I’m a man of wealth and taste.
And I lay traps for troubadors
who get killed before they reach Bombay.”

Our Adversary opposes missionary efforts and anything else that would propogate the gospel.

“Just as every cop is a criminal
and all the sinners, Saints;
as heads is tails, just call me ‘Lucifer ‘
’cause I’m in need of some restraint.”

Satan’s world is upside-down: cops are criminals, sinners are saints, heads is tails. The message he sells is diametrically opposed to the truth.

“So if you meet me, have some courtesy,
have some sympathy and some taste.
Use all your well-learned politesse
or I’ll lay your soul to waste.”

“Politesse” is politeness. Satan’s nature is revealed at the end: he is a murderous tyrant who, if not submitted to, will “lay your soul to waste.” What Jagger doesn’t say, however, is that if you do obey him, your soul will forever be ruined.

Pleased to meet you hope you guess my name
But what’s puzzling you is the nature of my game.

Satan doesn’t come out and say, “Follow me and I’ll guarantee you eternal torment” or “All I have to offer you is blood, sweat, and the lake of fire.” Those in his grasp do not realize their peril.

What strikes me most about this song is where Jagger places the responsibility for the events of history. He does not identify the actors directly but looks behind the scenes to the director, i.e., Satan. How often do we fail to take Paul’s words into consideration when we rail against the likes of John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, or the Democrats in general? Or, for our Democratic Christian brethren, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, or the Republicans? Listen to Paul:

“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.” - Eph 6.12 (NASB)

People are not the ultimate enemy. The Apostle reminds us that we, too - prior to our salvation - were “dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience,” and John tells us that “the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.” Christians, of all people, should know this and treat our enemies with love, patience, kindness, grace, and respect - just as God treated us before our salvation.

But, you might say, there are Christian groups that make similar statements and do it more “biblically.” Well, I doubt it: most of the Christian music I’ve heard doesn’t deal with this kind of stuff. But there are two important points I want to make before ending this lengthy post.

First, there may be Christian groups that convey messages similar to the one in this song by The Stones. But what audience do they reach? Do people in bars listen to their music? People doing drugs? The Stones’ music reaches around the world and lasts for decades. Which leads to the final point.

Music like this can be a natural bridge or entry point for talking to non-Christians about the gospel. There are a lot of lost people out there who know the words to “Sympathy for the Devil” by heart but, like the Ethiopian eunuch, have no one to explain the message to them.

We can explain it, but we have to know the words, too.

[Personal Background: As some of you know, I am a mental health counselor with a Masters and Doctorate (D.Min.) from a couple of seminaries. I am specifically interested in the harmonization of neuropsychology and spirituality, and generally interested in the relationship between psychology and theology. I have written about this elsewhere on this site (see “Christ on the Brain” below); I have also posted my humbly-entitled dissertation, “An Integration of Biblical Anthropology and Neuropsychology and Its Implications for Christian Education and Discipleship.”]

At Mind and Soul, British psychiatrist Rob Waller has posted some observations on Andrea Yates and her moral responsibility in the deaths of her five children. My own observations, spawned by his, are the subject matter of this post.

Andrea Yates, you will remember, was found guilty of the murder of her five children and sentenced to life in prison; her conviction was overturned on Jan 6. Dr. Waller comments, “Because some people believe that there is no such thing as mental illness and that all unacceptable behaviour is sinful in origin. This is the sort of thing that happens when people take these strong views.”

Dr. Waller raises several important issues regarding mental illness vs. insanity, mental illness and spirituality, and the importance of being well-informed theologically.

First, there is an important distinction to be made between mental illness (a psychological term) and insanity ( a legal term). Insanity, in the legal sense, is not merely the presence of a mental illness but is the inability to know right from wrong. If I am depressed, for example, and decide that I would be happier if I killed my father, I am mentally ill but not necessarily insane. If I take care to kill him in a way that I will not be caught or charged with the deed, it is unlikely that I am insane; if, however, I approach my father on a downtown street, shoot him, and then walk away as though nothing has happened or in expectation of being made a hero for having done this great humanitarian gesture, then maybe I am insane. It comes down to whether or not I knew what I was doing was wrong at the time I did it.

From all appearances, Andrea Yates was insane in addition to being mentally ill. She seems to have been suffering from a major depressive episode with psychotic features (the latter meaning she had lost touch with reality).

Second (and this is the important thing for our purposes), there is a similar distinction to be made theologically. It is necessary to distinguish between Sin and sins: the former is a consequence of the Fall; the latter are those things that I willfully choose to do or not do. I am born separated from God, others, and even myself because of Sin; I am going to die physically because of Sin, not because of sins: this is the argument that Paul is making in Rom 4.12-14:

“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned — for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.” (NASB)

Before the law, Paul is saying people died but sins were not charged against them; nevertheless, these people died. Why? Because of Sin, that with which we are all born and which manifests itself in individual sins.

In the same way, mental illness is caused by Sin. Every aspect of our being is affected by Sin, including our brains: our brains malfunction because of Sin. But even those of us who might be mentally ill (actually, we’re all mentally ill to some extent, even as we are all physically ill to some degree) - at any rate, we can sometimes willfully choose to commit sins. This is important: mental illness is not an excuse for sins willingly commited; it is a manifestation of Sin. But I am still responsible for those sins.

Finally, Dr. Waller concludes his post by saying, “This is the sort of thing that happens when people take these strong views,” i.e., when people believe that there is no difference between mental illness and sin. Here, I think, he is incorrect: the problem is that people don’t know the difference either between mental illness and insanity, or between sins and Sin. The first is a legal difference; the latter (and to my mind, far more important) is a theological matter. But Dr. Waller is right about this: if Christians do not know theology - and particularly the doctrines of anthropology and sin - then they may come to some unfortunate or even tragic conclusions.