Eternal Perspectives

A brief magazine article, memories of past readings, and a comment on one of Jollyblogger’s posts brought my mind back to the subject of bankruptcy.

As far back as I can remember in my Christian life, I have heard what I considered to be an over-emphasis on the payment of debts even when debts have been forgiven or dismissed legally. Many of the books I read on Christian financial stewardship stressed this point and most of them pointed to Rom 13.8:

Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.” (NASB)

A recent article in Christian Counseling Today by Ron Blue referred to this verse, too. It seems to be a required proof-text for anyone discussing a Christian view of money.

It is instructive, as always, to examine the context of this verse. As the passage shows, verse 8 is not primarily concerned about establishing fiscal policy for Christians but rather stressing the need to love one another:

7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
9 For this, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,’ and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’
10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.”

The aforementioned comment makes the valid point that Christians who have “misappropriated” (which is the spiritually correct way to say “stolen”) need to make restitution. If the principle established in the Old Testament is followed, the amount stolen plus an additional twenty percent is to be repaid (Num 5.6-7). The comment is discussing a situation where someone has stolen and has the ability to repay; the same could be said for incurred debt: if the person has the ability to repay, they are to repay.

I am talking about a different situation, one where the individual is in debt but not able to repay for whatever reasons. What always seems to be overlooked, at least in my readings of Christian financial experts, are the principles established in Lev 25. Beginning at verse 8, God explains to Moses the concept of the Year of Jubilee, a command to be observed every fifty years. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown remark,

This most extraordinary of all civil institutions, which received the name of “Jubilee” from a Hebrew word signifying a musical instrument, a horn or trumpet, began on the tenth day of the seventh month, or the great day of atonement, when, by order of the public authorities, the sound of trumpets proclaimed the beginning of the universal redemption. All prisoners and captives obtained their liberties, slaves were declared free, and debtors were absolved. The land, as on the sabbatic year, was neither sowed nor reaped, but allowed to enjoy with its inhabitants a sabbath of repose; and its natural produce was the common property of all. Moreover, every inheritance throughout the land of Judea was restored to its original owner.” - emphases mine

God was concerned with the rights of land owners and did not want any family or tribe to be perpetually deprived of their land. The land could be sold but it was understood by all that it was a temporary sale: the person could buy it back at any time, a kinsman redeemer could (and should, if possible) purchase it for his kin, or the land would be returned at the Year of Jubilee.

In Deu 15, Moses reveals God’s concern with perpetual or chronic debt among His people. Moses says,

1 At the end of every seven years you shall grant a remission of debts.
2 “This is the manner of remission: every creditor shall release what he has loaned to his neighbor; he shall not exact it of his neighbor and his brother, because the LORD’S remission has been proclaimed.”

This is a remarkable passage, to say the least. Debts were to be forgiven, i.e., not held against the debtor and not to be repaid. In God’s economy, debts could be forgiven and eliminated.

Certainly - and thankfully, I think - we do not live in a theocracy and the laws of the Bible do not dictate the behavior of Christians in such matters. We are to be subject to the laws of the land and, perhaps influenced by the nation’s Christian heritage, the United States does provide escape from debt. If a person has the ability to repay the debt, that is required, although the debt is sometimes lessened or restructured. When an individual is unable to repay, however, the debt is legally discharged and unsecured debt is eliminated.

It has puzzled me over the years why Christian leaders have stressed - almost legalistically at times - that debts have to be repaid no matter what. According to these experts (who often lack theological training), to fail to do so is to sin and reflects spiritual bankruptcy on the part of the person filing. Failure to repay a debt for any reason is sin, and financial bankruptcy is to them irrefutable proof of spiritual bankruptcy. But I question - no, I reject - that conclusion.

God is a God of grace; capitalism knows nothing of grace. When I hear the Christian financial leaders demanding repayment of debts, I hear capitalism drowning out the grace of God.

This is not to encourage financial irresponsibility or deny the stewardship Christians are given with their money. It is, however, to balance the legalistic, capitalistic demands of some that debt always has to be paid. Period.

Certainly if one is financially able to pay a debt, they should do so; in those cases where a person is unable to repay, they should be allowed to apprehend the grace of God made possible through our government without having to bear the stigma of being spiritually bankrupt, too.

Christians need to recognize the need to file bankruptcy as discipline from God and a message to change their relationship to money. At the same time, however, they need to recognize the grace of God and that He is, once again, shown to be a God of new beginnings.

Having noticed that more than a few of the really popular blogs have ringing endorsements in the sidebar, I thought I would follow suit.

A few of my many endorsements are now found in the sidebar of my home page because, after all, I want to be popular, too!

Jollyblogger has posted a concise sentence about self-absorption, Just a Random Thought. As I said in my comment there, it is quite heuristic. I agree with what he is getting at and only seek to elaborate on his insight here.

I would add only that it is how I think about me, what I want and what I need, that is determinative. When that kind of self-reflective thinking comes into my head, I’m once again standing at a crossroads: follow the Spirit or follow the flesh. (Since we make at least 17,000 decisions a day,* it’s a familiar intersection!)

If I’m thinking about all that Christ has done in my life, recognizing my wants as manifestations of the flesh, and learning to be content with God meeting my basic needs - if I think along those lines, I’m OK. It’s when I leave the Holy Spirit out of my thinking - i.e., I don’t allow Him to correct and re-direct my thoughts - that I get into a grey or blue mood.

At least for me, it’s the perspectival path I choose to take that makes all the difference. Will I walk after the Spirit or after the flesh? Will I have a temporal or eternal perspective?

It’s another crossroads every day, every hour, and sometimes many times an hour.
_______

*Not all decisions are conscious, thankfully!

Like most of you, I suspect, I have a vague awareness of how many people visit my blog or read my posts on a daily basis. I am without question a very small fish in a very big ocean: there are Christian bloggers who draw readers and visitors by the thousands on a daily basis; undoubtedly, many of their visitors come precisely because these blogs are so popular and have been labeled successful or influential by other bloggers.

What I am about to say, therefore, may sound like nothing more than sour grapes - except for the fact that I am drawing from Jesus’ teaching and not my own reasoning. I am also indebited to a sermon I heard by Haddon Robinson, to whom I owe much of my spiritual growth and from whom I have learned more than I can describe. Thus, the following is not sour grapes: hopefully, what follows are sweet grapes to a few readers of this blog.

If you were to talk to my clients - whether individuals or couples - and ask them who the most important person is in the counseling process, it is likely that many would say that it is me, the therapist, who is more vital and critical to the process. I am, after all, the one with the special training and the one from whom they seek help: certainly, they might reason, the counselor is the most important person. Of course, they would be wrong: the most important person in counseling is not the counselor: the most important person is the client.

The same, I think, is true of blogs. If you were to consider, for example, the Pyromaniacs - Phil, Frank, Dan, and the rarely seen Pecadillo - you might initially think it was Phil or perhaps Frank or Dan. But, again, you would be wrong: the most important person at that or any other blog is you, the reader.

That, I think, is what Jesus is trying to impress upon His followers in one of His most important parables as found in Lk 8:

4 While a large crowd was gathering and people were coming to Jesus from town after town, he told this parable:
5 ‘A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path; it was trampled on, and the birds of the air ate it up.
6 ‘Some fell on rock, and when it came up, the plants withered because they had no moisture.
7 ‘Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up with it and choked the plants.
8 ‘Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up and yielded a crop, a hundred times more than was sown.’ When he said this, he called out, ‘He who has ears to hear, let him hear.’
9 His disciples asked him what this parable meant.
10 He said, ‘The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, “though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.”’” - NIV

It is perhaps necessary to say a word about parables in general before looking more deeply at this particular one; thus, let’s begin at the end of this passage to understand why Jesus spoke in parables and what specifically parables were and are.

In short, a parable is a story is taken from everyday life that conveys a different, usually deeper, truth about something. Unlike an allegory, it is not easy to make a one-to-one correspondence between elements of the parable and the underlying truth; unlike an illustration, the parable does not provide an explanation of its meaning. It is up to the hearers of the parable to discover the truth contained in the parable.

For example, if I were reading or listening to a Calvinist or Arminian theologian wax dogmatically on a particular aspect of doctrine, relying on and drawing from the writings of Spurgeon or Wesley to bolster their point, I might say to her, “Even monkeys fall out of trees.” That is a parable: you understand it only if you think about it and ascertain the meaning hidden within it. If you ask for an explanation, as the disciples did in Lk 8, I might say, “Even experts make mistakes.” That, then, would be a parable with an explanation given.

Jesus spoke in parables not to hide His truth and message from others, but to make it understandable only to those who were hungering and thirsting for righteousness. Those who were content with themselves and trusting in their own way of righteousness would not seek to uncover the truth of the parable, but those who are hungry and thirsty would do whatever they could to grasp the truth of what was being said. The aforementioned Calvinist or Arminian would, if hungry and thirsty, stop to consider my words and examine their own belief system for what might be incorrect or inconsistent; those who admit to no errors, however, would not bother.

This seems to be the message of the parable of the sower: the seed was sown but the result was dependent on the state and condition of the soil. In Jesus’ parable, the seed is the word of God, the fruit is salvation and all that follows, and the soil represents the various types of people listening to him. It was not the size of the crowd, He was saying, that is vital but rather the condition or receptivity of the soil that ultimately made the difference.

Or, for us, it is not the number of hits on a blog that matters but whether or not readers hear and are changed as a result of a post. A blog may have a thousand hits and change but one; another blog may have forty hits and change ten. Which, then, is actually more successful?

A quick word on the seed in this parable: There are a great many blogs and posts that quote Scripture and then seek to expound upon it. The seed, being the word of God, is infallible: it is always capable of producing growth and fruit, even if the particular exposition is not accurate. What is sown, then, must be the word of God, not the teachings of Calvin or Wesley, Spurgeon or Swindoll, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones or any other human “authorities.” It is only that teaching or preaching which “rightly handles the word of truth” that is profitable; it is only the word of truth itself that is infallible and cannot “fall out of trees” - unlike Calvin, Wesley, me, the Pyromaniacs, or anyone else. This is not meant to diminish, disparage, or dismiss the writings of any theologian: it is meant to see them and their writings in perspective.

Some soil is trampled and hardened like a well-worn path. These people hear the gospel message but are not able or willing to accept it; the effect of their rejection of the truth, as Jesus explains to the disciples, renders them “so that they may not believe and be saved” (8.12). There is no salvation for those whose soil or hearts are hardened and unwilling to accept the truth. The seed is snatched away and never penetrates the soil of the human heart.

Other soil is shallow: people hear it and enthusiastically accept and embrace it. Underneath, however, is a layer of hard soil that keeps the seed from deveoping deep roots: when adversity comes, they walk, stray, or stay away from the truth. There is little, if any, change in such people because they have not opened themselves sufficiently to receive the truth fully.

The third soil is different still: here the seed is accepted and takes root - perhaps even deep roots - but other things that people allow to take root in their lives crowd the plant and keep it from growing fully and yielding fruit. Such people may have a commitment to the word of God, but they have other, competing loyalties; they are distracted and preoccupied with other things. Sadly, rich soil can yield a bountiful harvest of weeds and thorns as well as spiritual fruit. Those competitors can be good things, such as the study of theology or a devotion to missions, but they take away from the singular pursuit of the Giver of the word of truth. Satan may not be able to keep you from being good soil, but he will try his best to clutter your soil with “good” things that choke the True Vine from bearing as much fruit as it might through us.

The fourth soil, of course, is what we must seek to be: we are to receive the word, yield to it, and allow God to change us, mature us, and produce fruit through us. The good soil is soft and receptive, is deep, is free from thorns and weeds, and hungers for the word of God. Such soil is not something once received and then enjoyed forever: it requires daily maintenance, watering, and fertilizing. The maintenance is being vigilant to keep extraneous things from robbing us; watering is work of the Spirit as He uses the word of God to cause growth, and fertilizer is all the crap hard things in our lives that develop Christlikeness in us.

Whether listening to a sermon, sitting under a teaching, or reading a blog, the most important person in that process is you, the reader. As readers we choose, by the disposition and receptivity of our hearts, whether we will yield to the truth and be changed or be found to be hardened, shallow, or entangled in the world. The growth we enjoy or prevent is up to us and our submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Our constant prayer must be that we will be found to be good soil, receptive to the truth, committed to maturity, and cooperating with the Holy Spirit to facilitate the production of fruit that will be manifested through us.

On the ninth day of the eighth month in the sixth year of George II, a dream came to me, Mike of Texas, of the house of Russell. This, then, was my dream:

A man appeared to me in my dream and his appearance struck fear into my heart: he had the appearance of a Navy SEAL and his countenance was fierce and grim. I fell to my knees, trembling. He lifted me with his strong right arm and said, ‘Do not fear, for I am here to protect you and warn you, and to show you terrible things that have been done against the Lord and His creation.’

“In my dream, he took me to a zoo where animals from all over the world were housed. ‘Look at the zoo,’ he commanded, ‘and tell me what you see.’ I looked and saw that many of the cages and places for animals were empty, while in many others the animals were sick or dying. And I saw the zoo keepers standing far off. I told the man these things and he said,

“‘You have seen well, for this is indeed the state of the zoo,’ he said sadly. ‘The zoo keepers were placed here to protect, nurture, and cause the animals to prosper but instead the wicked zoo keepers have plundered that which is under their care. They have annihilated many animals, neglected others, and selfishly used the animals for unnecessary luxury or entertainment.’

“Then, in my dream, he took me to high mountain where I could see all the plants and trees in the valley below. Again, the man asked me what I saw.

“‘I see a ravaged land,’ I told him. ‘Where there should be deep forests in which animals and people might dwell, I see only stumps of trees and fallen trees left to rot. The earth appears scorched and unable to bear fruit, and the water is discolored because of what man has done. And far off, I see a vast multitude of people praying and worshipping God. Tell me, sir, what does all this mean?’

“The strong man said, ‘What you have seen is God’s creation marred by the abuse and negligence of man. God placed man in His creation as a steward, to care for and protect all life and all aspects of creation. But this man has not done. Instead, man has declared himself lord over the earth and the animals, and has dealt treacherously and selfishly with creation. And the multitude are those for whom Jesus Christ has died, and who praise God but prey upon God’s creation.’

“‘The day will come,’ said the man, ‘when God will take away man’s stewardship of the earth and give it to another, to One who will faithfully tend it as a shepherd cares for a flock under his care. No longer will animals languish and the whole of creation will rejoice and reflect the glory of God, and the evil man has done will be undone, and the evil man will bear the responsibility for his hateful stewardship of God’s creation. This will surely come to pass.’”

Then I awoke and mourned for creation, and confessed my failure to be a good steward of all that God has entrusted to my care. And I thanked God for His forgiveness, but also repented of my selfish and rebellious attitude toward Him and His commands. And He did forgive and I am forgiven, but still the creation suffers and groans.

Related Posts: Al’s Inconvenient Truth at Broken Messenger; Why I Did Not Go to Church Sunday at Blogotional; “A Plea for Green” at It Takes a Church

Emergent people tend to wear me out. Not all of them, of course, but only the vast majority, i.e., the ones who run around talking about things they don’t understand and possessing all the qualities of a dog except loyalty.

Here’s what touched off this rant:

Scot McKnight wrote a wonderful rebuttal of Spencer Burke’s A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity, especially rejecting Burke’s contradictory universalism, denial of the Trinity and Personhood of God, and lack of an orthodox gospel. The post above is the fourth in a series on the book and, while all are worth reading, it can stand alone without having read the previous posts.

So far, no rant.

Then I read Andy Jackson’s response and - whoosh! - up goes the blood pressure! Andy says, to begin with,

First, No one should use Burke to condemn everyone in the Emergent movement. Condemnation by association is not right.

First, why is it that everytime an emergent author gets nailed for poor or heretical theology, all the drones start squawking, “Oh, no! Not us! We’re as innocent as lemmings doves!” Well, it seems to me that if you hang out in with charlatans, praise charlatans, and gobble up the books written by charlatans, you’re asking for condemnation by association.

Now it is true that Jesus hung out with outcasts (such as prostitutes) but it didn’t pervert His theology and He didn’t distance Himself from them when they were attacked. Neither, however, did He defend their philosophies or theologies: He sought to change them. Big difference. Critical difference. And I can’t recall Him associating with charlatans, although I do seem to recall Him going off on a rant or two against them.

Just once I’d like to hear someone in the emergent movement - excuse me, conversation - stand beside one of their own authors instead of running like scared little puppies when the big dogs arrive at the fight. Or, at the very least, admit that their leaders are heretical at this or that point and that the conversation needs to change its tone, direction, and assumptions. Getting an emergent to criticize another emergent is like getting a liberal to criticize a liberal - or a conservative a conservative. Actually, it’s more difficult, I think.

Andy does go on to say,

Second, Emergent leaders should continue in their conversation, but also realize that they have biblical leadership responsibility for those they influence. God will hold all biblical leaders accountable for our teaching and ministry. In other words, our ministry effects people.

Third, Recognized Emergent leaders need to ’show their cards’ as it relates to Burke’s theology. We need to hear what key Emergent leaders think, and provide correction. Hopefully, it will start with McLaren.

Second, using the word “biblical” with regard to emergent leaders is akin to the trite Jello and a tree metaphor. Besides, surely God won’t judge them because He just wants everyone to get along with one another: Muslim, Hindu, Catholic, Jew, Protestant, atheist. After all, He’s a generous kinda God, isn’t He? Calling for emergents to adhere to biblical standards is too broad: they tend to pick and choose which standards they want to accept.

Third, Burke is one of the “key Emergent leaders,” being the inspiration of the emergent The Ooze website. So we’ve heard what a leader has to say. Does anyone seriously believe that McLaren will say anything negative or corrective about Burke? If there is but one fatal flaw (this is optimistic: their fatal flaws are legion) it is the total unwillingness of emergents to clean up their own houses.

But my point is this: don’t jump on the emergent bandwagon if you’re going to jump off as soon as it starts to stink. Have the courage to take a stand - somewhere, anywhere. Either get with them - which in this case means leaving orthodox Christianity behind - or get away and stay away from them. You can (as I have) read their books, publicly reject their theology (if you can call it that), and pay attention to their at-times valuable insights into problems in the church.

It must be recognized, however, for all the wonderful exposure of problems they might offer that they have zero solutions that will benefit anyone beyond this lifetime. Denying the Godhead, espousing pantheism, and making the gospel unnecessary is no solution at all; in fact, it is worse: it is snake oil, i.e., it is no solution packaged as the only solution and sold to people dead in their sins.

Addendum: Andy at Smart Christian responded to this post here; I sent him the following email which I’ll reproduce here for anyone who’s interested or has voyeuristic inclinations.

Andy:

“First, a suggestion: you might consider leaving comments open when you mention someone by name in one of your posts. That would allow people like me to clarify a thing or two at your site as well as mine (I’ll be adding a post script shortly).

“Second, my beef is with fence-straddlers, as I tried to make clear (but may have failed). Taking a stand does not mean totally abandoning the emergent group: my role model would be John Stott (I think it was John Stott) who stayed with his own denomination for years and years even though he had serious theological disagreements and concerns. As long as they didn’t depart from the gospel message, he said, he thought he could do more good on the inside than on the outside. But he never hesitated to speak out or write against the errors in his denomination.

“So that’s the main point, although it may have gotten lost in tangential thoughts and ideas.

“Finally - and this is what I’m going to add at my post - my rant was triggered by your post but not aimed at you. Your post was merely the proverbial “last straw” that caused me to break. Sometimes I think emergent churches should meet at a Waffle House, since that’s what they seem to do best - waffle.

“So, sorry if the attack seemed personal; it wasn’t meant to be.”

Related Tags: emergent, emerging, Spencer Burke, Scot McKnight, theology, church

Yesterday I posted “First Thoughts on Christian Writing” at my other blog, Lord of the Kingdom, a site devoted to Christian themes in the works of J.R.R. Tolkien. Because I’d like feedback on my thoughts there, I thought I would shamelessly promote it here: LOTK is relatively unknown, even more so than this blog!

But I would appreciate your comments, if any are provoked.

Psychotherapists are typically pretty reserved and unanimated with clients, but every once in awhile extraordinary situations require extraordinary measures. I mean “extraordinary” in the sense of being outside of what is ordinary or, perhaps, even orthodox. Here’s what happened with a male colleague of mine recently:

A husband and wife came for counseling after 15 years of marriage. When asked what the problem was, the wife went into a passionate, painful tirade listing every problem they had ever had in the 15 years they had been married. She went on and on and on: neglect, lack of intimacy, emptiness, loneliness, feeling unloved and unloveable - an entire laundry list of unmet needs she had endured over the course of their marriage.

Finally, after allowing this to go on for a sufficient length of time, the therapist got up, walked around the desk and, after asking the wife to stand, embraced and kissed her passionately. The woman shut up and quietly sat down as though in a daze.

The therapist turned to the husband and said, “This is what your wife needs at least three times a week. Can you do this?”

The husband thought for a moment and replied, “Well, I can drop her off here on Mondays and Wednesdays, but on Fridays, I fish.”

Thank you. How would you like to pay for your sessions?