A New Direction

As she cut across the parking lot I asked, "Excuse me, Ma'am.  Why are you here today?"  Quickly reaching for her cell phone she ignored me.

But a few more steps and she replied, "What did you say?"

"Why are you here today?"

 "I don't think that's any of your business," she sharply responded.

"Do you know that they are killing children here today?"

Pride falls over her face as she walks past me.  Now a few feet away and continuing on her path, her face turns back towards me and boasts, "I've killed 10 children."  Then without an ounce of remorse or hesitation she makes her way to the sidewalk stretching out her arm with a flagrant finger flying high.  In her hardness of heart she continues down the path of destruction.

This is just one of many, many stories I and others could share from our experiences Thursday mornings at Planned Parenthood in Bloomington.  Time after time I've wanted to write concerning them, but now I've decided to.  I want you to see how hardened our hearts our towards the murder of babies.  I want you to know that we allow 1,350,000 children a year to be murdered and for the most part, we do NOTHING about it.  We are unwilling to agree with Psalmist who says:

O LORD, God of vengeance, O God of vengeance, shine forth!
Rise up, O judge of the earth; repay to the proud what they deserve!
O LORD, how long she the wicked, how long shall the wicked exult?
They pour out their arrogant words; all the evildoers boast.
They crush your people, O LORD, and afflict your heritage.
They kill the widow and the sojourner, and murder the fatherless; and they say, "The LORD does not see; the God of Jacob does not perceive."

Understand, O dullest of the people!  Fools, when will you be wise?
He who planted the ear, does he not hear?  He who formed the eye, does he not see?
He who disciplines the nations, does he not rebuke?  He who teaches man knowledge - the LORD - knows the thoughts of man, that they are but a breath.

Blessed is the man whom you discipline, O LORD, and whom you teach out of your law, to give him rest from days of trouble, until a pit is dug for the wicked.
For the LORD will not forsake his people; he will not abandon his heritage; for justice will return to the righteous, and all the upright in heart will follow it.

Who rises up for me against the wicked?  Who stands up for me against evildoers?
If the LORD had not been my help, my soul would soon have lived in the land of silence.
When I thought, "My foot slips," your steadfast love, O LORD, held me up.
When the cares of my heart are many, your consolations cheer my soul.
Can wicked rulers be allied with you, those who frame injustice by statute?
They band together against the life of the righteous and condemn the innocent to death.
But the LORD has become my stronghold, and my God the rock of my refuge.
He will bring back on them their iniquity and wipe them out for their wickedness; the LORD our God will wipe them out.

-Psalm 94

So I decided to take a closer look at my friends who have "Jesus" in some way as their religious views descriptor on Facebook. Don't worry, I'm not going to name them or talk about their character, but I wanted to take a closer look at a few particular descriptors and make some observations. A few thoughts...

Who is Jesus? I mean, Kanye West says that he walks. He's a poster/whipping boy for Joe Schmoe on Family Guy (Yes, I just watched a 5 minute FG clip on YouTube. No, it's not worth you time.) T-shirts make him your homeboy. An Ichthus on the back of your car means that you follow him. And that portrait of Jesus hanging in every mainline church couldn't more perfectly symbolize what we've done to him: made him in our image. This is exactly what we in our depravity do. So let's be honest, claiming that you love or follow Jesus doesn't say anything definitive about you in our culture. In fact, it may communicate that you chill with some "marginalized Galilean peasant hippie in a dress rocking out to the Spice Girls driving around the Middle East in a Cabriolet hoping to meet nice people and do aroma-therapy with while drinking herbal tea". Thank you, Mark Driscoll.

Now on from Pastor Driscoll to Pastor Piper, because you might be getting tired of me. I'm just going to quote him and hope I do a proper job of giving him credit. This is an excerpt taken from Contending For Our All: Defending Truth and Treasuring Christ in the Lives of Athanasius, John Own, and J. Gresham Machen by John Piper.

3. Loving Christ includes loving true propositions about Christ.

What was clear to Athanasius was that propositions about Christ carried convictions that could send you to heaven or to hell. There were propositions like: “There was a time when the Son of God was not,” and, “He was not before he was made,” and, “the Son of God is created.” These propositions were strictly damnable. If they were spread and believed they would damn the souls which embraced them. And therefore Athanasius labored with all his might to formulate propositions that would conform to reality and lead the soul to faith and worship and heaven.

I believe Athanasius would have abominated, with tears, the contemporary call for “depropositionalizing” that you hear among many of the so-called “reformists” and “the emerging church,”younger evangelicals,”postfundamentalists,” “postfoundationalists,”postpropositionalists,” and “postevangelicals.” I think he would have said, “Our young people in Alexandria die for the truth of propositions about Christ. What do your young people die for?” And if the answer came back, “We die for Christ, not propositions about Christ,” I think he would have said, “That’s what Arius says. So which Christ will you die for?”

Athanasius would have grieved over sentences like “It is Christ who unites us; it is doctrines that divides.” And sentences like: “We should ask, Whom do you trust? rather than what do you believe?” He would have grieved because he knew this is the very tactic used by the Arian bishops to cover the councils with fog so that the word “Christ” could mean anything. Those who talk like this—“Christ unites, doctrine divides”—have simply replaced propositions with a word. They think they have done something profound and fresh, when in fact they have done something very old and stale and very deadly.

(Piper, John. Contending for Our All. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006. 63-64)

Are you beginning to see why "Jesus" must be defined? Are beginning to see why Facebook religious views matter and what they say about what you believe? Are you beginning to see how this relates to doctrine, especially false doctrine? And most importantly, are you beginning to see how this is a fight for church unity?

This comment from Jacob Mentzel was too good to be left in the comments.

What I see as endemic is the constant overpersonalization of the Gospel. Not that the Gospel isn't personal, but that everything gets translated into the subjective realm of how I feel about Jesus. And truth inevitably gets lost in the language. You see it all the time, year in and year out on college campus' (and don't forget that this is Lane's work!). Students come out of a church, find a Christian student organization, feel like they're a part of something they can relate to, and reject the Bride of Christ and so invariably reject Christ Himself. Everything becomes about "me and Jesus" and the next thing you know you have some 300 pound jock singing prom-songs to their boyfriend in the sky because they read that Jesus is the Bridegroom of the Church and he just has no frame of reference for it. So he reasons like this: "Jesus is a Bridegroom, I, me, I (since it's all about my personal relationship with Him) am the Bride (not the Church) and that must make me the woman in the relationship... so I should relate to Jesus like woman to her lover." No. It's Jesus and His Bride, the Church. And you get to be a part of it if you trust in Him. That's it. But no one is telling anyone that. Instead, they're propogating the lie.

Or students come to the university and find an assault on all things truly Christian and join up. This I think is really the key. The assault on all things truly Christian is pervasive. But the assault on "Jesus" isn't. Everybody wants Jesus on their side. The sodomites claim that he was in love with men- just look at the twelve disciples. The feminists claim he was a liberator- just look at how wonderful he was with the woman at the well and Mary and Martha! The environmentalists make him out to be a tree hugging hippie. The philosophers make him into a good moral teacher. Are any of these the true Jesus? Well, no. Sure, they may have some things right. Yeah, Jesus loves sinners. Yeah, Jesus loves women. Yeah, Jesus is for the environment- he made it. Yeah, Jesus was a good moral teacher. But they all miss the mark. Even Nietzsche liked Jesus, for crying out loud. But only "Jesus" as a concept that inevitably was made in his own image.

Since that's what everyone does with Jesus, it's really easy for a Christian to hide behind that. "I'm about Jesus." Nothing wrong with that. Which Jesus? The real one? Your "own personal Jesus?" That's fine. You be about your Jesus, I'll be about what I'm about, and we don't have to clash. Just keep your fundamentalist, proselytizing, condemning, harsh, conflict-causing, guilt-inflicting, wrath-threatening CHRISTIANITY out of my life. And if you're saying you're "just about Jesus" because you want to avoid the conflict that comes from being faithful to the Gospel, to try to avoid the fight that's going on around you, because darn it, then no one will like you, you're wrong. The truth is that for most people, saying you're just about Jesus is really saying, "On the one hand, I can't just DENY that I'm a Christian, but on the other I refuse to be associated with anything you may despise and therefore reject, so please don't hit me or call me names. After all, it's Jesus I'm about, and how can you not like him."

Or it's, "It's just me and my boyfriend, Jesus." And that's just wrong too.

(Note that this was written Friday and is not all the way up to date with the most recent comments.)

Well, I need to make some clarifications. This is usually a result of poor communication on my part. First things first. This is now Part 2 of a series of posts looking at the idea that "Fighting against false doctrine is fighting for church unity." For some who read the note on Facebook, which was out of the context of my blog as a whole, the big picture could have been made clearer. This first post was one of many, maybe half a dozen, that will address this topic and needs to be looked at as only a piece of the puzzle that is getting at something larger. I put the note on Facebook because it was related and so that others would join in the conversation. I should have had some warning for those coming from Facebook to the blog clarifying the post's purpose and context.

The second clarification is that many people who comment on my blog know one another, and this presents some complications when interpreting comments. Jake's wizard attack was all in good fun. Gandalf is my current roommate and Jake's former roommate, and thus Jake's stab was one with a play knife that slips back into the handle. Please be careful to comment with others in light of this, both in recognizing possible relationships and clarifying sarcasm.

The third clarification is that the Facebook example was a case-in-point. The point was to show that we have breathed in and out our culture's hatred for distinction and definition. So I'm arguing that we've done this, and wanting to see if you agree or disagree, or if the example I used didn't prove my point. However, everyone seems to be concerned with what we should or should not put for our religious views, which is only relevantly discussed in the context of the bigger picture. But maybe what has kicked this can along, though, is that I don't list my religious views. So, for validity's sake I'll go there.

When I created my Facebook account it was with the sole intention of using (and, therefore redeeming) it for college ministry. Though I had done college ministry in the past, for better (not wasting my time) or worse (being pridefully counter-cultural) I had chosen not to sign up. But as I came back to Bloomington I thought it'd be very helpful to get in touch with people, especially those who would be new to IU. So I signed up. I didn't want to use it as my personal resume or a get-to-know-me-gadget so I left a host of fields unanswered that wasn't contact or general info. However, I realized that some things related to the college ministry, ClearNote Campus Fellowship (CNCF), might be helpful. I began filling out the activities blank and continued with a few more for fun. This was about a week ago, and I've since considered taking much of it down to continue with my original intent. My religious or political views were never entered for the same reason. But what you really want me to say is that by not explicitly stating them myself I am a complete hypocrite in fear of defining myself at all. This begs the question, "Lane, what are your motives?"

I wrote the post knowing full well that I hadn't filled in my religious blank. I was sure someone would bring it up and had my defense. Would you buy it? Maybe, maybe not. Would I buy it myself? Yes and no. These things are never black and white, as much as I would love them to be. Am I stuck in the same sinful culture and flesh as you? Certainly. So yes, I had to question my own motives for not defining my own religious views. What did I come up with? Well, I'm a sinner just like you so I can always find deception in my own heart. That's what you want me to say, too. But it doesn't nullify my point. If you know me, I have no problem defining myself or my doctrine or my beliefs, right? So, if you want to gauge my heart and why I didn't put anything up, take what you know of me already and apply it here. Some know me better, some not at all, but take it for what it's worth. And then consider again that this is a case-in-point. Let's try this again.

I had lunch with the Lehr's this past Sunday so I'm confident to use Mrs. David Lehr's religious views as an example. She describes her views in this way, "Jesus Rescued Me". In her comments, she argues that it immediately lets the reader know that she was "heading for destruction" and is more defining than claiming "Reformed Baptist". But my response is, "How does a non-believer define destruction?" Certainly not hell, for they have no fear of it. Could it be the coming judgment that they deny day after day, fighting their conscience? Doesn't sound likely. What is more likely is that they will place their own fears in the place of hell and judgment, and come up with Jesus rescued her from being rejected by people or not having enough money (See Tim Keller and Functional Saviors). And is this not exactly what evangelicalism has become?! A "church" for the fearful, not of God, but their own worldly concerns? A "church" that heals His people superficially? This is my partial point, that popular evangelicalism has breathed in the culture and out some twisted gospel, which is no good news at all. But I'm getting off with this particular example so let me bring it back. I would argue that saying you are a "Reformed Baptist" does not immediately say anything to simply anyone, but is that the point of a religious view? Sure, most unbelievers will snicker it off for various reasons, but in a culture that hates definition, isn't simply defining yourself important?

And with that statement I cut myself to the quick. I see how my own passivity leaves me unfaithful and I am humbled. I hope you see that these things really do matter, and that even our Facebook religious views say a lot about us. I know you don't want them to, but I am asking that we do examines ourselves, even as I have before your very eyes. By God's grace we'll get closer to the subject of "Fight against false doctrine is fighting for church unity" this coming week.

(The sociologist in me must explain why I did not choose non-descriptors like myself and did choose Jesus-descriptors. From a methodological standpoint, it wouldn't prove my point, which is that those who "define" themselves do so in a vague way. Simply looking at those who say nothing and argue they won't define themselves includes those like me who intentionally left out their views. That's not a really good way of measuring how people use terms that really bring no definition.)

I just sat down a few minutes ago to begin Chapter 3 of Martin Luther's Commentary on Galatians and I've already got something to share...

In a previous post, I mentioned that we began our Heart Religion class reading the Crossway Classic version, but had since switched to an older one that didn't stray from the primary source. In light of this change, last week's assignment was much more rich and detailed, preparing us as men to better preach the gospel to ourselves and others. This week's reading began by explaining how "an apostle, a pastor, or preacher... reprove[s] the people committed to his charge" in light of the Apostle Paul's words, "O foolish Galatians!" I found Luther's words so encouraging, leaving blue highlighter all over the page. At the bottom, he writes, "And this discipline is not only good, but also very necessary; without the which nothing can be well done. Wherefore, unless the magistrate, the minister, the father and mother be angry, and use to reprove or rebuke when the case requireth, he is unprofitable, and never shall discharge his office rightly" (James Clarke & Co, 1956). How strong are Luther's words! They gave me such courage, but the question hung in the back of my mind, "Did Crossway get this!?!?" I immediately grabbed my untouched copy and flipped to Chapter 3, which read, "Such discipline is not only good but also very necessary; without it, nothing can be done properly" (Crossway, 1998). That's it. End of paragraph. I was raging. How could Crossway and J.I. Packer and Alister McGrath so intentionally cut out the last sentence of Luther's paragraph that so precisely applied the argument he was making!? All they had to do was finish the paragraph. One more sentence. Why would they not?

There's a few too many angles and answers of that question to discuss here, but ultimately, it's a matter of authority. Since pop evangelicalism, the wannabe of American culture, hates authority, Crossway and Co. could not stand to finish with Luther's "Therefore" that applied the proper use of anger as it relates to discipline. Unbelievable.

But if you think I'm totally taking this out of context or blowing the issue out of proportion, just read what Luther wrote before the quotes I used. However, you might have to search near and far because won't find them in a bookstore near you.

These are a few broken thoughts that have run through my mind tonight, all of which came before, during and after the celebration of Johnny D's bachelor party.  Yes, it's almost 2 a.m. and I'm up writing.  In no particular order...

I had a revelation tonight that the way that a man treats the women in his life reflects quite accurately what his heart believes about Christ and the Church.  This might be obvious if you've got a good theology of marriage, a picture of Christ and His Bride, but it struck me tonight.  As I walked down Kirkwood and Indiana, there was a myriad of men and women (boys and girls, rather) interacting and I wondered why they spent so much of their time doing this.  Why were there men talking to women and what was the content of their interaction?  My mind naturally drifted to God's created order and saw the remarkable purpose and design of this relationship, that of a man and a woman.  It is a picture of Christ and the Church, and if you know the time and place that this revelation occurred, then you can imagine what was so clear about the students' beliefs about this reality.  I'll leave you a little room to ponder for yourself.  But don't drown yourself in your failure if you honestly see how you treat women and recognize your disbelief.  It is despairing, but Christ has overcome the world.

The other thought I wanted to share was that of battle.  After I got home I watched 2 young men carry an empty keg to the edge of my yard from the party next door.  I shot out of my seat and yelled out the door for them to pick it back up and take it with them.  By the time I got out there they made up some story about someone coming to pick them and the keg up, but a few more minutes of chatting revealed that they weren't going to fool me.  They walked away and I went back inside, only to watch them carry the keg to the other side of the yard and leave it on the property border with our neighbors.  Maybe I was being passive by letting them do this, but I still felt pretty good about protecting our property.  It hit me that if I'm going to put up a fight, I need to see the battle.  If anyone is going to join the ranks, they need to clearly see the war.  A counter thought just came to mind, "But isn't it a battle we can't see?  Isn't it a battle in the heavenly realms, a spiritual battle so to speak?"  To this statement I agree, but not to it's improper application.  Those who are spiritually dead are not spiritually discerning, but we have the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16).  This is Paul's conclusion after clarifying those who are worldly and those who are spiritual.  So one way to measure how spiritual you are is to ask yourself if you see the most brutal, consequential, crucial war going on every moment you take a breath?  Then after seeing, will you entrust yourself to your commanding King?  I see the battle, but trust Him not.  I don't see what's at stake, an therefore, I don't really care.  But the King reminds me, "You will have (must, need, are required) to give an account" (Hebrews 13.17).  I will give an account.

Remind me that I will give an account. 

Well, it is the beginning of a new semester. Somehow, I've found myself enrolled in another scholastic institution. Okay, so maybe institution isn't the best way to put it, but I'm starting classes in the Fall for the 19th year in a row. Talk about a personal record. It all started with pre-school, which if I am correct was taught at Trinity Lutheran Church and School in Hobart. Then there were a few short years at Mundell Elementary, which sadly has since been torn down. In 3rd grade we moved and I started at Jackson Elementary, and had the most difficult move of my life. But the years passed and I became a lion at Liberty Middle School, which has since been renamed Chesterton Middle School. After making it through the puberty-populated days of junior high, I began at Chesterton High School as a Trojan. Yeah, the Chesterton Trojans. Those two words just don't fit together. But what was exciting was being the first class to graduation from the new building... and initiating the parking lot with many, many burnouts. One wheel squeel, anyone?