Playing Nice

It is bad enough that we are such suckers for the bait and switch. The devil has been playing this gag on us for millennia. We should have learned by now. When the angel comes along and says, “You know, God is love. And what He wants you to do is to love one another,” the devil doesn’t show up on the other shoulder and say, “Love, ah, that’s for suckers. What you really need to do is some good hating.” He’s not that dumb. Instead he shows up on our shoulder and says, “Of course, I want nothing more than for you to love everyone. Love is my favorite thing as well. Why, just the other day I was composing a haiku about love. Let’s see here, how did that go? Love one another; If your lover is not there, love the one you’re with.” He fills God’s words with his meanings, and, because we miss the switch, we end up tied in knots.

What is worse, however, is that he sometimes comes along and actually gets us to substitute a whole different word for the good one. He switches not just the meaning, but the word itself. Nice, though some have called it the cardinal evangelical virtue, is not, I’m afraid, a command from the Bible. God never said, “Whatever else you do, be nice.” Instead it is a command from the culture.

There is only one thing required to be nice, and only one sin against niceness in the culture. You certainly never have to go out of your way and be a neighbor to anyone. You never have to make personal sacrifices of any sort. All you have to do is repeat the mantra of the age, “If that’s the way you see it, that’s fine.” See how non-threatening that is? It allows both of us to keep our pride, to keep our convictions, to keep our sins. And it costs so little. In short, to be nice is always and only to embrace relativism. Once you’ve swallowed this one, nothing else will ever get caught in your throat.

Actually though, you’re only half the way home. You have to study the other half of the nice rulebook, the side they only talk about when they have to. You see, there is one thing that still must stick in your craw. That, of course, is when some blamed fool refuses to play nice, to abide by the rules. When someone says, “It doesn’t matter how I see it, or how you see it, or how a billion Chinese see it. What matters is how God sees it, because He is the one who determines reality. Our job is to get our own perceptions in line with His, which are of necessity true. And all perceptions which do not match His are of necessity false,” you are not nice if you respond with a polite, “If that’s the way you see it, that’s fine.” Here, according to the devil, and he ought to know, the correct, and only nice response is, “Crucify him.”

If you can call all those who don’t abide by the nice rules of relativism mullahs, and terrorists and Nazis and threats to our way of life and fanatics who must be hunted down like rabid dogs, then you earn that most coveted of sobriquets, “Nice.” It’s not enough to be relatively relativist. You must be absolutely relativist. It’s not enough to have some humility about your or my convictions. You must arrogantly assume that all convictions, by their very nature, must be false. As a nice relativist you must be absolutely certain that any and all absolutists must be stopped, no matter what the cost. Otherwise you may as well be a fellow-traveler with those who just aren’t nice.

It’s important for us to remember this the next time we feel the sting of the accusation that we somehow aren’t nice. The answer isn’t to protest, to get out our relativist credentials, and show how up to date they are. Our response the next time some syndicated columnist tries to connect the dots between us and bin Laden is to say, “If the objection is that both of us affirm objective truth, objective right and wrong, we’re flat guilty.” If the reason Islam is hated is not because it is false, but because it simply claims to be true, we ought to be in a panic that we as Christians aren’t the most hated group on the planet. If the powers that be insist on hanging all those who reject relativism, then our calling is to charge the gallows, not to tear them down, but to place our own necks in the noose of the not nice.

We can’t play nice with those who define niceness this way. We cannot keep both their rules, and the rules of Him whom we say we serve. When Jesus said, “If you confess me before men…” He didn’t mean standing up at some flag pole and saying, “This is what Jesus means to me…” When Jesus said, “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for my sake,” He didn’t mean that we should do everything we can do to change their word, nice, into one that we can affirm, and act upon. He didn’t mean that we should tone down His exclusive claims so that we can wear our nice pins to the nice meetings. He meant we will be blessed when they throw us out.

If we will serve Him our goal ought never to be that when we are gone they say of us, “You know, that so and so sure was nice.” The epitaph we should seek for our grave marker should be Faithful. Instead what needs to be buried is the virtue they call nice, that the name of Christ might live.

Posted in apologetics, church, cyberspace, Devil's Arsenal, evangelism, kingdom, Kingdom Notes, philosophy, post-modernism, preaching, RC Sproul JR | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Playing Nice

Friends

Like everyone else I have former friends, friends, and future friends. Some of my former friends have committed grievous, scandalous sins and taught unsound doctrines. Some of my friends have committed grievous, scandalous sins and teach unsound doctrines. Some of my future friends have committed grievous, scandalous sins and teach unsound doctrines. And, just so we’re clear, all of my friends, past, present and future will commit grievous, scandalous sins and teach unsound doctrines. One more thing- I am a former friend, a friend and a future friend to others, despite my own grievous, scandalous sins and my own unsound doctrines.

Which ought to inform all of us that our friendships are not grounded in the avoidance of either grievous, scandalous sin or the teaching of unsound doctrine. The best of our friendships are grounded in Christ, the same Christ whose death has covered all our grievous, scandalous sins and whose Spirit is at work leading us all into all truth.

When we end or disavow friendships on the basis of either moral or doctrinal failure are we not implicitly denying our own moral and doctrinal failures? Are we not saying, “I’m better than that?” Are we not falling directly into the sin of Peter who, for fear of rejection by his Judaizing “friends” refused to maintain his public friendship with his uncircumcised friends? And are we not due the very rebuke that Paul rightly gave him? Of course there is a time to draw lines in the sand. That time, however, is almost always later than we think.

I fear that we fall into the temptation to maintain only those friendships that don’t cause us to lose friendships. Like an older sibling making a younger sibling walk five paces behind so as not to tarnish an image we shun those who bring us shame, missing the glorious truth that our entire future is built on the reality that our elder brother not only doesn’t require that we walk five paces behind Him, not only doesn’t walk beside us, but rather walks directly in front of us, straight into the oncoming cup of the wrath of the Father.

Some years ago I had a theological disagreement with a friend. I refused to allow that disagreement to end our friendship, though I did speak and write publicly against the error. My public disagreement, however, wasn’t good enough for many who tarred me with the same brush as my friend. I was a “known associate” of he who shall not be named. As I said in those days, “These people will not be satisfied unless I spit three times in the general direction of my friend.” And I refused to do so. What was interesting is that I came to believe that my friend didn’t actually believe the error, but was unwilling to spit three times in the direction of his friends who did believe the error. I got falsely tarred with the brush he got falsely tarred with that eventually led to Kevin Bacon.

The defining quality of friendship is loyalty. Not loyalty to behavior or secondary theological distinctives, but loyalty to people. That loyalty will, sooner or later, be tested. May we all, when that day comes, remember and reflect the loyal love, the hesed, that our brother, our husband, our king, our savior has for us, always and forever.

Posted in church, communion, cyberspace, Devil's Arsenal, kingdom, Kingdom Notes, RC Sproul JR, scandal | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Keeping the 5th, Top 5 Westerns & Whence Hypocrisy?

Today’s Jesus Changes Everything Podcast

Posted in 10 Commandments, apologetics, Biblical Doctrines, church, Jesus Changes Everything, kingdom, RC Sproul JR | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Keeping the 5th, Top 5 Westerns & Whence Hypocrisy?

Guarding Our Castles

Ask RC-Does the Bible allow deadly force to protect our homes?

When considering the glorious truth that our Lord would not extinguish a smoking wick, that He calls us to turn the other cheek we mustn’t forget this rather surprising admonition of our Lord, as He sent out His disciples, that they be certain to bring along a sword with them, that a sword was even more needful than a cloak (: 36). One of the most frequent “arguments” we hear in favor of pacifism is this emotive nugget, “I just don’t see Jesus wielding an AK-47 and blowing someone away.” Here Jesus calls on His disciples to arm themselves, even as they are sent out.

Moving from the lesser to the greater, it would seem on the surface that we ought also to have the liberty to defend ourselves in our own homes. That is, if Jesus suggests we may defend ourselves when out in public, how much more ought we to be free to defend our families while in the security of our own homes? At the very least this warning from Jesus in Luke’s gospel dispels the common myth that pacifism is, prima facie the right choice for the believer.

We are not left, however, with only an inference, no matter how sound such might be. The Bible, in fact, speaks to the issue of home defense. In , just two chapters after we are told “Thou shalt not kill,” thus demonstrating that we cannot either use the sixth commandment to defend pacifism, we read, “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed” (verse 2). Notice a few things about this text. First, the conclusion isn’t merely that the guilt of the homeowner is mitigated by the intent of the intruder, but that there is no guilt at all. Second, note that the thief is struck. This isn’t an argument against tort liability, suggesting that we cannot be sued if an intruder slips in our home. Third, note that it is a thief who has broken in.

I have been in conversations with conservative, Bible-believing Christians who have argued with my conviction here, suggesting incredulously, “You would kill a man just to protect your stereo, or your wife’s jewelry?” The truth of the matter is that when a man breaks into your house he does not do so carrying a neon sign saying, “I’m just here for your stuff. Your wife and children are of no interest to me.” We don’t know what the man breaking in is after. But even if we did know what he was after, even if we knew he was only a thief, as we do in this hypothetical given to us in the very law of God, we are free from guilt if we should defend our home.

The Bible is abundantly clear. Men are called to protect their wives and children. The police exist to apprehend and bring criminals to justice, not to catch them in the act. That is what responsible husbands and fathers are for. We ought not take a sadistic joy in this calling, but neither should we have a weak-kneed fear of it. We serve a King who goes forth with a sword, and who sent forth His disciples with a sword. We serve a King who loves and protects us- His bride, and His children. Surely we can see that we who are the heads of our own homes, are called to do the same.

Posted in 10 Commandments, Ask RC, Biblical Doctrines, kingdom, RC Sproul JR | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Guarding Our Castles

God the Maker, Nathan Clark George, & More

Today’s Jesus Changes Everything Podcast

Posted in apologetics, Biblical Doctrines, creation, Heroes, Jesus Changes Everything, RC Sproul JR, theology | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on God the Maker, Nathan Clark George, & More

Following the Leader

I don’t much care for physics. Never did. That, of course, doesn’t keep me from being grateful for physicists, and for engineers. This message has reached you through the labors of men who do care about such things. But usually when physicists start talking about wormholes, or engineers start talking about heat transfer rates, my mind begins to wander.

In like manner I have precious little time for books, articles, seminars about “leadership.” It strikes me as profoundly odd that “leadership” has become its own area of study, its own skill set, its own industry. I recognize, of course, that leadership is a real thing, a valuable thing. I have people in positions of leadership over me, and in turn I am a position of leadership over others. That said, it may be a sure sign of leadership failure on my part but I have never thought to myself, “I need to learn how to be a better leader.”

The questions I seek to ask myself when evaluating my interaction with those under my authority are far more fundamental, far more basic. I want to know if I encouraged my charges on to righteousness. I want to know if I treated them as I wish to be treated. I want to know if I exhibited patience with their frailties. I want to know if I was willing and eager to forgive, as I would like to be forgiven. In short, the measure of my “leadership” isn’t found in how well I measured up to some guru’s principles. Instead it is measured by how well I measure up to my Lord’s commands. To put it another way, I am far less worried about how I lead God’s people and far more worried about how well I follow God’s Son.

I fear that the seeming obsession the broader culture has with “leadership” as a concept, and the concomitant obsession of the church with the same theme is not a good sign. Given the lopsided attention given to leadership, isn’t it likely that we all give short shrift to our calling to follow not just Jesus, but those whom He has placed in authority over us? What does it say about us that while the Bible does from time to time talk both about leading and following, all our attention is on leading? Are we listening with lopsided ears?

Even when we get closer to getting it right we get it wrong. We talk about servant leadership, which on its face is indeed a good thing. But doesn’t that suggest that the reason we follow, or serve, is so that we can lead? What about servant servantship? If service is merely a means to the end of becoming leaders, if we race our brothers to the back of the line because we all desperately want to be at the front of the line, if we give with our right hand so that we might receive with our left, we’re not following Jesus aright. Followers, of course, don’t often write books or lead seminars on following, or on anything else for that matter. But that’s okay. We don’t become good followers by following a good follower. We become good followers by following the Good Leader.

Posted in Biblical Doctrines, church, kingdom, Kingdom Notes, RC Sproul JR | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Following the Leader

Darwin on Trial, Sports and Race and More

Today’s Jesus Changes Everything Podcast

Posted in apologetics, assurance, Biblical Doctrines, Books, creation, Jesus Changes Everything, preaching, RC Sproul JR, sport, Westminster Shorter Catechism | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Darwin on Trial, Sports and Race and More

New Theses, New Reformation

Thesis 30- We must help our husbands as wives.

Long before the serpent first made his appearance in the garden, long before Adam and Eve fell into sin, God pronounced judgment. Having assessed His own creative work, God at each day’s end “saw that it was good.” But in Genesis 2:18 we read that God saw something that was not good. It was not good that man should be alone. God’s solution was simple enough- He would make a helper suitable to Adam.

In making a helper suitable for Adam, God endued Eve with the same value, the same dignity, the same image that He bestowed upon Adam. That she was made to help him did not mean that she was made less than him. That she is his equal, however, doesn’t mean that she wasn’t made to be a helper to him.

The important question is, she was made to be a helper for what? She was not made simply to cook his meals or iron his shirts. She was not made to make him comfortable, or to satisfy whatever whims come to his mind. The help Adam needed is not difficult to discern. Adam had been given only one task. Because Adam was made for God, it is God alone who determines his purpose. God had called Adam to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth and subdue it, to rule over the birds of the air, the fish of the sea and every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. Theologians call this the dominion mandate, God’s call on Adam and Eve to manifest God’s glory through imaging His authority in ruling over all things. This is what Eve was made for, to help Adam in this glorious calling.

God did not make Eve that she might be self-actualized. Neither did He make her that Adam might be self-actualized. God made Eve for the same reason that He made Adam, but in a different role. She was made to be a helper, not to man, not to men, but to her husband. A wife ought to begin each day asking herself this simple question, “How can I be a help to my husband today as we set about our calling to rule over all things?” A wife ought to end each day giving thanks for the opportunity to so serve the kingdom of God.

The serpent is yet more crafty than any of the beasts of the field. It is his delight to mislead, to encourage all of us to fail to trust God, to find His calling on our lives to be not enough. He still tempts us to be as God, knowing good and evil. But the Seed of the woman has come to crush the head of the seed of the serpent. He has come to beautify His bride, as she serves as a help suitable to Him as He brings all things under subjection. Let us pray that He will, by His grace, encourage wives to fulfill their calling, to no longer heed the hissing of the serpent. And may husbands and wives together, the bride of Jesus, honor and obey Him in all that we do.

Posted in Biblical Doctrines, church, creation, Devil's Arsenal, kingdom, RC Sproul JR, sexual confusion, Theses | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Donatism, Puzzling Over Uzzah & Twitter Wars

Today’s Jesus Changes Everything Podcast

Posted in apologetics, church, cyberspace, Devil's Arsenal, ism, Jesus Changes Everything, kingdom, RC Sproul JR | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donatism, Puzzling Over Uzzah & Twitter Wars

Ask RC- What is “virtue signaling?”

First, a reminder for those of you who have not yet memorized this. You know who you are. The RC Sproul Jr. Principle of Hermeneutics says, “When you see someone in the Bible doing something really, really stupid, do not say to yourself, ‘How can he be so stupid?’ Instead say to yourself, ‘How am I stupid just like him?’”

When, for instance, Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees for their rehearsed displays of public piety, we’re not supposed to laugh along with Jesus at those fools, but we’re supposed to realize He’s talking to us. Virtue signaling is the same thing as what the Pharisees did, only now we can do the same thing on social media.

When, for instance, we boldly shout to the world our support for the current Nobel Prize of Victimhood winner we’re not really doing anything for the victim. We are instead doing something for ourselves, trying on the mantle of the hero by… checks notes… changing our avatar.

This form of virtue signaling is foolish and embarrassing. That said, it is rather harmless. And not terribly effective. If you really want to bump your public moral standing ratings you take the next step. You don’t merely stand with the victim, but you must denounce the villain. You show the world how good you are by proclaiming to the clamoring crowd how bad he is. It matters not whether you have any particular insight into the issue at hand. You simply have to approve of the approved and disapprove of the disapproved. Vehemently, irrationally, if you want to do it well.

To earn your virtue signaling ninja badge, however, you have to take it one step further. It’s nice to side with the victim. It’s better to hate the villain. It is better still to insist on a lynching, followed by a show trial. It’s best, however, if you also denounce anyone who dares to suggest that some evidence might be helpful, that the tidy niceties of an actual trial would add a nice touch. The ones trying to stop the lynching are the most guilty of all.

The Christian is called to recognize himself in the condemnations put upon the Pharisees. The Christian is called in turn to repent of this folly. The only virtue we are called to signal is a virtue that is not ultimately our own. We are to point to the cross, which is our only hope. We are to confess our own sins before we hastily convict others of theirs.

Social media, that space where we are all free to express our own views, is sinking into a morass of virtue signaling on the one hand and cancel culture on the other. We all seem to type our tweets with one finger, and reserve the other nine for pointing at others, or we type with nine fingers and reserve one to make our message clear. Our message, the message of the church of Jesus Christ must never be, “Look how good I am” but must always be, “Look away from me. I’m hideous. Look to the Lamb.”

Posted in church, cyberspace, Devil's Arsenal, kingdom, post-modernism, RC Sproul JR | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ask RC- What is “virtue signaling?”