What do you really think about wealth?

ReviewMoney, Possessions and Eternity (Randy Alcorn: Tyndale 2003)

If you don’t want to be challenged regarding your beliefs, attitudes and actions regarding a Christian’s use of money, don’t read this book.

This has been out for several years, but is nevertheless a thorough and biblical look at what Christian’s should think about money, and how we should think about money. Alcorn leaves virtually no subject untouched in his call for believers to approach wealth and possessions with a view to building up treasures in heaven, rather than on earth. And no one’s ox remains ungored as he calls on us to examine whether we truly trust God for our daily provision, or whether our blind acceptance of western wealth practices reveals that we really trust in Mammon.

Alcorn’s treatment of the subject tends toward lengthy, with several appendices as well, but one should remember that this is as thorough a treatment as you are likely to find.

Worth a read, but be sitting down when you do.

Rating: 5/5

Leave a Comment

Filed under Book Review

Spilt Nard & Zealous Faith Embrace Gospel Suffering

The account of the anonymous woman who broke an alabaster flask and poured nard onto Jesus’ head (Mark 14) is difficult to relate directly to post-resurrection discipleship. I’ve never seen alabaster, and wouldn’t know nard if it hit me in the face, and, besides, even if I had and would, Jesus isn’t here.

We know that her act was criticized by others, even those close to Jesus, but Jesus commended her for it. Which shows that those close to Jesus don’t always ‘get it’ and sometimes place a good thing (caring for the poor) above the best thing (lavishing praise on the Christ who would soon be gone). It also shows that zealous acts of faith and worship are often a threat to moderate religion, which thrives on mediocrity and standard works-based feel-good-ism.

Perhaps a key to understanding this is to understand joy. God calls us to it, but we frequently find ourselves not knowing Him well enough to find our greatest joy in Him. Those who do — like the nard lady and naked-dancing David — pose a real threat to those of us who find joy in other things. Nard lady found joy in expending a very valuable item in worship; David in dancing naked before God. When we find our joy in such comparatively pedestrian things as sports results, market gains, and even children — all things that benefit us — that someone else expresses ultimate joy in (simply) God demonstrates in stark contrast our utilitarian happiness.

Nard lady sacrificed material wealth in worship of One who would suffer as substitute. She perhaps grasped the notion that the gospel, the good news, is about suffering: that either we endure it alone or Christ endures it alone. This is why what she did, but not her name, is proclaimed with the gospel — it embraced the suffering of Christ in her behalf.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commentary

Real Marriage is apparently Real Trouble (Part 2)

ReviewReal Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship and Life Together (Mark & Grace Driscoll, Thomas Nelson 2012)

In Part 1 I addressed what I consider to be the minor objections to the Driscoll’s book, those that would not necessarily keep someone from reading it. I also addressed the first of the major objections, which is whether such things as anal sex, oral sex, manual stimulation, and other sex acts between married couples should be discussed in public at all.

The other Major objection relates to the method that the Driscolls use to determine “Can we _____?” Whether or not such things are discussed in public, reason suggests that they should be addressed somehow, and responsible Christian leaders ought have a way to work through these questions with their members, or for members to work through them themselves.

The Driscolls propose a sort of “grid” through which to view questions of which sexual activity is permissible for Christian married couples. Scripture is clear about what sorts of sexual behavior are forbidden, but does not detail what things marries couples can do.

Their “grid” is to ask three questions derived from Paul’s statement to the Corinthians (1Co6:12): Is it lawful? Is it helpful? Is it enslaving? Many have criticized using this method, or apparently, of using any method at all. Yet where Scripture is silent on specific behavior, we haven’t many alternatives. Some might suggest using the Regulative Principle or its variants (most commonly used regarding worship), which propose that behavior that is not commanded in Scripture is forbidden. Hence, oral sex and all the rest — even between married couples — would be off limits. Yet we need also realize that applying such a principle too rigidly would leave us no longer celebrating Christmas, and might jeopardize even the most mundane intercourse, since Scripture never gives us the mechanics of how “she lay with him.”

A Normative Principle might be better here, which suggests that whatever is not prohibited is permissible. “Permissible” might then relate to the Driscolls’ first question, Is it lawful?

Using the Driscolls’ grid, there could be legitimate disagreement over the application to specific situations and conclusions drawn from them. For example, there could be disagreement regarding what is lawful for married couples. The Driscolls argue that Scripture’s prohibition of sodomy does not limit married couples, with which some might disagree from the standpoint of interpretation.

Further, the Driscolls don’t spend quite enough time explaining the lawful/helpful/enslaving criteria, which leaves much of the application of their grid open to too much interpretation. For example, when addressing cosmetic surgery, the lawful/helpful/enslaving falls a bit flat, and omits — as one commenter rightfully suggested — the ‘heart issue’ involved. That is, cosmetic surgery (and other sex acts) might pass the lawful/helpful/enslaving tests, yet still fall short if the desires of the heart for engaging in them are anything other than the glory of God in marital relations.

Conclusion

It seems that much of the criticism of Real Marriage is overblown, perhaps the product of lingering Victorian tendencies to avoid embarassing talk. And it is also possible that Mark Driscoll’s reputation precedes him, and fuels the rush to treat this material in light of prior disputes.

The Driscolls’ aim is to strengthen marriage, and if used wisely the material largely accomplishes this. They pull no punches in challenging men and women to fulfill biblical roles and responsibilities in marriage, which is more than many other books and well-known examples give us.

However, if I were to suggest a general text on marriage, this would not be first on my list, simply because there are others that are better written, and because I would hesitate to suggest the Chapter 10 material to just anyone. For someone dealing with Chapter 10 issues, though, I might suggest this as material to work through with me in pastoral counsel (most pastors would object to this suggestion), so that I could add to the Driscolls’ lawful/helpful/enslaving grid the important matter of the heart’s desire.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Book Review

Real Marriage is apparently Real Trouble (Part 1)

ReviewReal Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship and Life Together (Mark & Grace Driscoll, Thomas Nelson 2012)

At first, I thought I must have picked up the wrong book. But I’d been reading too long, so I figured that I had received one of those freak printing errors that put the wrong cover on, like opening War and Peace only to read Watership Down. But then I hit Chapter 10 — the Chapter 10.

Mark and Grace Driscoll have received much attention — frequently negative — for their book, so any review unfortunately should address the negative press at least in part. Generally speaking, the Driscolls aim in Real Marriage to address issues of weakness in Christian marital relationships, covering the standard spectrum of topics germane to biblical marriage, with an aim to improving them biblically. It is where they divert from the norm — infamous Chapter 10 — and discuss permissible sex acts within marriage that they run into opposition.

Broadly, criticism of Real Marriage can be categorized as Minor objections and Major opposition. This post will address the minor objections and the first major objection.

Minor Objections

Mark Driscoll refers briefly to receiving some sort of vision, or knowledge, from God on certain topics and regarding certain people. These revelations are apparently used by Driscoll to confront a member’s hidden sin and to counsel him about it. The criticism is that he claims to receive information from God and that the information is usually about sexual sin. One may legitimately want to know more about this, but it does not figure prominently in the book and should not cause anyone to avoid reading it.

The Driscolls reveal an episode of sexual sin in Grace’s single life that caused friction in their marriage. The criticism is that Mark does not honor Grace in revealing this information, and that he presents himself as without fault. Yet the Driscolls point out that they demonstrate problems in their own lives in order to help other married couples with theirs. Perhaps they went into too much detail on this point, but again, this is not a reason for wholesale rejection.

Other objections — such as that Mark inconsistently complained that Grace cut her hair — seem to be examples of the diligent picking of nits, and amount to little more than the other Minor objections: red herrings.

Major Objection 1

Chapter 10 is the basis of the Major objections levelled against Real Marriage. It is the “Can we _____?” section in which the Driscolls address anal sex, oral sex, manual stimulation, and a host of other bedroom activities between married couples that people just don’t discuss in polite society.

Which is precisely the problem with the first objection: in case you haven’t noticed, we don’t live in polite society. This first major objection to the Driscolls’ book is that no believers should be discussing such things, especially prominent pastors with large churches who sell lots of books. But we do need to discuss things such as these, because the world is discussing them, and if pastors think that their members don’t deal with these things on some level, they are mistaken. For people who were once unsaved and acting as the world with regard to sexual activity — in which anything goes — the conversion to holy living in Christ raises questions about what still goes. It is much better for a believer’s pastor to address those things than the man on the street, or the MTV reality show hotline.

The legitimate question on this point is whether it is proper for a pastor to address these things on a national stage, rather than in a private counseling session. Propriety might suggest that such an open forum should be avoided. But pastors should ask themselves how available they are to their members for these discussions. Do their members ask about these things? What would the pastor do if they did?

More than likely, the church’s attitude toward sex-talk has caused even faithful, sincere believers to find sex answers somewhere other than their spiritual leaders. The sexual relationships of married couples are part of the Lordship of Christ, to be entered to the glory of God. Pastors and other church leaders should be prepared and willing to discuss this aspect of discipleship with those they lead.

In Part 2 I discuss the second major objection, and my conclusion regarding Real Marriage.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Book Review

Reviewing Reviewers: the limits of indirect critique

I thought initially that it only applied to Mark Driscoll and his “scandalous” book, Real Marriage.

It seemed that everyone and his proverbial brother were hopping on the pummel-Mark bandwagon and offering critiques of his book, causing me to wonder how I — a normally fast reader — were woefully behind the blogosphere in reading, then reviewing, Driscoll’s book.

As it turns out, buried in the blogs and articles labelled “reviews” of Real Marriage was the whispered disclaimer, “I have not yet read the book, but…” The reviews were so fast in coming, as it were, because the reviewers skipped a crucial step: reading the book.

Occasionally what was not whispered in the dark was proclaimed from the housetops, and some actually took pride in the fact that they not only had they not read the book for which they offered scathing critique, they also boldly announced that they “would never read such a book”, obviously possessing a gift of the Spirit for sanctimony, private revelation and Solomonic wisdom, to boot.

But I find that such talents are not just applied in critique of whipping-boy pastors of the West Coast, but also to prominent, well-known pastors from the heartland. One well-known website offering ostensibly Christian critique of culture posted an article blasting John Piper’s book, Bloodlines: Race, Cross and the Christian (offered as a free download by Piper). The author admits in his article that he has not read the book. Yet he is comfortable saying things like:

Although I have not had the opportunity to read Bloodlines yet, if Mulder’s review is accurate, I have to agree with him that Piper’s solution ignores the reality of institutional racism.

“Piper’s solution” has not been explored by the author, but by someone else. Does anyone else see the obvious problems with this? The reviewer is disparaging Piper’s conclusion based upon what someone else has concluded about Piper’s conclusion.

This is madness.

There are certainly occasions when I read that someone’s book is forthcoming and I see the flurry of activity in reviews, articles and blogs about the book. That might reasonably prompt me to write something on the topic. And there are times when other bloggers and writers take up a topic in a way that spurs my own thoughts on the matter and prompts me to post them. But without having read book or blog, I dare not make statements to the world claiming how I know that they are wrong (or right, for that matter).

Yet this is precisely what happened ad nauseam to Driscoll, and what appears to be happening to Piper.

My plea to my Christian brothers is simply this: should you be tempted to offer your conclusions about what someone has said, read what he has said.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Culture

Should individual liberty be a society’s sole measure?

In It is Dangerous to be Right when the Government is Wrong, Andrew P. Napolitano argues his central premise that liberty is the overriding concern of the U.S. Constitution and of the American experiment, and is precisely the realm of individual freedom that government is most likely to now impede.

A brief background of the founding principles of the United States is given, and then numerous examples through our history are given to demonstrate how those principles are overlooked, neglected, and sometimes outright trampled. At times the treatment of historical issues becomes a bit labored and tedious.

Napolitano does a fair job illustrating government encroachment with real examples, and most readers will find themselves irate that such actions are being undertaken by our own government, which has historically existed to serve the people.

However, Napolitano sometimes gives a confused view of how liberty actually works. For instance, in criticizing national government actions in the realm of marriage in relation to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Napolitano suggests that the U.S. government should leave such things to the States. But he also challenges any State encroachment upon marriage relationships, too, leaving the reader wondering who is left to regulate marriage, if anyone should.

After lauding the Judeo-Christian heritage that gave rise to the U.S. Constitution and our form of government, Napolitano seems to set as the highest goal of any organized society the preservation of individual liberty. Yet this ignores the Judeo-Christian heritage that limits individual liberty, as we see in the Old Testament laws that directed farmers to leave the corners of their fields unharvested so that the poor could get it themselves.

I also would have liked Napolitano to treat the question of how those principles that he asserts preserve liberty are either consistent with or violate a Judeo-Christian ethic.

Disclosure: I received a copy of this book from the publisher through the Book Sneeze (BookSneeze®.com <http://BookSneeze®.com>) book review program. I was not required or encouraged to write a positive review; the thoughts expressed here are my own.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Book Review, Government & Politics

If Christian diners should tip well, should Christian restaurateurs pay well?

It has become proverbial that Christians don’t tip well.

The picture of this sad reality is the now-stereotypical scene: family enters a restaurant for Sunday dinner; Dad makes a show of bowing his head and praying before the meal; the waiter is treated  indifferently, if not harshly; and on a bill of $50 Dad leaves a ‘tip’ of merely a gospel tract printed to resemble real money.

Christian eaters have been excoriated for impugning the name of Christ with our paltry tipping, and rightly so. Yet I am not interested in piling more on in that regard.

My interest is in the system as a whole that permits one type of employer to pay below market wages and rely on the gratuity of patrons to obtain a decent wage for employees. Specifically, how should Christian restaurant owners handle setting wages for waiters?

The Scriptures are replete with admonitions for people to pay decent wages to workers, and to pay them on time. Only by modern moral stretching can this place the burden for a decent wage on the patron, rather than the owner. Legally, Christian restaurant owners can pay a low hourly wage to his waiters and expect them to earn tips to supplement that low wage. But should he?

Would it be better for Christian restaurateurs to pay their employees a regular wage, charge for food accordingly, and tell patrons they aren’t expected to tip unless they want to? Or, would it be better for such employers to guarantee a wage level that tips don’t accomplish?

While we have a gratuity-oriented restaurant system, Christian diners should tip with grace. But Christian restaurateurs are not exempted from the ‘requirements’ of grace, even if the law exempts them.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Fig Leaves & Fur Coats

When Adam & Eve partake of the forbidden fruit, it is of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Scripture says that when their eyes were opened, they saw their nakedness, and made fig leaves for themselves to cover, well, the now-sensitive areas that caused them shame.

Famously, God provided animal skins to replace the fig leaves. Note that it wasn’t the thing covered that was wrong; God didn’t move the fig leaves and cover their eyes and ears.

Surely, however, knowledge of good and evil extended to much more than simply knowledge of sexual good and evil. It also seems that Adam & Eve’s shame and God’s covering are symbolic of the broader notion that man’s sin needs to be divinely covered, and somehow foreshadow how that occurs.

If all that is true (by if I mean since), and the covering is a picture of other things, why did God choose the picture of covering sexual evil? Why not some other picture? That is, why is covering physical body parts so representative of all atoning for all rebellion against God?

There are hints — some subtle and some not so subtle — throughout Scripture of why this is so. Let me know your thoughts.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commentary

The Great Tribulation that was? Paradigm change in Mark 13

In Mark 13 — Jesus’ Olivet Discourse — we are told about ‘great tribulation,’ persecution, wars and earthquakes and famines, the ‘abomination of desolation,’ and the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great glory. We are told of an event in which the son is dark, the moon doesn’t shine, stars fall from the sky…

Surely, this is ‘end times-’, Armageddon-, ‘Left Behind’-type stuff, right?

Maybe, but at least it dealt with things that the original hearers would experience. Giving us the most trouble is Jesus’ time reference that ‘this generation’ would not pass away and that the ‘gospel must be preached to all nations.’

But sometimes the apocalyptic langauge obscures a more fundamental, and much more dramatic, truth about what is going on with the destruction of the Temple.

Through the time of Jesus, the nations and people in them that wanted to access the one, true God had to do so by coming through His people, Israel, and specifically the Temple. This is why God engineered into the Temple the ‘Court of the Gentiles,’ so that the nations could come and give proper worship to Yahweh. This is why, as a result, Jesus was so angry that Israel’s religious leaders had effectively shut out the nations from Temple life by making the Court of the Gentiles a sanctified bazaar. The Temple, which represented access to God for all nations, had become Israel’s self-serving private religious club.

If the Temple were then to be destroyed, as Jesus indicated in the parable of the fig tree and the Olivet Discourse, and if God’s promise to give to Christ people from all nations, peoples and tongues were still in effect, those nations should know how to come to Yahweh without a temple in Israel.

Those nations would be told, in effect, that their access to God is no longer through a particular people, no longer through a specific city, in a specific building, but their access to Yahweh is now through a Man, who was killed but now lives, never to die again.

Those nations touched by the Roman Empire, many of which we see represented at Pentecost, would have known that Israel’s God had established his temporal abode at the Temple in Jerusalem. It was those nations that missionary Paul asserted had been reached with the gospel in his lifetime, those nations to which the ‘gospel must be preached’ before the Temple destroyed.

Must now the gospel be preached to all nations before Christ returns the final time? Perhaps, and probably, when we consider the frequent dual-fulfillment of prophecy that Scripture gives us.

But don’t neglect the impact of Jesus’ teaching about first-century events. The message to the Gentiles before the destruction of the Temple was that they could still come to Yahweh, but now through the mediation of the Son of Man, whose regime was confirmed in glory when the last vestiges of the old were confirmed in 70 AD.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commentary

Real Marriage: anticipation and caution

Because I’m not one of the heavyweights in the blogging world (or even a featherweight, for that matter), my requests for advance copies of Mark Driscoll’s Real Marriage were met with benign neglect.

I had to shell out the dough for my own copy, and because I am an antediluvian and prefer the paper version, I have not benefitted from the early review that purchasing an e-book would afford me. Consequently, I am apparently way behind the reviewing eight-ball with this one. (Not an unusual occurrence, incidentally).

Perhaps it was because Driscoll was once known as the drunk pastor (or at least the imbibing one), or because he was once known as the cussing pastor, there has been quite a bit of buzz about his book on marriage and concomitant bedroom activity. Maybe everyone assumed that Driscoll had more than just a “buzz” when he wrote and would talk about marriage and sex with a lot of cussing.

Was there some subconscious desire for Driscoll to be the drunk, cussing, Dr.-Ruth-on-steroids pastor?

Whatever the reason, Real Marriage has caused many to weigh in on just how despicable and deplorable and diabolical Driscoll is. That’s alright, I suppose, for those who have read Real Marriage.

I’ve noticed, though, that many are proud to announce the fact that they haven’t read the book and “have no plans to read it”, relying instead on the reports and the reviews and the reading of others. This, I propose, is irresponsible, at least. Do you accuse Driscoll of sin for his comments in Real Marriage? Have you read it? There is a also a proscription against bearing false witness.

My wife just finished reading it, and according to the opinions of those eager pundits who have yet to read the book themselves, I should start looking for the inevitable signs that she is availing herself of opportunity to cheat and put into practice her newfound arcane knowledge. I’ll keep you posted on that.

I’m reading now, and will review later…

Leave a Comment

Filed under Book Review